Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/09/13 Item 13CITY COU NCI L AGENDA STATEMENT `,.r+r . cirv of CHUTA VISTA September 13, 2011, Item No.: ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-10-17 Consideration of amendments to the Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area plan and associated Planned Community District Regulations fora 9.4 acre site at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street. RESOLUTION: of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista considering the Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration (IS-03- 028) and approving amendments to the Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area Plan for 9.4 acres at the southeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street. ORDINANCE: of the City of Chula Vista approving amendments to the Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map for 9.4 acres at the southeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street. SUBMITTED BY: Assi: REVIEWED BY: City BACKGROUND of Development Services 4/Sths Vote : Yes X No The project proposes the addition of a Jack in the Box restaurant to an existing commercial retail center (Kohl's Center) located on a 9.4-acre site within the Eastlake Village Center North planned community. At the time the VC-4 land use district was created back in 2003, there was a cap of the amount of anticipated traffic (Average Daily Trips or ADT's) that could be generated from the proposed uses on the site without further detailed analysis. In the interest of getting the previous SPA amendment completed in a timely manner, fast food restaurants were designated as a prohibited use based upon potential traffic issues. The applicant is now requesting the PC District Regulations be amended to allow fast food restaurants. Subsequent traffic analysis has been prepared and is discussed in this report. 13-1 Meeting Date: ~~' Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's Development Services Director has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Negative Declaration (ND) for IS-03-028 and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum (IS-10-005) to said ND. The proposed fast food restaurant will be located on the same site as the Kohl's commercial center on which the ND analysis was based and approval of the project design does not change the basic conclusions of the ND. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: (1) consider the Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration (ND) for IS-03-028; (2) adopt the Resolution approving amendments to the Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area Plan for 9.4 acres based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and (3) adopt the Ordinance approving amendments to the Eastlake II Planned Community ("PC") District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map for 9.4 acres subject to the findings contained therein. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On July 10, 2011, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend that the City Council consider the Addendum and adopt the Ordinance and Resolution approving this Project (see Attachment 2, meeting minutes). DISCUSSION Site Location and Surrounding Uses: The site is situated at the southeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street within the Eastlake Village Center North planned community. The site is fully developed .and contains a 98,487 square-foot Kohl's department store, as well as two 8,411 square-foot strip. retail buildings. The proposed 2,481 square-foot fast food restaurant would utilize the western-most portion of the existing paved parking ;field for Kohl's. The site is bounded by light-industrial to the'north; commercial to the west, a church to-the east, and multi-family residential development across Otay Lakes Road to the south (see Attachment 1-Locator Map). 13-2 Meeting Date: Page 3 Summary of Surrounding Land Uses Existing General Plan, SPA Plan Land Use Designations and land use General Plan CV Municipal PC District Land Existing Land Code Zonin Use Desi nation Use Commercial- Site Professional & Planned VC-4 Commercial center Administrative Community (PC) Research & Planned BC-1BC-2 Light Industrial North Limited Mf . Community (PC) South (across Low Medium Planned RC-15 Condominiums Otay Lakes Residential (3-6 Community (PC) Road) du/ac} East Research & BC-1/VC-2 Day Limited Mfg./ Planned Care/Religious Professional and Community (PC) Institution Administrative Commercial West Retail Commercial Planned VC-1 Commercial center Community (PC) Project Description: The proposed project consists of amending the PC District Regulations of the Eastlake II SPA to change to designation for fast-food restaurants from "N" (Prohibited) to "P" (Permitted). Said amendment would accommodate a proposed 2,4~ 1 square-foot Jack in the Box restaurant within the project site (see Attachment 3-Figures) ANALYSIS: Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations Amendments The Eastlake II PC District Regulations function as the zoning regulations for the project' "sitel The PC District Regulations provide standards and regulations to guide the development of the site and ongoing regulation of the use of the property. These regulations are applied in conjunction with the Eastlake II Design Guidelines to ensure the uses within the project are compatible and well designed. The amendment to the Eastlake II PC District Regulations consists primarily of modifying the provisions of the existing PC District Regulations to allow fast-food restaurants as a permitted use within the VC-4 land use district (see discussion under "Traffic and Parking"). 13-3 Meeting Date: ~ ~ . Page 4 Traffic and Parking In 2003 at the time the Eastlake II SPA was amended to establish the VC-4 land use district, the 9.4 acre site was subject to a limit of the number of ADT that could be generated before triggering the need for additional traffic analysis. It was determined that a development in excess of 8,830 ADT would require further detailed analysis. The Kohl's Center project was determined to generate 8,004 ADT's thus allowing that project to be approved without the need for a detailed traffic analysis. The VC-4 land use district that was created, specifically prohibited fast food uses because the use would have resulted in ADT's in excess of the maximum allocated 8,830 ADT's, thereby triggering the requirement for a detailed traffic study and possible additional environmental review, which would have increased the amount of time necessary to process the required entitlements. The applicant, therefore, requested that fast food restaurants be listed as a prohibited use in order to expedite the processing of the SPA amendment request. More recently, with submittal of the current application, a traffic study titled "Jack in the Box at Kohl's Center Traffic Impact Analysis" (dated August 27, 2010) was conducted by traffic engineering consultants Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The study determined that the 2,481 square-foot restaurant would generate an estimated gross total of 1,613 ADT's. For this study, pass-by trips were also considered. Pass-by trips refer to traffic already using the adjacent roadway and entering the site rather than the use (the restaurant) being the destination point. Taking into account apass-by trip reduction of 25%, the net project generation that was assigned to the road network is estimated to be 1,211 ADT's, with 85 trips in the a.m. and 85 trips in the p.m. peak-hour. This proposed project traffic was added to Year 2012 (near term) and 2030 (horizon year) baseline traffic volumes. Based upon the resultant analysis for the roadway segments, it was determined that each of the roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS B) both in the near term condition (2012) and horizon year condition (2030). The western portion of the Kohl's parking lot would be required to be reconfigured in order to allow the proposed Jack in the Box restaurant to be located therein, but would continue to use existing access points. Based on the site plan, the project would have minimal impact to the existing circulation at the Kohl's Center. The drive through feature of the proposed project is shown to have adequate queue length (up to nine vehicles). The existing parking lot for the Kohl's Center contains a total of 596 parking, spaces, which exceeds the requirements of the Eastlake II SPA PC District Regulations by 20 spaces. According to the regulations, a total of 591 parking spaces would be required for the overall commercial center, with the addition of the proposed Jack in the Box restaurant. However, with the project's reconfiguration of the existing parking lot to allow the restaurant to be located on the site, the Kohl's commercial center would provide a total of 550 parking spaces. This would result in a deficit of 41 parking spaces. The PC District Regulations do not specifically address whether or not shared parking can be considered within the VC-4 land use district. However, Section IX.4 indicates that if provisions are not specifically addressed, the provisions of the Municipal Code (CVMC) take precedent. CVMC Section 19.62.040 outlines the provisions whereby on-site shared parking can be considered for two or more different land uses. Shared parking is based upon the variations in the number of parking spaces needed (parking demand) over the course of the day for each of the 13-4 Meeting Date: 1~ Page 5 proposed uses. The hour in which the highest parking spaces is needed (peak parking demand) for the all of the uses determines the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces required. The shared parking analysis is required to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer. Furthermore, shared parking must be enforced through a shared parking agreement. In light of the provisions of Chapter 19.62.040, a Shared Parking Analysis was prepared for the project. It considered the hours of operation of the Jack in the Box restaurant along with the existing retail uses within the center. Also considered were 50 parking spaces allocated for use by the adjacent Eastlake Community Church during hours of services (per a previously approved and on-going parking agreement). The study concluded that even with the deficit of 41 parking spaces (per the parking standards), there would actually be a surplus of parking spaces based upon the shared parking analysis conducted. Specifically, the 550 parking spaces provided would exceed parking demand by 80 spaces on a weekday and 39 parking spaces on a weekend during peak times. Said parking study was reviewed and approved by both the Development Services Director and the City Engineer. A reciprocal parking and access agreement will be required prior to approval of a parcel map, which will satisfy the requirements of a shared parking agreement. CONCLUSION: The project would not impact traffic and parking for the reasons discussed in this report. The project will be designed to be compatible with the existing commercial center developed on the site. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is subject to this action. CURRENT FISCAL YEAR IMPACT: The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of the proposed SPA amendment. Additional sales tax revenues would be realized from the new Jack in the Box restaurant. ONGOING FISCAL YEAR IMPACT: Additional sales tax revenues would be realized from the new Jack in the Box restaurant. Attachments 1 Locator 2 Planning Commission Resolution and August 10, 2011 Minutes 3 Figures 4 Addendum (IS-10-005) to ND for IS-03-028 5 Design Review Notice of Decision 6 Ownership Disclosure Form 13-5 A.T'~'ACI~El~'I' 1 L®CA'TOla, li~IAP .--. _ -- _ _ x.3_6 _ OSWELL RD B 0 ~ w J _ ~ ~ a o W Z g ~ O '~~y ti a .p FENTON ST r t ti y Light n ustr~ l ~o~,e~ 9~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ Day 1 Jack Care in the 1 Box ~ i Church ~, PROJECT '` Kohl's ~ C i l ~QQ LOCATION ommerc a ~ Center ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~p~pa 6D 40 ~ ' o ~ oa 1 Commercial ~ o~ `vtn Center ~~ N~ '` ' ~ ~ G~rd N 1 ~ ~~~S~a ~~ ~ o~~~ ~ U ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ mm ~ 1 Q' OAK HILL OR i q ~ Q F~ ~ SpR ~ ~ j ~ ~ a ~~~ ~O~ i O ,r ~ ~ ~ SJ\E~ D R ~ 1 Q, ~ YJ GC~~~N ~ 1 ~.gFFhs ~ o°e i ~ ~ Q OQ c'9TFQR 0 00 , oo OOD o J ~ o° p000DO a ~ OQOOD OppO o c=7 ~ 1 Q ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATOP PI1~tI®TING COli~IMISSI®N 1~S()I~jJ'TI®I~ .