The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019/01/22 - Item #6 - Written Communications - Moot - 1-22-19 3 Wrh�q NMMW C.fi_OW- 114 Sheree Kansas L (o _ � M r 22_19 Subject: FW: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash Attachments: 2018 08 17 Request for Public Records.pdf; sharp@sscmlegal.com_20190102_ 162458.pdf From:John S. Moot<johnm@sscmlegal.com> Sent: Monday,January 14, 2019 8:13 AM To: Mike Diaz<mdiaz@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: FW: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash s �-_��'•-��. .. s�Y"��'*'? Vis.- .t �"S:�41..E`Y'�� ''�'„,.;.*moi. r "-�- -� r.= +4�vJ; �m`3_-"�'�`za r- i s `; - -. F- Warning This email ongmatedfrom outsidethe City of Chula Vista Do not click on lmks.or open attachments;unless you recognize thesentlerand are expecting,the messages; `c _ *F' ��' 3 v {tu j Councilman Diaz; I thought I had sent this to you after we spoke but I could not find any record that I did. Did you receive . No one from the City responded or answered any of these questions. This is what was requested in the PRA: I would like to review any information or environmental document that addresses the issues raised by my appeal, a copy of which is attached to this Exhibit A. Specifically, any traffic study regarding the intersection at Halecrest and Telegraph and the ability to safely exit the site based on current conditions. Communication with Caltrans re exiting the car wash onto the dedicate freeway lane onto 805. Any analysis of the safety of allowing such an exit and any historical evidence regarding the original do not enter signs that were on the site and who asked that they be installed and if any permission was granted to have them removed. The documents the were not produced include a February 11, 2016 memo to Miguel Tapia from Richard Zumwalt and a February 15, 2016 letter from Mr.Zumwalt to Jorge Gonzalez neither of which were included in response to the Public Records Act request and are attached to this email.The Zumwalt memorandum under item 12 references"a potential traffic hazard from project traffic merging with freeway on ramp traffic merging directly onto Telegraph Canyon road.. " and recommends the driveway access be reviewed and approved by Caltrans and the City Traffic Engineer. Item 13 indicates that"Caltrans review is required" and staff to provide comments once they are available. This safety issue was raised at the Council hearing but no analysis by the City Engineer or by Caltrans was provided regarding the potential traffic hazard as reflected in the memo nor was Council made aware at the hearing that the previous project manager believed a potential traffic hazard existed . I am concerned that someone with held the attached records and the implications that rises as to why. John S. Moot Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley& Moot LLP Main 619.236-8821 johnm@sscmlegal.com From:John S. Moot Sent:Wednesday,January 02, 2019 6:12 PM To:'Glen Googins'<GGoogins@chulavistaca.gov>; 'Gary Halbert'<GHalbert@chulavistaca.gov>; 'Kerry Bigelow' <KBigelow@chulavistaca.gov>; 'Kelly Broughton' <kbroughton@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: RE: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash 1 i City Attorney Googins, City,Manager'Halbert, City Clerk Bigelow, and Development Services Director Broughton; In preparation for the upcoming Council meeting there are several matters I would like to bring your attention. First, I have not received a copy of any correspondence to Caltrans regarding what has been transmitted to them for review and what it is the City has asked Caltrans to comment on. Could someone please provide me a copy of the communication to Caltrans listing what they were provided with and the ask of what the city expects from Caltrans. There also seems to be an issue with the completeness of the response to the Appellant's Public Records Act request. Judy Walsh recently dropped off some communications she had in her possession provided by City of Chula Vista which would have fallen within the ambit of the request.These include a February 11, 2016 memo to Miguel Tapia from Richard Zumwalt and a February 15, 2016 letter from Mr. Zumwalt to Jorge Gonzalez neither of which were included in response to the Public Records Act request and are attached to this email.The Zumwalt memorandum under item 12 references "a potential traffic hazard from project traffic merging with freeway on ramp traffic merging directly onto Telegraph Canyon road.. "and recommends the driveway access be reviewed and approved by Caltrans and the City Traffic Engineer. Item 13 indicates that"Caltrans review is required" and staff to provide comments once they are available.This safety issue was raised at the Council hearing but no analysis by the City Engineer or by Caltrans was provided regarding the potential traffic hazard. It is not clear to me if such documents analyzing the