Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/09/26 REVISED AGENDA MEETING OF THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 26, 2007 City Hall Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Planning Commission: Felber Vinson Moctezuma Bensoussan Tripp_ Clay ton_ Speth man_ PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 28, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. Public Hearing: PCC-07 -11; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a fast-food restaurant with drive- thru at 919 - 945 Otay lakes Road. Applicant: Robit Marwaha. (Quasi-Judicial) Continued from September 12, 2007 Project Manager: Maria Muett, Associate Planner 2. Public Hearing: PCM-07-05i Request to amend portions of the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Village Core Master Precise Plan to allow for relocation and reconfiguration of the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way. Applicant: Brookfield, Shea Otay LP (Legislative) ..~-_._----_.._-~ Planning Commission - 2 - September 26, 2007 PCS-07-02; Request to revise Otay Ranch--Vtllage-E~even---.---- Tentative Subdivision Map: (1) relocating the Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and; (2) relocating the pedestrian easement to the village pas eo from across the center of the CPF-1 site to the northern property line adjacent to the Private Recreational Facility (PRF) site. Project is located at the easterly terminus of Birch Road and Discvery Falls Drive Applicant: 8rookfield, Shea Otay L P (Legislative) Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner 3. Public Hearing: PCC-06-095: Conditional Use Permit review for "A Taste of Italy" Restaurant, to receive public comments regarding compliance with the conditions of the November 29, 2006 approval, and specifically regarding the hours of operations and the serving of alcoholic beverages in the restaurant and on the outdoor patio dining area. Project is located at 1771 East Palomar Street, Ste. 1, southeast corner of the East Palomar Street and Santa Cora Drive. Applicant: Steve Abbo (Legisl.tive) Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Discussion of consent calendar for the Planning Commission. COMMISSION COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: To a regular Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 2007. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. 6:00 p.m. March 28, 2007 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California ()/'Ij "'N~_ Introductory Remark! S ~of' "'7l ~f' ROLL CALLI MOTI ~~ - )n'~ Members Present' ~~ h?/~6y dAia S(:) h . '.Jt:J ~ ~ ~~/~ "Y/, /:S /tIo1 ~ 2. PUBLIC HEAF .!;; ~ . ~ e rrrcn._~.. '_ CALL TO ORDER: I, Bensoussan, Clayton, If the Urban Core Specific tions. Cmr. Moctezuma recused herself from the dais due to a conflict of interest with owning property in the Urban Core area and stated she would refrain from speaking as a private citizen. Cmr. Bensoussan as well, recused herself from the dais due to a Conflict of Interest because she lives within 500 feet of the study area, Ann Hix, reported that this item is before the Commission after having been heard on October 11,2006. A Public Hearing was held and public testimony was heard, however, there were concerns about Proposition 90, therefore, the hearing was continued until after the election. Since then, Proposition 90 failed. Staff has reviewed and analyzed the comments made at the October hearing and made some minor changes to the UCSP, making it an even better and easier plan to implement. The hearing tonight will be followed in a month on April 26 by a public hearing before the CVRC, RDA and the City Council for consideration on the final adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan. The City's dynamics have changed dramatically with unprecedented growth in the east and as the second largest city in the County with a population of approximately 225,000, expected to reach 300,000 by the year 2030. Western Chula Vista has only experienced sporadic growth with an over-abundance of underutilized commercial -"--. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 28, 2007 areas. Fortunately, development interest in the City's urban areas has been on the rise. The General Plan Update acknowledged this interest and momentum and focused a lot of attention on the west side of the City. At this time, however, the interest is not in growing further out, but rather, up. The UCSP provides the new tools needed to implement the 2005 General Plan vision of a re-invigorated urban core, which would be accomplished through new Mixed-Use zones, comprehensive planning, encouraging private market investment by providing certainty in the development process, and by generating new tax increment to fund public facilities and infrastructure. It's been a five-year planning process to get to where we are tonight that has included extensive public participation and input, first with the General Plan Update and then with the UCSP process. The public will continue to be involved once the plan is adopted through the required review of individual projects through the CVRC and RAC process. Mark Broeder, a Principal Planner with Downtown Solutions gave and overview of the extensive public outreaches and input that went into the planning process since its inception in 2004. Mr. Broeder stated the proposed UCSP strikes a balance taking into consideration the desires of the neighborhood, business community and developers. The Plan changes the old approach to planning for cars. Instead, the UCSP focuses on balancing scarce land resources between pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and cars. The