-= -- _ ~ .3_8 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-10-17 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADllENDUM (IS-10-005) TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-03-28) AND APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR 9.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY AND FENTON STREET. WHEREAS, on September 9, 2010 a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Jack in the Box (Applicant), requesting approval of amendments to the Eastlake II SPA Plan and Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations and associated regulatory documents for 9.4 acres located at the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street ("Project"); and WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's Development Services Director has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Negative Declaration (ND) (IS-03-028) and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum (IS-10-005) to said ND. The proposed fast food restaurant will be located on the same site as the Kohl's commercial center on which the ND analysis was based and, therefore, approval of the project design does not change the basic conclusions of the ND. The addendum has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Addendum (IS 10-005) to Negative Declaration (IS-03-028) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, 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 500 feet ofthe-exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m, August 10, 2011, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE, THE CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 13-9 I. SPA FINDINGS THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS. The proposed amendments to the Eastlake II SPA Plan reflect land uses that are consistent with the Eastlake II General Development Plan and the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The commercial nature of the proposed use would be consistent with the adopted commercial land uses of the Eastlake area. THE SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The requested amendment to allow fast food restaurants as a permitted use within the VC-41and use district would only be applicable to the 9.4 acre project site. Said site is fully developed at this time with the existing Kohl's commercial center and associated parking field. Thus, the removal of a portion of the existing parking spaces (allowed per shared parking analysis and agreement) to accommodate the infill placement and construction of a Jack in the Box drive- through restaurant would not affect the sequentialized development of the SPA. The remainder of the SPA is fully developed. THE EASTLAKE II SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USES, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The proposed project has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing commercial center developed on the site. The commercial use was coordinated with adjacent commercial centers and residential uses. A traffic study conducted for the proposed project determined that the Jack in the Box restaurant would generate an estimated be 1,211 Average -Daily Trips (ADT's). Each of the roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS B) both in the near term condition (2012): and horizon year condition (2030}. Based on the site plan, the project would use existing vehicular access points and have minimal impact to the existing: circulation at Kohl's Center. The drive through feature of the proposed project is shown to have adequate queue length (up to nine vehicles). An Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 has been prepared which included the findings of both the parking and traffic study, which indicated the proposed project would not have any additional impacts than were previously addressed by Negative Declaration IS-03-028. Thus, the 13-10 requested amendments to the SPA Pla~i will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 10th day of August, 2011, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michael Spethman, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary 13-11 ATTACHMENT 3 FIGURES 13-12 Land Use VC-1 VC-la VC-2 VC-3 VC-4~~4 VC-SZ' A. Administrative and Professional Services P P P P P P B. General Commercial Uses 1. Antique shops (no outdoor storage) P P N P N P 2. Apparel stores P P P/N P P P 3. Art, music and photographic studios and supply stores P P P/N P P P 4. Appliance stores and repair (no P P outdoor storage) P N P/N P 5. Arcades and electronic games (see C P A Section VL4) C C P/N 6. Athletic and health clubs C C C C C A 7. Automobile and/or truck services, N A N A sales, rental agencies A N 8. Bakeries -retail P P P P P P 9. Barber and beauty shops P P P P P P 10. Bicycle shops, non-motorized P P P P P P 11. Blueprint and photowpy services P N P P P P 12. Book, gifts and stationary stores P P P P P P 13. Candy stores and confectioners P P a P a P 14. Car Wash subject to provisions of C N C Section 19.58.060 CVMC C N N 15. Catering establishments P P N P N P 16. Cleaners. P P P/N P P P 17. Commercial recreation facilities not C C C otherwise listed C C C 18. Eating and drinking establishments a. Bazs, nightclubs, cabazets C C N N N C b. Restaurants, coffee shops, P delicatessens; 1) with alcoholic beverages C C C C ZA and/or entertainment C 2) without alcoholic bev. P P P P P P 3) with outdoor seating* P P P P P P c. Snack bars and refreshment stands P P P contained within a building P P P d. Fast food restaurants with drive-in or drive-through (subject to Site Plan and Arch. Review by the N N C P 1+F C Zoning Administrator) C 19. Equipment rental (enclosed building) P N P P P P Revised 11/4/10 III-2 Eastlake II SP A Plans 13-13 ATTACHMENT 4 ADDENDUM (IS-10-005) TO ND FOR IS-03-028 13-14 AIDI)El~LT1VI ~'® I~TE~AT`I~ I3ECI~AIgA'I.'I~I~t IS-~3-®2~ (EastL,a~e V~la~e Center East) P~~~C'T l~AP~E: PI2®.7EC'I' L®CA'TI®N: P~®.TEC'T APPLICr~l~iT: CASE N®: I-A'TE: ~ACI~GI~®LT~T~ Jack in the Box 2305-2325 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA Jack in the Box IS-10-005 June 23, 2011 The purpose of this Addendum is to discuss the proposed addition of a Jack in the Box restaurant to an existing commercial retail (Kohl's) located on a 9.4 acre developed site. The proposal would require minor amendments to the adopted Eastlake II PC District Regulations. The PC District Regulations were previously amended on July 15, 2003, to replace the existing VC-2 designation for the site with a new VC-4 land use district (aka Eastlake Village Center East), which permitted the development of Kohl's shopping center. At the time the VC-4 district was created, it specifically prohibited fast food restaurants as an allowable use. Accordingly, an amendment to the PC District Regulations is now being requested in order to allow a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant to be developed on the site. As the lead agency for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, Sec. 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista ("City") prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (Negative Declaration IS-03-028} for Eastlake Village Center East. Negative Declaration (ND) IS-03-028 contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of the potential ;environmental effects, associated with the impJ,ementation of the Village .-Center East project.:IJue to minor changes in the sizes of the, proposed outbuildings, an attendant addendum was also prepared. Said addendum was approved. with the final ND, which was certified, and the. Eastlake Village Center East-project was approved in July of 2003. The Jack in the Box would be situated on the western-most portion of the existing paved parking field currently utilized by Kohl's. Access to the site is taken off of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street, which bound the site to the west and north, respectively. The site is bordered on the. east by the existing Kohl's retail store and to the south by paved parking associated with the existing retail development. The existing shopping center includes a 98,497 square-foot Kohl's building and two 8,411 square-foot strip retail buildings. 13-15 Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 June 22, 2011 The proposed project consists of a 2,481 square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through service queue-length to accommodate a maximum of nine vehicles, trash enclosure and a total of 29 parking stalls. Hours of operation for the restaurant would be: Monday through Sunday, 6:00 a.m. until 12 a.m. (midnight) for the dining area and 24-hour operation for the drive-through. The proposed building would be located between Eastake Parkway and the existing Kohl's commercial retail building. The proposed fast food restaurant and drive-through is aligned with the existing commercial retail building and adjacent to the existing southerly driveway. The project site is located within the VC-4 (Visitor Commercial) District Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designation. The project would be consistent with the applicable Zoning Ordinance and the Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed project requires the approval of a SPA. Amendment by the City Council and a Design review Permit by the Zoning Administrator. Technical reports have been prepared for the proposed project. Said reports demonstrate that the proposed project does not result in any new significant impacts nor an increase in severity of any previously identified impacts. The environmental analysis presented in this document addresses the new Jack in the Box restaurant project. Because the project will be constructed within the parking lot of an existing developed shopping center, based upon findings of negligible impacts on parking and traffic, the proposed project is considered to be adequately covered under the previous ND IS-03-028 and no further analysis is warranted. ~I. Ply®P®SEI) t~1VIEl~i~1~1®T'I'S The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§15162} establishes the conditions under which subsequent EIRs and negative declarations shall be prepared. A.: When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole public record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions _ of the EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the ~3-16 Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 June 22, 2011 previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under Subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation (Guidelines § 15162). Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. C. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the.final EIR or adopted negative declaration. D. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. E. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed specific plan amendment does not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project. The proposed amendment to the :Eastlake 313-17 - Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 June 2,2, 2011 II PC District Regulations would not result. in any environmental effects that were not previously considered in Negative Declaration IS-03-028, nor would the changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in said ND. There has been no material change in circumstances relative to the project, and no new information of substantial importance has become available after the preparation of the project ND. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this Addendum. III. A1~AI~YSIS Summarized below are issue areas potentially affected by the project. As the discussion outlined below indicates, however, the proposed project does not result in any impacts beyond those identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-028. Traffic C'i~cac~°ca~~~~a cased I'carkin~ A traffic study titled "Jack in the Box at Kohl's Center Traffic Impact Analysis" (dated August 27, 2010) was conducted by traffic engineering consultants Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The study determined that the 2,481 square-foot restaurant would generate an estimated gross total of 1,613 daily trips. Taken into account apass-by trip reduction of 25%, the net project generation that will be assigned to the road network is estimated to be 1,211 daily trips with 85 trips in the a.m. and 85 trips in the p.m. peak-hour. Proposed project traffic was added to Year 2012 and 2030 baseline traffic volumes. Based upon the resultant analysis for the roadway segments, it was determined that each of the roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS B} both in the near term condition (2012) and horizon year condition (2030). The proposed project would slightly reconfigure the existing parking lot for the Kohl's Center and utilize the existing access points. Based on the site plan, the project would have minimal impact to the existing circulation at Kohl's Center. No project impacts were identified. The drive through feature of the proposed project is shown to have adequate queue length (up to nine vehicles). A Shared parking Analysis (dated April 4, 2011) was prepared for the project by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The report demonstrates that the project provides adequate parking. Therefore, no mitigation measures are provided.. Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas (GIG) An Air Quality Assessment for the Jack in the Box Eastlake Chula Vista California, dated March 28, 2011, was prepared by SRA to assess potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The air quality analysis for the proposed project evaluated emissions associated with both the construction and operation of the project. Emissions associated with construction and operation were compared with screening-level thresholds developed by the SCAQMD in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) as adopted by the City of Chula Vista, which provide a conservative means of evaluating whether project emissions would cause a significant impact on the ambient air quality or whether further evaluation is warranted. It should be noted that these thresholds are based on the attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (previously classified as an extreme nonattainment area for the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone and currently classified as a severe nonattainment hour for the 8-hour NAASQ for ozone) and ~3-18 Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 June 22, 2011 not the attainment status of the SDAB, which was classifed as an attainment area for the 1-hour NAASQ for ozone and is currently classified as a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Emissions associated with construction and operations are below the significance thresholds for all pollutants. Emissions associated with construction and operation of the Jack in the Box Eastlake Project would not result in a significant impact on the ambient air quality. Therefore, there are no additional mitigation measures beyond those already included in the MMRP for MND IS O 1-042 A Global Climate Change Evaluation for the Jack in the Box Eastlake Chula Vista California, dated May 11, 2011 was prepared by PM Design Group and discusses the affect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis evaluated the projected level of GHG emissions for the proposed project. Emissions of GHGs were quantified for both construction and operation of the Jack in the Box Eastlake Project. Operational emissions were calculated assuming a "business as usual" operational scenario as well as an operational scenario with GHG reduction measures employed. Based on the analysis, quantifiable emission reductions demonstrate that emissions will be reduced by more than 20 percent below "business as usual" Levels, without considering vehicle GHG reduction programs. ~Iith additional GHG reduction measures that are not quantifiable, and with implementation of additional vehicle emission reduction programs, emissions of GHGs will be reduced by more than 20 percent below "business as usual" levels. The project would therefore be consistent with the goals of AB 32, and would not result in a significant climate change impact. Noise ",Tack in the Box Accoustical Evaluation-City of Chula Vista" (dated May 5, 2011) was prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc.. The analysis was performed to identify the anticipated noise levels from the drive-through operations- at all property lines adjacent to the proposed. project site and compare them with the most restrictive noise standards and to determine the traffic related noise levels from adjacent roadways that could affect the project site. The analysis concludes that. the proposed restaurant will comply with the most restrictive nighttime property line standards without mitigation. The future traffic related noise levels at the proposed site are compatible with the City's General Plan and no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is. required for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. ~ 3-19 Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 June 22, 2011 IV. C®N~i,ITSI®1~ Pursuant to Section 151 b2 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion and substantial evidence in the record supporting said discussion, I hereby find that the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions to Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-028, and, therefore, an addendum has been prepared in accordance with state law. 23/1! i Attachment 1 -Project Site Plans Attachment 2- ND for Eastlake Village Center East (Kohl's) References General Plan, City of Chula Vista Zoning Grdinance, Title 19/City of Chula Vista ~3-20 ------ J ~' r- ~ -- CJV.~ F.a? LK PE}iDLETDtt 'SA.'t--_.__. ' .-Qh~ RE~ __._ s ~ - ~ ~ - -- = = _ = = ~s -______ __________ _- ___. VLSTA - _ - - - - -- - ~---L~.£AttS~DE-- :s - -- -- -- _° - - _ --- -- -_ 1a ~y ..---- _ PA[3. i xrr~c-~ c~cna,- sw czar, X?,~c-r? ~1~ z3' ~a 7a .Rs'L,44h1 RJtidCFiO PC7s~lAY n (J4}~IIY . SA}di~T ._.. a ,jd.PSl~ 8Ai d a ~ L8.3~, L7~C-J ~e Q ~ ~ j~ - Ct'RJ[A -~`- 1RST.l Q .. -~GiA~` _~~ ~- C~+TGH ~ _ } S S41S1A at d ~~L~ ~ Sad ~~s~~~ ~ ~flag~ Gera#er Nom ~~i~ ~r~~~C S~~ ~~ ~as~~~ E S~~ Shores Neighborhood Hills Neighborhood Business Cenfer 1 & 11 YrAage Cenfer North ~~st~ke II S~'a~ Greens Neighborhood Traits Neighborhood . Land Swap Area A phnacd mmaaairy bg The E~ti~f a Covap+a7 .S. ~-~~ 13-22 pr®jec~.SituLoca~i®n --- _... _.. _ _ - _ -- .. _.. - _ 1--- ._ , __._ _ _ - . _ _.. _ _, _ ,_._ _. ._-- ` ~_ S ~ _ - __ --- j ~ , -"< I I - _~ Y ^.. . ~~~ ... 1 o 4" ~ ti w _. I - Q. Q _ O ~ .. ` ~ ~ Q O _ - __I _ 0 ~' , '. . J ~ e I O 0 o ~_ ': - ' o 1 1 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1... ~ , 7 _ - '1 ` N ~l. ~ I ~' N a ~ ` '_ .. .. ._ ~ ' __- _~ '~ O - O _ I - - ~ d a v _ O ~ _ .. .l _. _ ____ ~ ~' o I ` I _ O - ~ ' 'I ' ~ ~ ~ i . . - ~ ;, ;::; _ _... J L-- I _~ _ _ __ _. ._. - I ~ . :_-1 ~ _. ;, S _ W °' ~ _ _ - O o - I . '. ~ ... -.., .. .. , a 1 ~ ~ - ..: - ,~ I ~~ I y , .. ~ - _ ~ _ ~. -: . .. ,..- : ~ _ ~: ': .. r K . _ ~ # .. ~ .. O ~~ i ~ _ r K ~ _ _ r a ~~ ~ O ~ r ~~ r I ~ __ • ~~ I .3. I 11 - 1 ~ _J 1 < 0~ m 1 _ i .~ ?~' i i ~ E ~ J t ~9 ~': 4; a I u~~ ~ ~ C j d J a. n '° ~ = f ~ t. ~s i I ~ .s~: n I k ~ „ ,s ~ ~ '; 3 ; , ~ a l l I l EE ~n ~ I i III' ~ ~~ ff ~ ~ I I p . a f 'R4 -, ~- I 1- I ~~ I I ' J8 ~ ::. ~ P } ~ E F P~ d ~I 3 ~ .~ ~~ . ~ ~ .... 1 1 ~ __ _ ~; ~1 O 1 i I 5 \LC ..mr."" tt ~. ..I V 1 1I t f ~ uy e1 ' I I I I 1 1 t L ~ ~ ~I 7 ( r 9 -. s -. ~.... _ ._ 0 ,, y .. .N .,r~.+Z"~y ~~r__- r .. - .. - f ' . . 13-23 PROTECT NAME PROTECT LOCATION: Eastlake Village C Northeast comer intersection ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NO_: 595-232-27 PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE: A. Project SettYng The Eastlake Con Case No. IS-03-0 May 22, 20Q3 The proposed Eastlake Village Center East project (hereinafter referred to as "the proposed project"} involves approximately 9.3 acres (ac) located at the northeast corner of Eastlake Park~~'ay and Otay Lakes Road in the City of Chula Vista (Figures 1 and 2}. The site is bordered by Eastlake Par1L'way to the west, Otay Lakes Road to the south, Fenton Street to the north and an existing church and day care center to the east. The Eastlake Greens residential community is located south of the site, south of Otay Lakes Road: The Eastlake Business Centers I and II are located north and east of the site, respectively. The Eastlake Vons Shopping Center is located southwest of the site, and the Eastlake Village Marketplace, a commercial shopping center that is under construction, is Located to the west of the site across Eastlake Parkway. The site is currently designated as follows: City of Chula Vista General Plan Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP} Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA} Commercial - Prafessional Administrative Commercial Professional Administrative Professional Administrative; parcel VC-2 The site has been previously Qraded in accordance with the approved master grading plan for the Eastlake I SPA. The site drains from the northeast to the southwest. Non-native grassland and ornamental landscaping occurs on the site. ~. I'rgor Approvals and E~viraa~rs~e~tal I~ocuruentation The project site has been addressed in several prior environmental documents as discussed bela~~r. Page 1 of 14 13-24 Eastlake Master EIR (EIR 81-03~ A Master EIFZ (ELR 81-03} was completed for the 3,073-acre Eastlake community uz February- 1982. This Master EIR considered the impacts of site annexation from the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista, as well as the potential impacts associated with the implementation of a General Plan Amendment, prezoning and General Development Plan for the future Eastlake Development_ Eastlake I SPA Plan Supplemental EIR (SEIR 84-Oll In 1984, a SPA Plan was developed for approximately 1,268 acres of the 3,073-acre Eastlake community. This SPA plan, referred to as Eastlake I, was prepared as a refinement and implementation framework for the Planned Community zoning previously applied to the site in 1982. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR 84-01} was certified in February 1985 that addressed the Eastlake I SPA Plan and two accompanying Tentative Subdivision Maps, one of which included the subject site. EastLal~e I SPA Flan <-~mendment/Kaiser permanente Chula Vista Medical_Center Supplemental EIR (SEIR 92-01~ In 1992, a Supplemental EIR (SEIR 92-01) was certified for the Eastlake I SPA Plan Amendment~Kaiser Permanente Chula Vista Medical Center. The SEIR addressed the land use chan4e of 12 acres identified as "V C-2" that is located at the northeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Otay Lakes Road. SEIR 92-01 addressed the reduction of the 12-acre VC-2 area to 10 acres, including six acres of office/commercial uses and four acres of community purpose facility (CPF) use. The remaining t~va acres of land located at the southeast intersection of Eastlake Parkway. and Fenton Street were eliminated from the adopted VC-2 area, moved to the Business Center portion of the site and redesignated to employment use (E-10). The Eastlake I GDP and SPA Amendments were approved by Resolution No. 16702 on 3une 30, 1992. Eastlake Village Center North MND (IS-O1-042 On July 23, 2002, the City Council adopted the Eastlake Village Center North project and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND} by Resolution No 2002-64. The proposed project encompassed three separate land use districts within the Eastlake I SPA identified as "VC-1", "BC-3" and "VC-2". The 9.3-acre project site is within the larger VC-2 district. The MND addressed the following actions for the VC-2 district: . s Eastlake II GDP Amendment to change two acres of Research & Limited Manufacturing to Professional & Administrative; and Eastlake I SPA Plan Amendment to change two acres of Employment designation to Village Center-2 (VC-2); change two acres from Business Center-Manufacturing Park District (BC-1) and Open Space (OS-7) to Village Center-Z (VC-2) and change the permitted uses and property development standards far VC-2 (PC District Regulations}; repeal the Precise Plan and adopt new Design Guidelines. Page 2 of 14 13-25 No site clan was proposed for the BC-3 or VC-2 districts at the time the t~D vas prepared. 