potential traffic hazard were prepared and so why they were not produced in response to the Public Records Act request or why City Council was not advised at the meeting of the previous recommendation, and that Caltrans review"is required" and /or if the recommendation and requirement were subsequently changed by the new project manager and if so why. The Zumwalt letter states that in order to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, findings must be made and substantiated in the record that establish, "that the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood of the community" ; and that such use will not be detrimental, "to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity." I do not see where these issues were directly addressed and substantiated in the Planning Commission materials and findings or where there is factually support for such findings based on project specific data . The letter also indicates there are specific enclosures and references memos and checklists that were not included in the public records response. I would like them to be provided a soon as possible . I am concerned that the materials and response to the issues referenced in the Zumwalt memo and letter have not been provided and why,when the issue of project having been delayed came up, the Council was not informed that the prior Project Manager had passed away or that he did in fact previously raise the potential safety hazards and the requirement for a Caltrans review, neither of which surfaced at the Council hearing despite the Appellant specifically raising these very same issues. Lastly, after conducting some research on the issue it seems clear that under Municipal Code section 19.14.130 that the decision by the City Council to deny staff recommendation to deny the appeal is in fact final. No motion was made at the Council hearing to set aside the vote for to reconsider the main motion which would have the effect of overruling and canceling the prior action. Under the City Charter a member of the Council would need to make a motion to repeal, cancel,or nullify the previous Council action on the main motion which has not been done. Procedurally, should any councilperson make such a motion a hearing to do so would need to be noticed,and in fact under normal rules of appellate procedure,the appellant should in fact proceed first with the applicant,being the respondent, going next and then appellant be given an opportunity for rebuttal . Upon receipt and review of this email I would be happy to set up a meeting to discuss these matters in person. John S. Moot Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley& Moot LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 810 San Diego, CA 92101-8229 2 Main 619.236-8821 Fax 619.236-8827 Los Angeles Office 310.550-8857 johnm@sscmlegal.com �%A-wi.sscmleaal.com Additional offices worldwide through our affiliation with LEGUS. wwv.leguslaw.com Contact our office for more information. This message is intended for the addressee only and is privileged and confidential. Interception or other unauthorized use is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify me by reply-email and immediately delete copies from your records. From:John S. Moot Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:47 is To: Kerry Bigelow<KBigelow@chulavistaca.gov>;Tyshar Turner<tturner@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: FW: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash Could either of you please check and see if there are a new records or previously not produced records responsive to this request. I can not seem to get straight answer from Mr. Powers as to if a traffic study has been done and if it has been submitted to Caltrans for their review.There are several categories of documents I have not seen including communications with the applicant and Caltrans , soil testing and results . I am concerned that such documents do in fact exist but were not provided to you or held back .Could you please check on this for me.Thanks. John S. Moot Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley & Moot LLP Main 619.236-8821 johnm@sscmlegal.com From:John S. Moot Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 1:01 PM To:Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve Power<SPower@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Caroline Young<CYoung@chulavistaca.gov>; Kelly Broughton <kbroughton@chulavistaca.gov> Cc: Kerry Bigelow<KBigelow@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: RE: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash I just got an email from Caroline Young about resetting the meeting. No one ever got back to me regarding the information I provide over one month ago.The appellant was advised that if he provided information to the City that showed a traffic study was needed the City would see that one was done.We provided information showing a traffic study was needed and