focus was to provide key linkages along major streets and neighborhoods through pedestrian promenades, bikeways, with connections to the bayfront and the community to the east. In the northwest, attention focused on the Urban Core's nearly 700 acres primarily along Third Avenue, the business corridors along H Street and Broadway and adjacent older residential neighborhoods. The 2005 General Plan designates a large portion of this area for Mix Use. This designation replaces the more tradition single land use designations with a combined designation that allows commercial, office and residential to co-exist, as a way to invigorate urban life, creating a more vibrant, walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment. Along with Mixed-Use is a desire to link High Density housing around Transit, known as Smart Growth. Additionally, stepping away from the traditional planning approach where the function or internal use was the focus, and instead emphasizes building form over function. The UCSP encompasses three major zoning districts; the Village, the Urban Core, and Corridors, The urban form of Third Avenue was established through the General Plan and would be implement through the UCSP. The General Plan calls for predominantly low-rise structures with mid-rise allowed. Mid-rise means buildings up to 84 feet with a caveat that they include step-backs in order maintain the pedestrian realm that is so important. ---~---,- Planning Commission Minutes .3. March 28, 2007 The UCSP envisions a gradual change along Third Avenue, from a predominantly first- floor offices, to more retail uses in order to create a livelier 24-hr. street environment. Although the draft plan allows existing ground-floor offices to remain as legal non- conforming uses, once a space has been vacated for 18 months or more, the new use is required to be retail. This has raised concern from businesses along Third Avenue and from the Third Avenue Village Association for fear of a loss of income if new retail tenants cannot be found. The request to increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the corridor districts, minor increase in FAR better aligns with the urban form and intensity policies describe in the General Plan, An increase of the FAR from 1.0 to 2.0 could improve neighborhood walk ability. Mary Ladiana presented an overview of the Plan. Ann Hix stated the UCSP is the first in a series of significant zoning changes proposed to implement the vision of the General Plan including revitalization of western Chula Vista. It will rezone approximately 690 acres with new Mixed-Use zoning, allow more comprehensive planning beyond the parcel to parcel level, encourage private market investment, generate tax increment for public infrastructure, and help move away from an era of further decline and disinvestments and decay. Staff Recommendation: to approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Urban Core Specific Plan and related zoning actions. Public Hearing Opened. Evelyn Heidelberg, speaking on behalf of Earl Jentz stated that it is their belief that the Final EIR is inadequate in that it fails to discuss the conflict between the UCSP and the Cummings Initiative. Comments to that effect were made, but the Response to Comments amounted to no response. Second, in response to the truth of those comments, staff is now proposing amendments to the Cummings Initiative. Third, significant modifications have been made to the UCSP that have not been subject to environmental review. It's our contention that those recently proposed changes just before you in the agenda report should be subjected to additional review under CEQA. The Response to Comments states that information in particular sections of the EIR provides the basis that the UCSP is consistent with the Cummings Initiative; none of the cited sections provide support for that conclusion. One of the cited sections proves that the UCSP violates the Cumming Initiative, specifically Section 5.8.6 of the Final EIR admits that UCSP will result in significant unmitigated transportation impacts in the form of acceptable Level Of Service along Third Ave. between E and G Streets. There are with restrictions on rezoning residentially zoned property. The Response simply says that a response will be forthcoming, CEQA requires a written response to comments to any significant environmental issue. When staff later responds, their Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 28, 2007 comments underscores the decreased level of services on 3rd Avenue between E and G. Second, it identifies three intersections at which significant unmitigated traffic impacts would occur if the UCSP is implemented. Third, the analysis of CVMC 19.80 contains a broad admission that implementation of many of the circulation system improvements needed to accommodate the growth under the UCSP, quote "cannot be assured at this time". Lastly, the analysis of CVMC 19.80 is incorrect in concluding that the restrictions on rezoning do not apply at all to the UCSP because they do not include modifications from/to zones listed in the 19.80.07 schedule. Betsy Keller, stated that she was there to express support for the UCSP. The time has come for us to develop and experience a vibrant downtown area. We owe it to the residents of Chula Vista, their families an their grandkids, the merchants, the building owners, the consumers, and the developers, who have been waiting for the passage of the UCSP so that they could have some direction and move on it. In addition, Ms. Keller read into the record an email sent to her by a 3rd Ave merchant (Susan O'Shanessey) in support of the UCSP and urging