'The ~~'D states: `Future development of these Parcels would be gavemed by the proposed Planned Community Dzstnct Regulations and Design Guidelines_ Specifically, the P~~ ~e Regulations set forth the development and land use standards for all property Eastlake II General Development Plan area by establishing: setbacks; building heights; P~~g requirements; landscape requirements; use restrictions; animal regulations; density of development; lot size, width and depth; fencing requirements; and signing regulations. Sections II3 and IV of the PC District Regulratittea sp~e~~ VC ~~aersid BCe3 that are permitted, conditionally perlrutted and not p. districts, respectively. Future site plans for the VC-2 and BC 3 Parcels will be evaluated against the adopted PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines specific to these parcels. In addition, an environmental evaluation of issues related to the proposed land uses, such as but not limited to land use compatibility with adjacent uses, noise, and aesthetics would need to be conducted at the time a fut~e site plan is proposed: In addition, the need for any new, or expansion af, a public service specifically rclaNe ste ° elat dotoshosp~tal (or other emergency seriZCes and disposal of medicaUtoxi medical facility, disposal of biotechnical waste related to biotecl,~ical research facilities, etc_) would need to be evaluated far environmental considerations. On the other hand, physical features of these parcels; including geology, biology, cultural and paleontological resources and drair_age, have been addressed in current technical studies or prior environmental documentation, and therefore would not need further analysis. With respect to traffic, aworst-case traffic analysis has been prepared that assumed the highest trip-generating land uses allowed on these parcels. As long as the total trip generation for the three parcels (VC-l, VC-2 and BC-~) does not exceep that projected in the 200? LLG traffic study for the Eastlake Village Center North o ect (i.e., 36,356 average daily trips), no further traffic analysis would'oe required_ Similarly, aworst-case sewage generation and water demand analysis was conducted. Provided that the ultimate development that is proposed for the VC-2 and BC-3 parcels is in conformance zvitT1 the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines, no additional tivater or sewer analyses would be required:' , ~ summary, while a site plan for the VC-2 parcel ti~,~as not proposed at the tune, aworst-case development scenario was assumed for trafnc and public s ti $e~a ~ed~cal studies prepared analysis in Section E of this MND is based upon the assump for the Eastlake Village Center North MND (IS-~l-a~2} and updates to these studies prepared for this project. ~. Project ~escriptiora The ro osed project involves the commercial development of 93 actal SPAePlanr area.~oThe P P Iemen VC-2 parcel within the Eastlake Village Center North Supp proposed project involves amendments to existir_g land use plans and approval of a site plan, as discussed in detail below: Page 3 of 1~ 13-26 DiscretionaN Actions The proposed project requires approval of the following actions: ® Amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan to change the land use designation of the site from Commercial-Professional Administrative Commercial to Commercial- Retail; ® Amendment to the Eastlake II General Development Plan to change the land use designation of the site from Professional Administrative to Commercial Retail; ® Amendment to the Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plan (Eastlake I SPA) to revise the site utilization plan to reflect a shift of 9.3 acres from VC-2 to "VC-4". The proposed amendment would not change the Development Phasing or Design Guidelines; ® Amendment to the Eastlake II Planned Community (PC) District Regulations to add a "~iC-4 Land Use District" that would permit the proposed project. The existing church and daycare center is not subject to the proposed amendments and will remain within the VC-2 district. The PC District Regulations currently allow primarily offices and Limited general commercial uses on the subject site. The proposed change in the PC District Regulations «~ould broaden the spectrum of retail uses allowed on the 9.3-acre site. Specifically, with u`ie proposed amendment to the PC District Regulations, the additional retail commercial uses would be permitted on the site including but not limited to: apparel stores, art music and photographic studios and supply stores, appliance stores, arcades and electronic Qaines, cleaners and department stores, retail stores and shops, sign painting shops, swimming pool supplies and television stereo and radio stores including sales and repair. Site Plan The proposed project is subject to a site plan and architectural re~~ietiv process through the Design Reviei,T Committee and parcel map approval by the City Engineer- The site plan proposes a 98;497 square foot (SF) Kohl's department store, 7,000 SF ofretail in astand-alone. building.and a 5,500 SF sit-down restaurant building. The analysis contained herein addresses a maximum development potential of a 7,500 SF retail building and a 6,000 SF restaurant. The department store would be located in the northeast corner of the site (Figure 3)., The two other buildings would be located on the southwest comer of the site. Adequate parking for the three buildings would be provided onsite in accordance with City standards (minimum of 5 spaces/1,000 SF). There would be four in~ess/egress points for the site. The primary access to the site would be from the driveway on Eastlake Parkway. In addition to the main entrance, there would be two driveways on Fenton Street and one driveway on Otay Lakes Road_ `Ihe easternmost driveway on Fenton Street would be dedicated to truck delivery. The driveway on Otay Lakes Road would be shared with the adjacent church and day care center. I~. Canapliance ~~ith Zoning and Plans Page 4 of 14 13-27 The proposed project site is within a Planned Community Distract. The Eastlake II PC District Regulations would be amended as part of this project to change permitted land uses on the s1te. Amendments to the General Plan, Eastlake ~! General I3evelopment Plan and Eastlake I Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan. are required for the proposed project to comply with regulating plans. E. Jden.tifacation of Environgnental Effects Basis of AnaIysis As noted above, the project site has been the subject of several previous environmental documents. The most recent of the earlier documents is the MND for the Eastlake Village Center North project (IS-O1-042) which was prepared less than one year ago (June 2002). The previous environmental documents provide a comprehensive evaluation of the site conditions and potential impacts of developing the site_ These documents provide the basis of analysis and scope for the evaluation of environmental effects in this ND. Site conditions have not changed since the preparation of the MND for the Eastlake Village Center North. As such, the impacts of the proposed project on the physical features of the site, including geology, biology, cultural and paleontological resources would be the same as addressed in the Eastlake Village Center North MND and are hereby incorporated by reference. A regional detention facility is located at the southwest corner of the Eastlake Village Center North site, and it vas designed to accommodate peak design. flow events assuming full development of the upstream watershed_ Runoff from the project site would drain to the regional detention facility (carnprising approximately 1.5 percent of tine total inflow to the detention basin) Yea an existing storm drain system. A "Detention Basin Analysis for Eastlake Village Center North" was prepared in March 2002. This study assumed full development of the subject site. Regardless of the land use, the impacts of development of the site on drainage would be the same as addressed in the Eastlake Village Center North MND and are hereby incorporated by reference. The proposed project would not have an impact on agricultural or mineral resources. These resources do not occur on the site. The proposed project is a commercial development. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase population, or create the need for additional housing or recreational facilities. Na known hazardous materials,occur on the site, and the proposed commercial development of the site would not create a significant public hazard. Mitigation measures identified in the Eastlake Village Center North MND Mitigation Monitoril-~g and Reporting Program (Iti~.P) are valid and are required to be implemented by The Eastlake Company, LLC which is also the applicant for this project. The mitigation measures that were identified in the Eastlake Village Center North NIlVIRP that are specific to the project site are included as Attachment A. Note that these measures are not new measures, but are incorporated'ayrefererace from MND IS-O1-042. Page S of 14 13-28 Analysis of Potential P.n~~ironmental Effects Because the proposed proj ect involves a land use change, and a site plan for the site has not been previously evaluated, the issues of land use compatibility, aesthetics, public services, transportation and circulation, noise and air quality are addressed below. Laid Use Compa~ibili~ The proposed project would be compatible with the established Eastlake community. The proposed change to the Land use designation from Professional Administrative to Retail Commercial would allow the continuation of the Eastlake Village Marketplace directly west of the site (across ~EastLake Parkway). This would achieve the intent of the activity core concept anticipated by the Eastlake I SPA. 'The project site is ideal in terms of accessibility due to the fact that it is adjacent to major transportation corridors within the Eastlake area {®tay Lakes Road and Eastlake Parkway) and is within one mile of future SR-125. In addition, future transit facilities are being considered on Eastlake Parkway near the project site_ The resulting loss flf 9.3 acres of professional administrative office use is considered insignificant in that the adjacent 247-acre Business Center allows for office commercial/corporateofflce uses, in addition to manufacturing and industrial. The proposed site plan has been developed to provide a buffer between the existing church and day care facility and the proposed commercial center. The department store would be the closest building to these offsite existing facilities. There would be a distance of approximately 75 feet between the easten department store facade and the property line. There would be distance of approximately 150 feet from the loading docks to the property line. The project site ~~ould be at a lower elevation {approximately 5 feet) than the existing church day care center pad elevation. Existing wzought iron fencing is located at the top of slope adjacent to the day care facility. The day care facility has installed landscaping along the fence line, and the proposed project includes landscaping on the slape within the property boundary. The elevation difference and landscaping would provide a visual buffer bete°een the land uses. Activities at the loading docks can be a land use compatibility issue. The Loading docks are located on the northeast comer of the building. According to the potential department store user, loading and unloading at the department store would occur twice per week; multiple trucks from various venders would not occur. All deliveries would be~from a central distribution center. The loading activity would take a maximum of 30 minutes. The trucks arrive with a trailer with merchandise, off-load the trailer and pick up an empty trailer. This type of centralized delivery ser~~ice?ninimizes truck activity as well as loading and unloading activity. Sensitive uses are not directly within the line-of--sight of the loading dock area_ Directly east of the property line in the Line-of-sight of the docks is the day care facility parking lot. The day care building is located south of the parking lot. The outdoor use area at the day care facility is Page6of14 13-29 approximately 180 feet southeast of the loading dock area and would not be ,within the dine-of- sight of the loading dock area. The existing church is located south of the day care building. Due to the orientation of the building and location of the loading dock area, the building itself would block views of the loading dock from the outdoor use areas at the day care facility and t1`?e church. As such, the distance between the proposed and existing offsite uses, orientation of the buildings, elevation difference, fence and landscaping would provide a visual, air quality and noise bu ser between the two uses. Lighting is also a land use compatibi]ity issue. The residential land use to the south and the church maybe sensitive to night lighting, but the day care facility lvould be less sensitive due to their daytime operating hours. The proposed project represents an infill project located in~ a com_merciallindustrial area. Night Iigh`ung on the site would not create a new source of lighting in the area_ Night lighting would be required for security and architectural purposes. Night lighting would be required to comply with the Eastlake Il PIanned Community District Regulations. According to the rea lotions, all lighting sources would be shielded in such a manner that the light is directed away from streets or adjoining properties. The intensity of the light at the boundary of the site would be required to comply vrith City standards. Thus, the proposed night lighting would not result in a si~ificant land use compatibility impact. 