offered to meet and discuss the issue but we did not hear back. I hope this has not become a cat and mouse game where we provide information to cooperate with the City and the City uses that information to try and correct the deficiencies without addressing the core issues. I wrote a letter on March 20`h to the City identifying issues with the project. In response the City had Mr. Rivers prepared a report dated May 9, 2009 and rescheduled the hearing .After receiving the new memorandum, a traffic engineer reviewed it and noted several issues with the analysis. In an effort to cooperate I relayed that information back to the City. Rather than responding in any manner or meting to go over the issues, we again receive notice that the hearing is back on without any explanation as to how the City intends to proceed . Does the City intend to continue to proceed without a traffic study and under an exemption to CEQUA ?Are there any new documents that the Applicant or the City intends to rely on at he is hearing not previously provided pursuant to the attached response to the public records act request. 3 I am disappointed that the City did not get back to me . Mr. Bisharat and his business are not the only persons who will be affected by impacts of this project. I reviewed the Planning Commission hearing, I noted several members of the public and an adjacent neighbor have concerns about the project as well.These concerns can and should be addressed in an open and transparent manner. John S. Moot Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley& Moot LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 810 San Diego, CA 92101-8229 Main 619.236-8821 Fax 619.236-8827 Los Angeles Office 310.550-8857 johnm@sscmlegal.com www.sscmlegal.com Additional offices worldwide through our affiliation with LEGUS. www.leguslaw.com Contact our office for more information. ��x�.��x�x�.xxxxxxxxxxx�*x*x*xxx�xxxxxxxx*xxx�x*x�x*x*x*x*xxx�x��x=*=*�*xx�x,�xxxxxxxx�x�*�.��x*<xxxxx� This message is intended for the addressee only and is privileged and confidential. Interception or other unauthorized use is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify me by reply-email and immediately delete copies from your records. From:John S. Moot Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 9:36 AM To:'Stan Donn' <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov>; Steve Power<SPower@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirev@chulavistaca.gov>; Caroline Young<CYoung@chulavistaca.gov> Cc: Kelly Broughton<kbroughton@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: RE: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N-Go Carwash Thanks. Please keep us posted John S. Moot Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley& Moot LLP Main 619.236-8821 johnm@sscmlegal.com From:Stan Donn<Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov> Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:20 PM To:John S. Moot<iohnm@sscmlegal.com>; Steve Power<SPower@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Caroline Young<CYoung@chulavistaca.gov> Cc: Kelly Broughton <kbroughton@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: RE: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash Hello Mr. Moot, Staff is still reviewing the information you provided last week. As previously indicated to you,we will be in touch upon completion of our review. At this time the November meeting has been pushed out. We are not certain when the exact date for the rescheduled CC meeting date will be. As before, staff will contact you prior to rescheduling the CC meeting. Thanks for the follow up. 4 Stan Stan Donn,AICP, Project Manager City of Chula Vista, Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Ph (619) 409-5953 Fx(619) 409-5859 Email sdonn(cD_chulavistaca.gov From: John S. Moot fmailto:johnm(a)sscmle aq I.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:32 AM To: Stan Donn; Steve Power; Michael Shirey; Caroline Young Cc: Kelly Broughton Subject: RE: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash Stan, I have not heard back regarding our offer to meet or indeed the date in November for the hearing.The traffic engineer who did our primary analysis and determined a traffic study should be done can be made available, but we need some notice to coordinate date. John S. Moot Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley& Moot LLP Main 619.236-8821 johnm@sscmlegal.com From:Stan Donn <Sdonn@chulavistaca.gov> Sent:Thursday, October 04, 2018 11:58 AM To:John S. Moot<lohnm@sscmlegal.com>; Steve Power<SPower@chulavistaca.gov>; Michael Shirey <MShirey@chulavistaca.gov>; Caroline Young<CYoung@chulavistaca.eov>. Cc: Kelly Broughton<kbrouehton@chulavistaca.gov> Subject: RE: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash Hello Mr. Moot, Staff is in receipt of your October 3, 2018 letter concerning the Telegraph Canyon Road Wash N Go Carwash Appeal. Staff is in the process of reviewing the letter and will contact you upon completion of our review. Thank you, Sta n Stan Donn,AICP,Project Manager City of Chula Vista, Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Ph (619) 409-5953 Fx(619) 409-5859 Email sdonn(a�chulavistaca.gov From: John S. Moot [mailto:johnm(absscmlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:12 AM To: Stan Donn; Steve Power; Michael Shirey; Caroline Young Subject: Bisharat appeal of Wash-N -Go Carwash 5 Attached is letter in which we are requesting a meeting to go over the analysis prepared by a traffic engineer retained by Mr. Bisharat. As I indicated previously Mr. Bisharat is scheduled to be out of town on October 23`d but both and the affected neighbor are available for both November dates. John S. Moot �� =f SCHWAR,TZ SEMEP,DJIAN Pt Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley&Moot LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 810 1 San Diego, CA 92101-8229 Direct 619.557-3531 1 Main 619.236-8821 1 Fax 619.236-8827 Los Angeles Office 310.550-8857 johnm@sscmlegal.com www.sscmiegal.com Additional offices worldwide through our affiliation with LEGUS. Contact our office for more information. www.leguslaw.com This message is intended for the addressee only and is privileged and confidential. Interception or other unauthorized use is prohibited. If you receive this message in error,please notify me by reply-email and immediately delete copies from your records. 6 8/17/2018 New Submisslon 010 CITE' OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF CHULA VISTA f REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS i 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA 91910 Phone: (619)691-5041 Fax: (619)585-5774 cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov( to:c ycer @chulavlstaca.gov), PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT(GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6250 ET, SEQ) YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED WITHIN 10-DAYS OF THE STATUS OF YOUR REQUEST. To expedite your request and to eliminate opportunities for error, please complete this form with as much detail as possible and Identify specifically the records you are requesting. Requests should reasonably describe Identifiable records prepared, owned, used or retained by the City of Chula Vista. If you need assistance with Identifying a specific type of record we would be happy to help (Government Code § 6253.1). REQUESTOR INFORMATION Name:* Date: 8/17/2018 Rod Bisharat �� Company/Organization: Email Address: . RT Bish Inc. r http://ovwobl,chulavlstaca,gov/Forms/publlcrequest?_ga=2.71792696.65122283.1534624571-1945598230.1634624571 1/3 8/17/2018 New Submission Address: Street Address 501 Telegraph Canyon Road..�..._,,.,..,.•.......,. ........_...�.._,..�...._.._._,._._....�..._,...,_...__,_..,�.�..._...._,...._._n...._w_..,.._�...,..,..._......___.-. City State/Province/Region ChulaVista.._.._....___..�.__........�........_.............,_......,,n..r._,.__. �A.._.....__._......_....,.__.......�............_,...._�........_.__..._..._._..... Postal/Zip Code 91910 ...__..___ti_...__._._...-._.....�.,._.�......._......__......_...._..._,_. Phone Number:* for my attorney, Mr. John S. Moot Fax Number: 619.236.8821 619.236.8827 REQUESTED RECORDS j Fire Inspection/Incident Records LJ Code Enforcement Records U Copy of Business License D Police Records CR Planning Records (Le, Zoning) EJ Financial Records `l+ Animal Control Records R.) Building Records(i.e. Permits, C.J Other(Describe Below) Inspections) DESCRIPTION OF RECORDS: (Please be specific.Add additional pages as necessary.) See attached Exhibit A re STP Wash'N' Go Car Wash CUP 15-0023 i l ' I .._........... ._...,._._....-...__.... _.......... . .. . ..... ..... .... . . .. ... -- For multiple records that cover a period of time please indicate: TIME PERIOD OF RECORD REQUESTED From: Not applicable To: DIRECT COST OF DUPLICATION: $1.00 FOR THE FIRST PAGE110¢ FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE `xi 1 wish to inspect the requested records. I do not want copies at this time. J I wish to receive requested records electronically. (Depending on file size and type of record some records may not be available for electronic delivery.) .I I wish to receive copies of requested records. Please contact me prior to copying if the cost exceeds: .J I wish to receive copies of requested records and I hereby agree to reimburse the City for the direct costf q'pTica`fi'oi1 In accordance with Gov. Code§6253(b). hitp://cvwebl.chulavlstaca,gov/Forms/publicrequest?