14 esthetics The proposed project is subject to the Eastlake lI PIa~~ed Community (PC} District Regulations and Desi an Guidelines as amended August 6, 2002. Specifically, the PC District Regulations set forth the development and land use standards for all property within the Eastlake II General Development Plan area by establishing: setbacks; building heights; parking requirements; landscape requirements; use restrictions; animal regulations; density of development; lot size, width and depth; fencing requirements; and signing regulations. Preliminary building elevations show an architectural style and building fenestration that would be compatible with the adjacent Eastlake Village Center North commercial center. Extensive use of recessed and lighted alcoves, landscaping, parapets and windows are proposed for the department store facades that would reduce the building mass. Similar features are replicated in the adjacent retail and resta~,irant buildis-tg for continuity. The proposed project would comply with the existing PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines and would be subject tc design review and approval by the Design Review Committee. No impacts to aesthetics are anticipated_ Public Services and Utilities The proposed change in Iar_d use would not result in a significant impact on public services or utilities. The site is planned for development. Development impact fees are required during the building permit process to address the impact on public services. The proposed land use change would not generate additional population; therefore, population-based public resources, such as parks and recreation, would not be affected by the proposed Land use change. Potable and recycled water demands were estimated for the Eastlake Village Center 'North MND in the "Eastlake Village Center North Mater Analysis" (PBS&J, February 2002). As noted in Section B, a ~tirorst-case watez demand was assumed in the February 2002 study. An Page 7 of 14 _ 13-30 update of this analysis; "Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Water Analysis" (PBS&J April 2002), concluded that since tine adopted (Professional-Administrative} and proposed (Retail Commercial) land uses both fall into, the generzl commercial category in the Otay Water District {OWD) Water Resources Master Plan, no impacts to the projected potable or recycled Water demands would result from the proposed land use amendments. The potable and recycled water demand would be the same under either land use scenario. Therefore, no impacts to the projected potable and recycled water demand would result from the proposed land use amendments. Wastewater generation was estimated for the Eastlake Village Center North MN-D in the "Eastlake Village Center North Sewer Analysis" (PBS&3, March 2002). As noted in Section B, a worst-case wastewater generation was assumed for the site in the March 2002 study. An update of this analysis, "Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Sewer Analysis", PBS&7, April 2003}, concluded that the average daily wastewater generation rates iln the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual are the same for the adopted (Professional Administrative) and proposed (Retail Commercial) land uses. Thus, the estimated wastewater generation would be the same under either land use scenario. Therefore, no impacts to the projected wastewater generation wauld result from the proposed land use amendments. TYansportation and Circulatiotz As noted previously, because no site plan. u~as proposed at the time, aworst-case development scenario was assumed for the VC-2 parcel in the Eastlake Village Center North R~IlVD (IS-01- 042}. The traffic analysis for the MND entitled "Traffic Impacts Analysis, Eastlake Village Center North'' (Linscott; Law & Greenspan; May 8, 2002} assumed that the entire 68-acre project (VC-1, VC-2 and BC-3) would generate 36,356 average daily trips (ADT). It was assumed that a total of 8,830 ADT would be generated by the VC-2 parcel, which includes the project site. The I~~'D stated that as Ion; as the updated total trip generation for the three parcels does not enceed that projected in the May 2002 traffic study for the Eastlake Village Center North project (i.e., 36,356 average daily trips), no further traff c alnalysis would be required. The May 2002 traffic impact analysis was .updated with a new trafnc study specific to the proposed project_ This study, entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis, Eastlake Village Center East'' (Linscott, Law cz Greenspan, April 24, 2003) addressed the maximum development potential for the site, specifically a 98,497 SF department store, a 7,500 SF retail facility and a 6;000 SF sit- downrestaurant on the VC-2 .parcel. The study compared the proposed project traffic generation to the assumptions in the May 2002 study. Table 1 is a comparison of the land uses and trip generation assumed in the May 2002 report for the project site and the proposed Land uses. As shown in Table 1, the approved site land uses are calculated to generate 8,830 ADT with 473 trips in the AM peak hour and 850 trips in the PM peak hour. The proposed project would generate 8,00? ADT with 242 GPs m the AM Peak hour and 729 trips in the Pl~i peak hour. Thus, the proposed project would result in an estimated 826 ADT less tl'~an the approved land uses, as tivell as fewer A1vi and PM pew hour tnps. Page8of14 13-31 The proposed project would not generate more vehicular trips than previously assumed for the site; and the total trip Qeneration for the three parcels (VC-1, VC-2 and BC-~) would not be exceeded (i.e.,~36,3~6 average daily tfips). Thus, no additional o~site analysis is required. The offsite traffic analysis contained in the Eastlake Village Center North MND (1S-O1-042) .and associated MMRI' is hereby incorporated by reference. Intersection (PM peak hour) and street segment operations (AUT} within the study area were analyzed for the follo«ring scenarios- ® E.~isting plus Project (near term) ® Year 200 without SR-I25 ® Year 200 with SR-125 e Buildout (complete Buildout of planned developments and the street network in the Eastern Territories) Only PM peak hour analysis was conducted since the PM traffic generation is the worst case with the highest traffic volumes as compared to -the AM peak hour- The project generated PM peak hour trips were assigned to the four project driveways for the four scenarios listed above. The results are shown in Table 2. All driveway intersections are unsignalized. In summary, the Level of sen~ice at alI four project driveway intersections would operate at LOS B or better for the Existing + Project scenario, LOS C or better for the Year 200 Without or With SR 125 scenarios; and LOS D ar better in the Buildout scenario. Thus, the proposed project would not result in additional traffic impacts or traffic impacts that would be more severe than what was addressed in the 1~~-D for the Eastlake Village Center North project. No additional traffc analysis or mitigation measures are required. Air Quality The proposed project would generate pollutar_ts during the construction. and operation phases of. the project. The air quality analysis in the Eastlake Village Center North MN~ addressed the temporary construction-related emissions pertaining to the grading of ,the site. The impact analysis and mitigation measures addressed in M'`i +TD IS-42-02 and .associated MMRP are incorporated by reference. The applicant would be required to implement air quality control measures outlined iln tlhe Eastlake I Supplemental Air Quality Improvement Plan pertaining to the design, construction and operational phases of the project as required in the 1VEvIRP for MND IS-OZ-042. As discussed previously, the proposed project would result in Less vehicular trips than what was previously analyzed for the site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new or mare severe au quality impacts related to mobile source emissions. Higher concentrations of exhaust fumes could occur in the loading dock area during deliveries. As stated previously, truck deliveries would occur up to four times per week, and the deliveries could. take up to 30 minutes~ Trucks may idle during the unloading and loading of trailers onto the cabs. The closest offsite use to the docks would'ae the day care facility parking lot, which would be over 1~0 feet to the east. The closest outdoor use area would be the day care facility play area, which would be over 180 feet to the south of the loading dock area and tivould not be within the Line-of--sight of the Page 9 of l~ 13-32 dock area_ Due to t'~e frequency of deliveries, length of delivery time, distance to outdoor use areas, and the fact that there ti~rould be na direct line-of--sight to the loading dock area, no signincant air quali~y impact is anticipated from laading/unlcading activities. Noise Projected noise levels on the subject site were calculated in the "Noise Assessment for the Eastlake Village Center North project" (Dudek & Associates, Inc, April 29, 2002). However the noise assessment acknowledged that a site plan was not analyzed at that time. Therefore, the assessment only .addressed noise generated by project-related traffic and buildout traffic volumes on adjacent streets. A "Supplemental Environmental Noise Assessment for the Eastlake Village Center East GPA & GDP/SPA Amendment" project was prepared by Dudek ~ Associates (May 2003) to address the proposed site plan (Figure 3). The study addressed noise levels generated by offsite traffic volumes and onsite uses. The noise exposure criterion for commercial uses is 70 dB CNEL. This criterion applies at outdoor use areas such as lunch areas or outdoor garden centers. The site would be primarily affected by offsite traffic-related noise from Otay Lakes Road, Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street and onsite noise generated by loading and delivery activities, outdoor mechanical equipment and parking lot activities. Offsite Traffic I~TOise As discussed previously, the proposed project would not increase the traffic volumes on adjacent streets above what vas previously calculated in the Eastlake Village Center North MND and associated traffic analysis (LLG 2003). The traffic noise impacts associated with development of the Eastlake Village Center North project (which includes the subject site} was previously considered to be less than