_ga=2.71792696.66122283,1634524571-1946598230.1534524571 2/3 8/17/2018 New Submission Attorney for Mr. Bisharat Signature: Sign ` PRA Exceptions; Requests requiring computer programming will be charged a fee of the full cost Including overhead for the time to create such document or program. Requestor will be required to provide a deposit to cover estimated costs, as calculated by City Staff. Requests for these services must be made in writing. i Submit I i i htip;//cvwebl,chuiavistaca.goy/Fornislpublicrequest7,ya=2.7179259(1.66122283.1634524671-1946598230.1534624671 3/3 EXHIBIT A I would like to review any information or environmental document that addresses the issues raised by my appeal, a copy of which is attached to this Exhibit A. Specifically, any traffic study regarding the intersection at Halecrest and Telegraph and the ability to safely exit the site based on current conditions. Communication with Caltrans re exiting the car wash onto the dedicate freeway lane onto 805. Any analysis of the safety of allowing such an exit and any historical evidence regarding the original do not enter signs that were on the site and who asked that they be installed and if any permission was granted to have them removed. Any proposed redesign to address the noise issues effecting the neighbors directly adjacent to the proposed blowers and any noise study of the actual blower systems to be used. Soil testing locations and results and if any notification given to the County Department of Environmental Health regarding a change in land use of the site as well as any on site capture or discharge system for water on the site of proposed car wash. Lastly, any communications with the car wash applicant regarding the issues identified above. Please let me know when this information is available for our review. 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 ( Development Processing city or- CHUTA VISTA APPEAL APPLICATION FORM Appeal the decision of the: STA'ff USE ONLY . E3Zoning Administrator batetieceibed; Fee: Planning Commission Recelptu_: Lase Application Information Name of Appellant Rod Bishart Phone Address Business Address 501 Telegraph Canyon Road;Chula Vista,CA 91910 Project Address 495 Telegraph Canyon Road,Chula Vista,CA 91910 Project Description STP Wash"N"Go Car Wash CUP 15-0023 (Example: variance;conditional use permit,design review,etc.) Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are appealing.Attach additional sheets,if necessary. Grounds for an appeal must be based on at least one of the following: (1) Factual Error.The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving,conditionally approving,or denying a permit,map,or other matter was inaccurate; (2) New Information.New Information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available j through that person's reasonable efforts or due dillgence.at the time of the decision;or I (3) Findings Not Supported.The decision maker's stated findings to approve,conditionally approve,or deny-the permit, map,or other matter are not supported by the Information provided to the decision maker. In order for an appeal to be valid,detailed responses must be included which cite at least one of the above reasons for the appeal along with substantiation of the facts and circumstances on which the claim of theappeal Is based.If an appeal is filed within the time limit specified,and determined to be valid,it automaticall.ystays proceedings in the matter until a determination is made by the City Council, 1)Factual error-appiicanhpermitted an exit onto Telegraph Canyon Road.Caltrans/City previously precluded this when new entrance lane onto highway 9805 was constructed.Commission accepted closure letter as evidence soil at former gas station not contaminated. 3)Findings NOT supported. No CEQUA analysis done.Project permitted without traffic analysis or traffic study at an impacted intersection at Haicrest and Telegraph Canyon Road.Planning commission.failed to address, resolve Issues,or make findings regarding issues set forth In attached Exhibits A and 6 and how handling of on-site water would not contribute to off site migration from contaminated soils. Appeal Form Directions Pursuant to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.14,an Interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission to the City Council.The appellant must be an Interested party,An Interested party-means a person who was present at a public hearing from which an appeal arose and who had filed a speaker silp with the decision maker at that public hearing, or a person who expressed an interest In the project in writing to thatdecision maker before the close of the public hearing or a decision on an action from which an appeal may be filed.The appellant must-file a complete appeal application form within the specified appeal period(10 business days after the decision has been made),complete the Disclosure Statement,and pay the required fee. Once a valid appeal form Is filed,the appeal will be scheduled for a hearing by the City Council within 30 days. Signature of Appellant Date. DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the; ❑City Council On Development Services Department City Clerk 1 of 1APPEAL 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista I California 91910 I (619) 691.5101 CHUyisrA Development Sex-vices Department Memorandum Date: February 11, 2016 To: Miguel Tapia, Senior Planner From: Rich Zumwalt, AICP, Associate Planner Subject: Planning Comments on Wash `N Go, CUP-15-0023/DRI5-0037: To complete the review of the project, the Applicant shall provide the following materials, information,or revised plans: 1. The Project requires preparation of a noise study by a City.