significant (Dudekc~: Associates 2002). This determination was based on the fact that the noise Level increase from project-related traffic would be 3 dB or less, the threshold for audible change, with the exception of Eastlake Parkulay between Otay Lakes Road and Fenton Street and along Fenton Street. At the time the 2002 noise analysis was prepared, no sensitive land uses were located along these segments of road. The updated noise analysis calculated the noise Ievel along these segments of road as well as Otay Lakes Road using buildout traffic volumes from the Eastlake Village Center North MND traffic analysis. The future buildout traffic volumes along Otay Lakes Road, Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street were calculated to be 42,000 ADT, 25,400 ADT and 14,OOOADT, respectively (LLG 2002). As shown in Figure 4; the noise level adjacent to Eastlake Parkway would 70 db CNEL which meets the City's criterion for commercial uses. The noise level along Fenton Street between 65 and 70 dB CNEL which also meets the City's criterion for commercial uses. The noise levels adjacent to Otay Lakes Road would be up to 75 db CNEL. The noise levels between 70 and 7~ dB CNEL would occur within the landscaped area and parking lot adjacent to the road. Noise levels at the outdoor use areas would be 70 dB or less. This noise Level would comply with the City's noise standards and would not be signif cant_ Page IO of 14 13-33 Onsite Noise Generation Onsite noise would be associated with the loading dock and. delivery activities, outdoor mechanical equipment and parking lot activities. goading Jf~®ck/~elivex-y 'Ta-ucl: Activities. A loading dock area would be located at the northeast side of the proposed Kohl's store (Figure 3}_ Because Kohl's operates from a distribution 'center, the number of truck deliveries is minimized. A maximum of four deliveries are anticipated per week, the maximum occurring during peak sales periods. The loading activities would occur during the store's proposed hours of operation (i.e_, 9 AM -9PM). The time period for the truck delivery would be approximately 30 minutes or less. This is due to Kohl's specific procedure for deliveries. Their procedures is to drive up to the loading dock and "seal." to the loading dock delivery door_ The trucks disconnect the cab from the trailer, and attach the cab to an empty trailer, then the truck would leave the store. The receiving crew would unload the trailer and transfer merchandise into the store. The primary noise that would be generated by the process tivould be from the truck amving, backing up into the dock, detaching the cab, attaching the cab to the empty trailer and driving away. Noise measurements taken at a similar retail store with similar activities resulted an hourly average noise level of up to 55 dB at 50 feet from the source. The loading dock would be located at the northeast corner of the building. The closest noise sensitive area would be the day care center located approximately 150 feet east of the loading dock. The on-hour average noise level associated tivith the loading dock activities tivould be approximately S 1 dB at the eastern property boundary. This noise level would not result in a significant noise impact. Outdoor 1l~echanical Equipnaes~t. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Equipment (HVAC} as well as trash compactors would be located at the proposed department store. Eight HVAC units would be located on the roof of the department store. The units uTould be set back from the edge of the roof a minimum of 20 feet, and a parapet would screen the waits. Each of the units has a manufacturer's sound power rating of 92 dB. At the property boundary of both the day care center and the church, the one-hour average noise levels would be 45 dB or less assuming all equipment operates continuously for cone-hour period. This noise level would comply ~,~~ith the City's noise standards and would not be significant. HVAC equipment would also be Located on the other retail building and the restaurant. The closest sensitive use to the retail building and restaurant vlould be 340 feet and 250 feet, respectively. The HVAC units proposed for these buildings typically generate noise levels of approximately 45 to 55 dB at a distance of 50 feet. The. one-hour average noise level associated with the retail building and the restaurant on Lot 3 would be 43 dB or less assuming the equipment operates continuously for gone-hour period. This noise level would comply with the City's noise standards and would not be significant. Page 11 of I4 ._ 13-34 Ao~olicant~ s Agent Cinti and Associates, Gary Cinti, Principal Village Center East ApRlicantlDeyeloper The Eastlake Company Gatlin Development Company Kohls Department Stores Documents ® Eastlake Master EIR (EIR 81-03), February 1982. ® Eastlake I SPA Plan Supplemental EIR (EIR 84-01) January 198. ® Eastlake I SPA Plan AmendmentlKaiser Permanente Chula Vista Medical Center Supplemental EIR {EIR 92-01}, June 12, 1992. • Eastlake Village Center North Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND IS-Ol-0~-2), June 11, 2002 - ® Detention Basin Analysis far Eastlake- Village Center North, Hunsaker ~. Associates, March 4, 2002. ® Traffic Impact Analysis for Eastlake Villagz Center North, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, May 2002 ® Eastlake Village Center Project Environmental Noise Assessment, Dudek ~. Associates; Inc., Apri129, 2002. 200 ® Eastlake Village CenterNorth Water Analysis ,PBS&J, February. ® Eastlake Village Center North Sewer Analysis, PBS&J, March 2002. ® Traffic Impact Analysis for Eastlake Village Center East; Linscott, Lair & Greenspan; April 2003 . ® Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Setiver Analysis, PBSBcJ, April 2003. • Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Water Analysis; PBS&J, April 2003 • Detention Facility Letter, Hunsaker & Associates, April 2003. • Eastlake Village Center East GPA & GDP/SPA Amendment Project Supplemental Environmental Noise Assessment, Dudek & Associates; Inc. May 2003. I. Enviro~.anentall~eterrnination The City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have significant environmental effects other than what has .been previously identified in prior environmental documentation. 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. Page 13 of 14 13-35 I find that there will not be a si~incant effect on the environment because the proposed project tivould not result in new impacts or impacts that are more severe Than previously analyzed in the Eastlake Village Center North ~ (IS-02-042) and other related environmental docu-nents. The mitigation measures described in the MND and associated M~~P (see Attachment A} are sti11 valid and are incorporated by reference. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} as amended December 2001. This report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~~~ Date Marilyn . F. Ponseggi ~ Environmental Review Coordinator ~ /803- Page 14 of 14 13-36 Regional Location ~a~t ~~. c~: ~ s~,r s~.a P~~JEC~ SATE Eas2L~~Ce ~a6fl~s~ C.ea~te~' ~a S3s~saez~t~9 SPA ~ fait creek Spy ~aske I ~~~ shores Neighd~orhood 1-lips Neighboshood Business Cenfer! ~ !l ~flage Genfer North ~astL.ake 11 ~~A Greens Neighborhoad Trails Neighborhood Land Slvap Area A pFinacd m~eaicp hg TB+e Eac4.akr Cnmpavg c m FI~~.TI~ Z 13-38 ~~'~~eG~ ~1~~ ~O~a~1®~ •- aroa s~rrt xv~ s `\ ~ `~ m ~~ i~/ i =~-~' 1 ~~~~~ ~~ ~_~~~~~1~~~ ~ ~ ~~ y `{_ F ~ - ~ i - \~~ ,,\ 't S ,' I ~ , I ' g - - - yl s / i ,'t ~ I~~~' ~ _ ~a ~~ I is ~ 5 _°- °:: r--r ea i i ~ $ i r~ -~ all ~ ~;. ~ ~ `~` ~ '%' j ~ ~iiq?q ~ =a i _ '..~ ~l ~3 ~ i5 i ~ e ~ Q Q ~ l 'l 77 j f ~ .s ; ` ~ It l l 4 J 1 8~ _ tl~ ~ ( ~' ~r~ r~l i 4 '~ i~ ~~ ' i 1 t .j I t ~ EY + ~ __-- ~i- _- i _______--~_ -____ G7 ~ `V O m ` / ' - YY r I '~ '``~~ ~ 2 13-39 FIGLT 4 Fury ~'r~.f~ c CAL Co~.t®urs 13-40 ,~~ . T a~ C4 j"~ Z 0 fJ) Ci Q V Z ~_ ~"' Z 11.1 {~ ~"-' l ` p t CO ti - ~+c - ~, I} ~ c7 tL7 c t~ L7 O ~ c7 Q1 c*7 c7 O 1` ~r L O N r ~ C~ ~ Q = eJ L~J O T LrJ `.r C'7 T c'7 r cD -` 67 ' ~ V ~! ~ m CL ~ ~ 1:`; N O ~ ~ a~ O _ ~ ~ m ~ o 0 ~ 0 c ~. R O ~ W r - n o y 1.4~ T r~ CQ ~ .., t~ O ~t ~ N GO C7 1` LC3 C.O T` t~ N '~ - ~ N r c¢ N. ~ ~ a7 N O CO r r Cr ~ O p~ c~ c7 O L ~ !l \..J t- r O = C` N O N r c0 Q' ~ ~ N G7 CD N O c7 Grp. R T' Cy r r. fL c~ _ _ 'V' tf] N G1 O Q CD L7 Q? C? LL? r O _ ~ CD ~ ~ o \ o ~ ~ ~ c~C O rD O O O t~ O c^') ~ O ~ ~~ t~ ~ r' C~ CT) W O QJ O ~-. lp N r W 1~ CC! O O ~ to N O N ~ 4 lCJ tfJ r a7 CD r 'G° N tf7 cp d- O O = _ A O O Lf'J iL') N O N c3 C aJ L7 LlJ t- Co C7 r C N ~ q ~ O O N o _ O -- _ _ N N CD p} 4 q ~'. Q Q R ~ ~ Q ~_ ~ ~ O ~ O O O O y N O_ tL~ CU T r ~ r^ ~- ~ U'J ~ U7 ~ U7 ~ N ~ _ y ' Z d Q Q Q L UJ lL Cry LL. Cn ~ R Q O t`') O C~ ~t ?~ ~S' C'9 ~ 4 1` O O O 1~ d7 _ _ ~ U ~ N N ~ O 61 O C,7 I.L ~ lf7 G? r IL. ~ O T r r F.... Q t ~ n ~:, ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ Q o Z c f ~ - Q V ~ ~ U ]v ~. I t3 'r- ~ Q CII ~ ~ o Lam. [~Q - ~ LC ~ ~ Q Q _ E-- ~ Q - ° ~ ~ o Q ~ iL' ~ ~ Q' 2 ~ .. Q h C C O m m C 'm - ~/ m m 4 F= U U a m ~ C C ~ [4 @ G Q ~ m o O ~ .C L 77 U C!J CI] r ID - cao ~ " N N >' rn a m cs ~ ~ o m m '~ T' .C a1 y ~u7~~ ~ ~av~ -~ N m cC6 ~ ~ m ~~ ~ ¢ ~ m rn ~ zz~aQ o Q ~F~- a~ In ~ > m o 0 r c ~~= o c ., .. o~ m F- m o m ~ O. G C ~0 Q (1 m m n n n m ~ ~ ~ C C ~ R ~ R ~ ~ tZ LL l.C. O @ C7 (n U7 z Y ~! v u7 F t.nn m L Q) Q) O ~ O v c v ~ ~-ui~-it'i yooo m j ~ n n n ~ X X X C m m o _ o ~ m _m a CJ 3 ~ ~ ;) m cD O'i c7 C CD N O - mmc']~ 9 ~ u~ N c7 . (~ -f ~' Y a ~XXX R i J J ~ D ~C`l cQO > ~c`tnu~'i~ ~ V O O O n m m n n n 31 ~~Frly 7~ m 1 J J D C 0 0 0 p 7 ~~~ ~m ~~>> ~ a' ~ c ~ o m m m m Q m m m ~ ~ m ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~{~ ~ U U U ~~a o p m m m ~ `n Z ' = = ~ m ~. ti tr_ zz ~ o ~ Z rcvci~ 13-41 1. : . .- --... .. .. ~a~le ~ Ii~1TTERSECTI OPZ E~sTtt~~ ~- PR®,BECT YE~Z zo~5 ~Yi T i ~DI~T SFZ Y~ 2aa~ ~Cf13 SR '!2~ BUELBOIT~" DELAY LDS DELAY LOS DEL~IY LOS DELAY LOS Fenton StlProject Dvuy. 1 8.9 A 10.5 B 14.5 B 11.3 B Fenton St 1Kuhn DrJProj. Dwy_ 2 11.8 B 22.5 C 24.1 C 28.o D Eastlake Pkwy/Project Dwy. 3 11.2 B 13.7 . B 15.4 B 19.4 C Otay Lakes RdJProject Dt,y. 4 11.3 B 12.9 B 15.5 C I 18.2 C 1 Delay- Average delay per vehicle in seconds 2 L05 -Level of Service. UN51GidAL..1ZED INfERSECT10PdS AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY LEVEL OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE 0.0 < S 0.0 A 70.1 to 15.D 8 '15.t to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.D D 35.1 to 50.D E > 50.D F 13-42 T .Q CG ~'•" O r~ ic.. L'+. O• E... Z V ~--• r - ~-- I © ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ L O N r ~ CrJ C"? ..S _ ~ Q ~ ~' ~ T ~ T ~ C Q~ 1~ CC - 0 Q . ~ O ~ L7 ~ CD P` CT7 ~ N O ~ Q 'cT O ~ o ~ o • ~ O - CA r n o ^/ s - ~~ ~ ~ w, !~ O ~t cp N CO C7 T~ >n CrJ ti t~ N ~' O N r ~ r (v• !-- i c'7 o~ N O7 (D ~ r r CS ~t CD Cn cr? cT7 O ~ L ~ T r ~ ~i" N CD C~- r CO O T ~ t• T - ~ 'cY' tf? N O C? O LC? O CO L7 Q? ~-- O - ~ ~ y O o 0 o ~ 'l.• CO (D n o ' R 0 co 0 o 0 t~ o c~ v ~ o v ~- o O ~- c*'3 c*1 c0 O 07 O "~ m j--' to N T b I` q +~ O CO O LL's to © >n 'r N N O CA N O >_~ ~ O ~ r c!7 ~ c[7 ~t O - N - ~t m ~ A - O ~J O L7 LS7 CO ~ r N N O Q N O II N r ~ cTJ d' N fl O N T- OJ ~ ~ r O L Q _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 • o O \ O O ~ o O ~ O i N O ~ O T I/ vJ r T ClD ~ fq m fI7 ~ U7 m N ~ Z V Q U Q U Q U ~ l._ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cn _ C ~ ¢ o o ~ ~ o r. rn o o t` a~ _ Q U ~ cv c~i ci ° ~; a~ o rn ~ j,[ In O O r r ,• E- (!J r r f"' Q LI! ~: 1 . F' m ~ p Q v, @ Z ~ _ ~< c ~ U ° c J ~ ~ ~• Q Q __ Fes- ~ Q :"~ _ `o h c O i C Q m m 4 `m m UU D ID O C i C C ~° m c a 17 m O O ~ L L ~ U ~ ~ r COO O ~ [p O. N N m a~ w ~ r L a7 y 'n ~~ ~ ~ - JQ ~ O C ~ ~ -~ N ca ca ~ (~ m ;/} ¢ ~ m vi ~ Zang O Q caF~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ m O O C ~ L _ o ~ = .- O) m F- m o m ~, a c c °o~~Q~ C6 m If Fl rt n ~ ~'- ~--' E•" O ~ ~ ~ 1= C C r C c11 ~ ca ca ~ ct. ~ te_ O m U7 Cn C17 Z L Y v v m F r~tin p c•O)Q~O ~ O v Q v Y ~ O O O y C O rT--r O ~ K It rt ~ ~XXX ~-• ~ m m Q 0 m m m m 3 3 3 U m (O~C'7 C G4 N O _ mmc~c ~ U to cv ci ~' d + j' 1 ym ~ X X X y ~ J J ~ .. L ~ N cD 0 ~ 7 ~~j c00 ~ooo ~ m m n rt rt _~ C ~ F_1vVv ~ m o s=cc (~ `C @ J J J m C 0 0 0 ~... _O O t7 14 t9 m m 0 7 7 ~ Q ~ m 9 m m m m Z ~ ~ U U U ~~- ~~~ m ommm L mZtiu..tz c 0 0 cn Z ~ ci Fi < 13-43 ATTACHMENT 5 DESIGN REVIEW NOTICE OF DECISION 13-44 ~~~r~ .