-qualified acoustical consultant addressing potential noise impacts to the adjacent single-family residential and commercial properties to the north, generated by car wash equipment. The study shall also consider the ambient noise from the I-805 Freeway and Telegraph Canyon Road traffic. See the attached list of qualified acoustical consultants. 2. The Project requires preparation of a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the site to determine if previous car repair use and demolition of the existing commercial building would have potential envirornnental impacts. 3. Clarify that this is a self-serve car wash, or if drivers exit their cars and wait. There is no waiting area or seating provided. 4. Clarify hours of operations and number of employees on duty during peak- periods, eakperiods. 5. Widen 1-way internal driveway on west side to 15 feet minimum for 1-way driveway, Ensure that internal driveway intersection is designed to allow vehicles to make a right turn. If fire truck access is required through this driveway, it must ` meet minimum Fire Department driveway width, turning radius and other fire access requirements. 6. Identify the location and clearly label the vacuums, pay booth, car drying area, car wash equipment location including washer and dryer, and any other facilities or equipment on the site plan or floor plan, as applicable. 7. If the car wash is automated and customers do not exit their vehicles, the required parking should include a minimum of 4 spaces for the office, 1 space per on-duty employee, and one space for each vacuum, if proposed. In lieu of parking for customers, the queuing area should be extended to 100 feet. Vehicle stacking cannot obstruct driveway access and adjacent streets. The plans show 15 parking 1 a . A-MkCA/thn,c4j j 1 spac(:.S'. w1licl.1nwcll '18 !)(,)S, I a CO11,,pJyi11g �V' ll 8. T110 IS 1ARdCJ',13iZ(:,d. clIC1U5t!t'CS C'01111)ly with City standard drawing already included o.n. Sheet ik--2- Also, see the GOITIMents froni the Public Works - RecycLing/Solid Waste Division for details. 9. Provide upgraded decorative fences along the westerly property line and a zoning wall (solid masonry wall orstucco fence) along.the northerly property line. 10. Clarify how the car wash water will be recycled. 11. The site is located at a prominent location, so the architecture and landscaping should be upgraded. Consider adding additional articulation to the long car-wash tunnel wall facing Telegraph Canyon Road, such as, but not limited to, a variable wall plane that includes vertical elements such as pop-outs, inset planters, a roof cornice, and variety of colors and textures. In addition,please provide landscaping at the base of the building to soften the transition from the walkway to the building wall. 12. There is a potential traffic hazard from, project traffic merging with freeway on- ramp traffic directly onto Telegraph Canyon Road.. The Land Development Division recommends that the driveway access to Telegraph Canyon Road be reviewed and approved by Caltrans and the City Traffic Engineer. 13. Because the site is adjacent to the on—ramp to 1-805, and the driveway opens onto the freeway on-ramp, Caltrans review is required. As of the date of this letter, Caltrans has not completed their review of the plans. Staff will provide their comments once they are available. 2 CIP(OF Developi CHULAVISTA `)ervices Department February 15, 2016 Jorge Gonzalez Dear Jorge, Subject: Wash 'N Go,.CUP-I 5-0023/DRI 5-0037; Account#DQ-3107 The, Development Services Department has completed the first review of the Project referenced above. The application requests approval of a Design Review and Conditional Use.pelrnit to construct a 2',860 sq. R-, automated carwash bu*lldjng with an office and 15 parking spaces, The Pr6ject site is located at 495 Telegraph Canyon Road in Chula Vista. The Project site is designated Professional Office/Commercial (CO) by the City's General Plan, and is zoned Central Commercial-Design District (CCD). The purpose of this letter is to summarize the significant project issues and identify a course of action for the processing Of Your Project. This letter contains detailed review conmaents from staff representing various disciplines and outside agencies, which are included as attachments to this letter. These agencies include the Planning Division, Building Division, Land Development Division, Landscape Architecture Division, public Works-Recycling and Solid Waste, and Sweetwater Authority. The Plans are also in the Process of being reviewed by Caltrans and the City Traffic Engineer, and staff will forward those comments to you as soon as possible If any additional requirements should arise during the subsequent review of your project, we will identify the issue and the reason for the additional requirement. To resolve any outstanding issuesi please provide the information that is requested in this Issues letter and attachments. If YOU choose not to provide the requested additional information or make the requested revisions, processing may continue. Howevel-, the project may be recommended for denial if the remaining issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved and the appropriate findings for approval cannot be made. As Your Project Manager, I will coo.rdinate all correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, arid meetings directly with the.applicant's assigned "Point of Contact". The addressee on this letter has been designated as the Point of Contact for your project. Please notify me if you should decide to change Your Point of Contact while I am managing this project. REQUIRED APPROVALS/FINDINGS 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 1 '"vw-chulavistaca.gov Pago 2 Jorge Gon-r I.e:z 2/15/16 the project proposes co"struction of a. 2,860 sq, ft. automated carwasll building �,vhicil rcq�.iires approval o" COtI(I'tlonal Use Permit and Design Review (DRC) Application., pursuant Co Coning Ordinancerequ.ireiateilts. Because the project requires construction of a new building, the Municipal Code requires that the .Planning Commission consider the Conditional Use Permit at a public hearing. Because the project proposes less than 20,000 square feet of floor area, processing of an Administrative Design Review .A.Pplication is permitted. The Municipal Cbde also requires that the consideration of both permits be consolidated for processing and reviewed by one heating body for-the permit at the highest level, which for this project is the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, a public hearing before the Planning Commission is required for both permits. In order to recommend approval of your Design Review permit, certain Design Review findings must be substantiated in the record: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the development regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and other applicable regulatory documents; 2. The design features of the proposed development are consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying the City oj'C'hula Vista Design and Landscape Manuals ®� In order to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the followin jp findings must be made and substantiated in the record: A. 7hat the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desh-able to pro v.de a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community; B. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or worldng in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specied in this title for such use; D. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. II. SIGNIFICANT PROJECT ISSUES: The significant project issues are summarized below. Resolution of these issues could affect your project. Key Issues: Develo>Jment Services Department/Planning Division Comments: Pacc 3 . lose CJonxalcz 2/1_V 16 I.. "file Projcct reclaires pcepa u atIon 0Ca noise study by a City—qualified aroj.istical consultant addressing;potential noise impacts to the adjacent single-family resideriti.:1l anti comimercial properties to the north, generated by car wash equiprncnt. The study shall also consider the aii�bient noise from the I-805 Freeway and Telegraph Canyon Road traffic. See the attached list of qualified acoustical consultants (Attachment 7). 2. The Project also requires preparation of a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the site to determine if previous car repair use and demolition of the existing commercial ironmental impacts. See the attached list of qualified building would have potential env acoustical consultants (Attachment 8). 3. Submittal of a Preliminary Environmental Review application and fee of$2,800 is required to process the above technical studies. See the attached application(Attachment .9). 