~. - ~_ ~iN o~ Z®nin~ ~-4daninis#ra~®r ~l-~IJL~A ~/~ST~ N®J'ICE ®F DECISI®N Date: July 13, 20111 Applicant; Jack in tlae liox Case loo.: DIgC-10-17 Site Address; SEC of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street Project Planner: Jeff Steichen Notice is hereby given that on July 13, 2011, the Zoning Administrator considered a Administrative Design Review application filed by Jack in the Box, requesting approval to construct a new 2,481 s.f. fast food restaurant ("Project"} within an existing commercial center located at the SEC of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street ("Project Site"). The Project is located within the VC-4 (Village Center District) zone. The proposed Project is more specifically described below: The proposed project consists of a 2,481 square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service queue-length to accommodate a maximum of nine vehicles. The placement of the proposed building is located between Eastake Parkway and the existing Kohl's commercial retail building. Stone veneer treatment will match the colors of existing Kohl's building. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA. The City's Development Services Director has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Negative Declaration (ND) for IS-03-028 and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to said ND. The proposed fast food restaurant will be located on the same site as the Kohl's commercial center on which the ND analysis was based and, therefore, approval of the project design does not change the basic conclusions of the ND. The addendum has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Zoning Administrator, under the provisions of Section IX of the Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations and Section 19.14.582.I of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,. . and based on the proposed development regulations and applicable design guidelines, has considered the Addendum, and approved the Project as described on the application submitted by Jack in the Box subject to the following conditions: I. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of building permits, unless otherwise specified: Planning Division 1. The Applicant/Representative and Property Owner shall execute this document by making a true copy and signing both this original Notice of Decision and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Applicant/R.epresentative and Property Owner have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained 13-45 2. Approval of this Project shall not waive the Applicant's responsibility to comply with all sections of Title 19 of the CVMC, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of approval of this Design Review Permit. 3. The Applicant shall execute this Design Review Permit as the authorized use only. Any new use or modification/expansion of uses shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4. The ApplicantlRepresentative and Property Owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members; officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Design Review Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non=discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Design Review Permit where indicated below. The Applicant/Representative and Property Owner's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Design Review Permit and shall be binding on any and all of Applicant/Operator's successors and assigns. 5. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit may result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties and/or the revocation or modification of this permit. 6. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Applicant or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this Design Review Permit. APPROVED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE -CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this~~' day of July , 2011. Mary Ladi Zoning Ac 13-46 herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be returned to the Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document within 30 Days of the effective date herein shall indicate the Applicant/Representative and Property Owner's desire that the project, and corresponding application for building/grading permits and/or business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Applicant/Authorized Representative Signature of Property Owner/representative Date Date 2. Approval of this Design Review is contingent upon approval of the SPA amendment application PCM 10-17 by the City Council. 3. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces, and noted on any building and wall plans. Additionally, the project shall conform to CVMC Section 9.20.055 regarding graffiti control. The applicant shall remove all graffiti on a regular basis. 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Development Services Director. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 5. The colors and materials specified on the building plans must be consistent with the colors and materials shown on the site plan and materials board available in the Planning Division and date stamped June 2, 201 1. 6. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a sign permit for each new sign by the Development Services Department. Signs shall comply with all applicable requirements of the CVMC. band I)evelop~nent 7. Submit a `landscape documentation package' for approval to the City of Chula Vista that demonstrates that the landscape associated with this application complies with the City of Chula Vista Water Conservation Ordinance, Chapter 20.12 of the Municipal code. The title sheet of the drawings shall contain a signed statement from the landscape architect as follows: 13-47 "I am familiar with and agree to comply with the requirements of landscape improvement plans as described in Chapter 20.12 of the Municipal Code: I have prepared this plan in -- -compliance with-those regulations. I certify that the Plan implements the regulations to provide efficient water use." 8. The applicant shall pay the following fees: a. Sewer Capacity Fee b. Traffic Signal Fee c. Development Impact Fees per the Master Fee Schedule 9. Obtain a construction permit from the Development Services Department to perform all work in the City's right-of--way. 10. Prior to issuance of grading permits, applicant shall comply with Chapter 14.20.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to storm water management and discharge control. Building Division 11. Building plans shall be designed by an Architect or Engineer licensed by the State of California and shall comply with 2010 California Building Code (CBC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Plumbing Code (CPC), California Electrical Code (CEC) California Fire Code (CFC) and 2008 Energy Code, and the 2010 California Green Building Standards, as adopted and amended by the State of California and the City of Chula Vista. Imprint the green standards on the plans and provide a Building Code Data Legend on the title (first) sheet of the plans which includes the Occupancy Group classification. Fire Department 12. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department including: a) provide a water flow Ietter from the applicable water agency having jurisdiction indicating that fire flow is available to serve the project in the amount of 1,500 gallons per minute fora 2- hour duration (at 20psi); b) submit kitchen suppression system plans for review and approval. II. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project as long as it relies upon this approval. 1. The Applicant shall maintain the Project in accordance with the approved plans for DRC- 10-17, dated PCC-10-005, date stamped on 3une 2, 2011, which includes a site plan and architectural elevations on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19. . - 13-48 A~`TACI-I~~l~T~' 6 ®EI~S~IIP I)ISCLOSUI~E F® ___ - - - - 13-49 ~;~~• ~ r, ~ D e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s D e p a r. t m e n t - Planning Division ~ Deve~loprnent Processing ~~~-, r~+ APPLICATION APPENDIX B T, Disclosure Statement - Page 2 6. Has any person `identified in 1., ~., 3., or 4.. above, or other. rise associated +;vith this contract, project or application, made a campaign contribution of more than S~Sfl +rvithin the past ll Z) months a current member of the City of Chula Vista Council ? ~ Yes '~fO - if yes >>+;hich council memher? _-__..._- _..._ __ __- -__.-__-- 7. Has any person identified it 1., 2., 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, provided more than 5420 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official`°' of the City of Chula Vista in the past (12j months? (This includes any payment that confers a personal benefit on the recipient, a rebate or discount in the price of apything of value, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes ------~ -~ ~I o ---'~~ If yes, which official` and ~•,vhat was the nature of the item provided? 8. Has any person "identified in 1., 2., 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, been a source of income of SSOO or more to an official"- of the City of Chula Vista in the past (1 Z) months? Yes No ~ ---- If yes, +,vhich officialy* and the nature of the item provide _.__.__--.___._._--._-.___-- z - ~ v Date ~- ~- ~ "'o'~~ ._ _.-.. ~...----------- Signature of Contractor/ pplicant Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant '~ Person is identified as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corpora [ion, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. any other county, city, municipality, district, or ether political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. *'` official includes, but is not limited to: PAayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission or committee of the City, and City employee or staff members. This disclosure Statement must be completed at the time the project application, or contract, is submitted to City staff for processing, and updated within one week prior to consideration by legislative body. Last Updated: March 16, ZO10 2i6 Fourth Avenue !, Chula Vista California 91910 1514) 691.5101 ticv a I I a~oi.in~ a; I 13-50 L<<j~. p e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s D e p a. r t m e n t .,~, Planning Division ~ Development Processing ~,„~ ~;r APPLICATION APPENDIX 5 Disclosure Statement Pursuant to City Council Policy 101-0?, prior to any action on a matter that requires discretionary action by the City Council, Planning Commission or other official legislative body of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain o~r~nerships, financial interest, payments, and campaign contributions must be filed. The fo1!owing information must be disclosed: 7. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the project that is the subject of tine application, project or contract (e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier). 3. Ff any person` identified in section 1. above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of al{ individuals with an investment of $2000 or more in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. 3. If any person* identified in section 1. above is anon-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person ~r~ho is the director of the non-profit organization or the names of the trustee, beneficiary and trustor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors, who~~maa~~you have authorized to represent you before the City in this matter. ~ -- S-z1 ~ ------- ---. - __...------~----- 5. Has any person 'identified in 1., 2., 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, had any financial dealings with an official*' of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract, project or application within the past 12 months? Yes No r}~' If yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract. _ _..- ._._ ... I ~p.B ie.~~u3.wl~ M L'2 Z16 Fourth Avenue ~ Chula Vista i California 91910 ! f619) 691.5101 . _ 13`-51. - - -- RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM (IS-10-005) TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-03-028) AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN FOR 9.4 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY AND FENTON STREET. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this Resolution, and commonly known as Eastlake Village Center, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 9.4 acres ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on September 9, 2010, by Jack in the Box ("Applicant"), requesting amendments to the Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated Planned Community District Regulations for the Project Site ("Project); and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) amending the Eastlake II General Development Plan, Eastlake I Village Center North Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents by City Council Resolution NO. 2003-293 on July 8, 2003; and D. Environmental Determination The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's Development Services Director has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Negative Declaration (ND) (IS-03-028) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum (IS-10-005) to said ND. The proposed fast food restaurant will be located on the same site as the Kohl's commercial center on which the ND analysis was based, and approval of the project design does not change the basic conclusions of the ND. The addendum has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. 13-52 Resolution No. Page 2 E. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of the 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 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on August 10, 2011 and voted 5-0 to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and, WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on August 10, 2011 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and, F. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notice of said hearings, 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on September 13, 2011, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it finds, determines, and resolves as follows: II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council finds that, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 in the form presented, has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopts Addendum (IS-10-005} to Negative Declaration (IS-03-028). 13-53 Resolution No. Page 3 III. SPA FINDINGS/ APPROVAL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS 1N CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS. The proposed amendments to the Eastlake II SPA Plan reflect land uses that are consistent with the Eastlake II General Development Plan and the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The commercial nature of the proposed use would be consistent with the adopted commercial land uses of the Eastlake area. B. THE SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The requested amendment to allow fast food restaurants as a permitted use within the VC-4 land use district would only be applicable to the 9.4 acre project site. Said site is fully developed at this time with the existing Kohl's commercial center and associated parking field. Thus, the removal of a portion of the existing parking spaces (allowed per shared parking analysis and agreement) to accommodate the infill placement and construction of a Jack in the Box drive-through restaurant would not affect the sequentialized development of the SPA. The remainder of the SPA is fully developed. C. THE EASTLAKE II SPA PLAN, AS .AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The proposed project has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing commercial center developed on the site. The commercial use was coordinated with adjacent commercial centers and residential uses. A traffic study conducted for the proposed project determined that the Jack in the Box restaurant would generate an estimated 1,211 Average Daily Trips (ADT's). Each of the roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS B) both in the near term condition (2012) and horizon year condition (2030). Based on the site plan, the project would use existing vehicular access points and have minimal impact to the existing circulation at Kohl's Center. The drive through feature of the proposed project is shown to have adequate queue length (up to nine vehicles). 13-54 Resolution No. Page 4 An Addendum (IS-10-005) to Negative Declaration IS-03-028 has been prepared which included the findings of both the parking and traffic study, which indicated the proposed project would not have any additional impacts than were previously addressed by Negative Declaration IS-03-028. Thus, the requested amendments to the SPA Plan will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. IV. APPROVAL OF SPA AMENDMENTS Based on the findings above, the City Council approves the Eastlake II SPA Plan to change the designation for fast food restaurants within the VC-4 Land Use District from "N" (prohibited) to "P" (permitted), subject to the conditions set forth below: Prior to the 30th day after the Ordinance becomes effective, the Applicant shall prepare a clean copy of the SPA Plan document by deleting all strike out/ underlines and shading. Where the document contains both an existing and proposed exhibit, the previous existing exhibit shall be removed and substituted. In addition, the strike-out underlined text, document format, maps and statistical changes within the Eastlake II SPA and PC District Regulations for the Jack in the Box shall be incorporated into the final document and approved by the Director of Development Services for printing. 2. Prior to the 30th day after the Ordinance becomes effective, the Applicant shall submit to the Development Services Department 10 copies and a CD of the approved amendment to the Eastlake II SPA Plan and Eastlake II Planned Community (PC District Regulations). V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and anv of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or fiu ther condition issuance of future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Applicant or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its 13-55 Resolution No. Page 5 sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect ab initio. Presented by: Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Assistant City Manager/Director of Development Services 13-56 BOSWELL RD O tr J ~ < = O Z g r ~ + ~Gti 2 ~ ~'P FENTON ST 1 1 1 ti pNs~ ~ 9`~ { (~~~ f ~ Jack in the ~ Box ~ m 7N PROTECT ~ ~ ~QQ LOCATION °° ~9°~~0° ~ °~d~ y ~ b6€16L16 ~ g 400 ~ 1 ~O ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~$ p~{ ~- . S ~~ ~ O Q ~ ~ O ~ 'P ~ 1 ~ C~ O OAK HILL DR ~ ~ P R ~5 Q N 1 ti' ~ O ~y~ m i ~ ~ ~ Fp _... Ir ,r Q~ 1 0 1 ~ ~ SV\E~ D R ~ ~ ~ ~ O~N G~ 1 ~ G R ~ P 00 1 p~ C7 0p00 T FDR oo° 000 0° i 1 0° ODOODO J ~ OOOD9 OppD °o j 1 Q EXH~~~ A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP FOR 9.4-ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY AND FENTON STREET. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance, is diagrammatically represented in "Exhibit A" attached to and incorporated into this Ordinance, and commonly known as Eastlake Village Center East, and for the general purpose of general description herein consists of 9.4 acres located at the southeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton Street intersection within the Eastlake II Planned Community ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on September 9, 2010 by Jack in the Box ("Applicant"), requesting amendments to the Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated Planned Community District Regulations for the Project Site ("Project); and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including the former Kohl's commercial center project (aka Eastlake Village Center East), which amended the Eastlake II General Development Plan, Eastlake I Village Center North Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents by City Council Resolution No. 2003-293 on July 8, 2003; and D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of the 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 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on August 10, 2011, and voted 5-0 to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission 13-58 Ordinance No. Page 2 at the public hearing on this project held on August 10, 2011, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notice of the 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on September 13, 2011, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, City of Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced for first reading on the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution , by which it approved amendments to the Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area Plan. G. Environmental Determination The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's Development Services Director has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Negative Declaration (ND) for IS-03-028 and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum (IS-10-005} to said ND. The proposed fast food restaurant will be located on the same site as the Kohl's commercial center on which the ND analysis was based and, approval of the project design does not change the basic conclusions of the ND. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: 13-59 Ordinance No. Page 3 A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The commercial nature of the proposed use would be consistent with the adopted commercial designation for this project site and compatible with the surrounding residential and open space land uses of the Eastlake area. B. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The City Council approves the amendments to the Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations as represented in Exhibit B. III. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from Presented by: Abn~oi~ed as I ~ Gary Halbert, AICP, PE !` len R. Assistant City Manager/Director of ;'City Ate Development Services 13-60 adoption. BOSWELLRD J -~ ~ Q D O W Z g ~ fl r ~Gti ti ~ ap FENTON ST 1 1 \ ~ONS~ 9 ` ~ F~~ 1 y Jack in the 1 Box 1 N PROJECT ~ m ~~ LOCATION ~ oa ~9QaaQ~ ~ dd~d ~ ~ ~ aa~a°6a 1 g oaa ~ 1 ~~ p,O ~~~ F PN 1 ~S Ogpy ~p~ ~ O 1,f9' ' o ~~'P . ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ -l OAK HILL, R ~ ~ ~ SpR IN 1 ~ g O ~5~ Ir ,r i0 1 ~ ~ E~,! D R D Sv\ 1 c R ~ S e 00 ~ 1 OO GgTFO~ ~ Q o DO oo° ~Op o J 1 0° p00000 a F¢., ~ 0000 OppO °o j 1 Q EXI~I~~ A Land Use VC-1 VC-la VC-2 VC-3 VC-41'a VC-~''' A. Administrative and Professional Services P P P P P P B. General Commercial Uses 1. Antique shops (no ocrtdoor storage) P P N P N P Z. Apparel stores P P P/N P P P 3. Art, music and photographic studios and supply stores P P P/N P P P 4. Appliance stores and repair (no outdoor storage) P N P/N P P P 5. Arcades and electronic games (see Section VL4} C C P/N C P A 6. Athletic and health clubs C C C C C A 7. Automobile and/or truck services, sales, rental agencies A N N A N A 8. Bakeries -retail P P P P P P 9. Barber and beauty slxops P P P P P P 10. Bicycle shops, non-motorized P P P P P P 11. Blueprint and photocopy services P N P P P P 12. Book, gifts and statnonary stores P P P P P P 13. Candy stores and confectioners P P a P a P 14. Car Wash subject to provisions of Section 19.58.060 CVMC C N N C N C 15. Catering establishments P P N P N P 16. Cleaners. P P P/N P P P 17. Commercial recreation facilities not C otherwise listed C C C C C 18. Eating and drinking establishments a. Bars, nightclubs, cabarets C C N N N C b. Restaurants, coffee shops, P delicatessens; 1) with alcoholic beverages C C C ZA and/or entertainment C C 2) without alcoholic bev. P P P P P P 3} with outdoor seating* P P P P P P c. Snack bars and refreshment stands P contained within a building P P P P P d. Fast food restaurants with drive-in or drive-through (subject to Site Ptan and Arch. Review by the C P C Zoning Administrator) C N N 19. Equipment rental (enclosed building} P N P P P P x