4. See the memo dated February 11, 2016 for other Planning Division comments (Attachment 1). Land Development Division: 5. The Land Development Division recommends that the driveway opening directly onto Telegraph Canyon Road be reviewed and approved by Caltrans and the City Traffic Engineer prior to project approval, and the plans are in the process of being reviewed. Staff will forward those comments to you as soon as possible. ,See the attached checklist date 1/5/16 for other. Engineering comments. Please contact Associate Engineer Chester Bautista 619-476-5332 if you have any questions. See the Issues letter Attachments for additional comments and corrections from the Building Division, Landscape Architecture Division, Public Works-Recycling and Solid Waste, and Sweetwater Authority. III. TIAMLINIE: Please review this letter and attached memos carefully prior to correcting- and resubmitting the revised plans. Upon your review of the Issues letter, you may wish to schedule a meeting with staff and your consultants prior to resubmitting the project. Please contact me if you wish to schedule a meeting with staff. During the meeting, we will also focus on key milestones that must be met in order to facilitate the review of your proposal and to project a potential timeline for a hearing date. If no meeting is required, please submit a letter of response including the requested information. Your next review cycle should take approximately 21-30 days to complete. In order to continue the timely processing of your project,,please submit any requested information and/or materials no later than 90 days from the date of this letter. Please note that CVMC 19.14.700 requires that a development permit application be closed if you Page 4 Jorge G'or.Olcz 2/15/t6 fail to submit Or VCSUbtnit requested ina -i'lls, iu.tonnation, fees, or deposits withill 90 calendar days. 01.lct, closed, ttic application, Plans and other data subrriltted, f)1. e, - view may f destroyed. To reapply, you are required to Submit a new may be returned to you or desh I development permit application with required submittal materials, and will be subject to all applicable fees and regulations in effect on the date the new application'is deemed complete. If you wish to continue processing this .project, any delays in ct resubmitting projects and/or itting proj a or responding to City staff's inquiries negatively impact this Department's ability to effectively manage workload, which can lead to both higher processing costs and longer timelines for your project. IV. PROJECT ACCOUNT STATUS: Our current accounting system does not provide for real-time information regarding account status, however, our records show that there was a positive balance of$14,891.00 in your account as of December 31, 2015. Work on the project is on-going and additional charges to the account incurred after the above date `will be included on the next statement, which will farther reduce the balance. Your attention to keeping the account balance positive is critical to continue processing of the project and is greatly appreciated. You can expect Monthly statements with the break- down of staff charges to your account. Should you have questions about those charges, please feel free to contact me directly. V. RESUBMITTALS/NEXT STEPS: When you are ready to resubmit, please contact me to schedule an appointment for a re- submittal. Re-submittals may also be done on a walk-in basis, however you may experience a longer than desirable wait time. In either case, please check in at the Development Set-vices Department Counter to be placed on the customer service list. At your appointment,provide the following: A. Plans and Reports: Provide 4 sets of revised plans. 'rho plans should be folded to an approximate 8 '/2 x. 11-inch size. B. Issues response letter: Prepare a cover letter that specifically describes how you have addressed each of the issues identified in this letter and the attached memorandums. You may choose to format the responses in matrix form with the issues identified in the Issues Report and a written response as to bow you have addressed the issue. If the issue is addressed on one or more sheets of the plans or the reports, please reference the plan, sheet number, report or page number as appropriate. If it is not feasible to address a particular issue, please indicate the reason. Include a cony of this Issues Letter and your response letter if applicable with each set of plans. V1. STAFF REVIEW TEAM: Should you require clarification about specific comments from the staff reviewing team, please contact me, or feel free to contact the reviewer directly. P U�; JVI�C G0117.a(e'/. 2/t5/16 a� For modifiicatiom to the project scope, submittal requirements or questions regarding any of the above, please contact me prior to resubmittal. I may.be reached by telephone at (619) 691-5255 or via e-mail at rzuinwalt(a?,ci.chula-vista.ca tis. If I am not available, please contact Senior Planner Miguel Tapia at (619) 691.-5291 or by e-mail.at zeta is �cLchula-vista.ca.us Sincerely, Richard Zumwal ,AIC Associate Planner Development Services Project Manager r Enclosures: 1. Planning Division Memo dated 2/11/16 2. Building Division Memo dated 2/2/16. 3. Land Development Division Checklist dated 1/5/16 4. Landscape Architecture Division memo dated 1/21./16 5. Public Works-Recycling and.Solid Waste comments dated 1/13/16 6. Sweetwater Authority Letter dated 12/30/15. 7. Qualified Acoustical Consultant List 8. Qualified Hazardous Materials Consultant List 9. Preliminary Environmental Review Application cc: Neil Capin, Miguel Tapia, Senior Planner