the Planning Commission to recommend its approval. Jackie Lancaster revitalization is one thing; plopping a metropolis on top of us is another. Most West Chula Vistans continue to not want to live in or near high-rises. Our plea is don't destroy our communities just because you consider your vision superior to the vision held by apparently a majority of the citizens. The UCSP has numerous flaws therefore I urge you to not adopt it. Thank you. Bill Hall stated that the Urban Core-Specific Plan has been a long time coming and it is absolutely time that it be adopted. Community Development and City Staff have done due diligence with the citizens of this city; I haven't seen a better example of open government. I strongly recommend that you carry forward a positive recommendation to City Council to rapidly adopt this fine Urban Core Specific Plan, Tom Salvestrini opposes a few items on the Plan; one being the traffic impacts at J and Third Avenue being unmitigated. The other item that I oppose is the 65-foot height limit. My property could potentially abut a 65-foot high building and that would not be good and a 65-foot structure behind our house with a 20-foot setback is unacceptable. If you're going to do it, give us 40 or 50-foot setback. Tier the backs also. Planning Commission Minutes .5. March 28, 2007 Stan Wyler thanked staff for all of their hard work over the past few years and urged approval on this project. Tom Money stated he started his real estate business on Third Avenue in 1970 and there's been talk about redevelopment since then. You've got to have people living in the core if you want businesses to thrive. I commend you for eliminating the requirement that you only can have retail offices on the first floor. Historic Third Avenue was lowered down to 45 feet along the east side, but not along all the west side; from F to G Street is still 84 feet. An 84-foot building destroys the idea of a village. The height limit from F Street to G Street on the west side should be lowered to 45 feet to match the rest of it. A second choice is to have it all 84 feet. The third choice you have is to leave it like it is. And that's the worst of all. If you want to try and save Third Avenue, then make the area between F and G Street 45 feet so the whole street has a chance to retain that historic look. If you don't think it's worth saving then make the whole street 84 feet. Further south along Third Avenue to J Street, the UCSP calls for 60 feet. Right behind that is Del Mar Ave. That block, between I and J, is the most beautiful street in all of Chula Vista. If you allow 60-foot buildings there, that's going to completely destroy the ambience of that street. And my choice is I hope you also lower between F and G to 45 feet. James Brown stated that he's a developer that wants to come to Chula Vista; his firm specializes in urban infill projects that puts people living above shops. Growing up in Bonita, he remembers Third Avenue as being a vibrant downtown, however, that changed when large horizontal commercial center such as the one on H Street were built and Third Avenue became down-trodden. In the past few years there's been attempts to enliven the streetscape, and it's looking quite beautiful, but until you get the people living on top of those shops and the dedication to the pedestrian over the vehicle, it's not going to be maintainable. I'm strongly in favor of the plan. It's a very good plan and one of the most conservative plans that are possible, because it's modeled on the way that cities used to be. Connie Mihos stated she is the record-keeper for the Northwest Civic Association. Over 200 residents voiced their concern to the former Mayor and Council requesting them not to go over 45 feet, and to keep Chula Vista a charming downtown. Planning Commission Minutes .6. March 28, 2007 I don't think there's anyone in West Chula Vista that wouldn't like to see revitalization take place, but not at the expense of destroying the historic feel to downtown Third Avenue. Tina Zenzola Executive Director of Walk San Diego stated they've been working with Chula Vista for about the past two and a half years to improve walk ability and looking at some of the policies. We have some concerns with the details of the urban form in terms of building design and architecture. I think we've missed some of the details with the walk ability piece. And so I want to outline three major concerns. One is the design of the sidewalks and the combination of putting bicycle lanes on sidewalks. The plan says there are going to be 16-foot sidewalks, but part of it is a sidewalk, part of it is a bike lane in the middle of the sidewalk, and then part of it is considered parkway. The real cruxes of a walkable community are to make the sidewalks wide and make the streets skinny. If you look at what's proposed, it says very wide sidewalks, but in the details of the public realm design guidelines it says that the minimum sidewalk width is four feet. For a wheelchair to pass a pedestrian on a four-foot sidewalk means somebody has to get off the sidewalk. We would like to see an increase from 4 to 5 feet width for sidewalks. Greg Mattson stated that the Urban Core Specific Plan needs to be approved as soon as possible. I support the current revisions presented by staff tonight, and request the planning commission to recommend moving the UCSP and the EIR up to city council for approval. The business associates also have put forth a recommendation that Landis and Church and Garrett streets, which are the parallel streets to Third Avenue, be allowed some kind of retail commercial on those transitional streets. Ken Wright spoke on behalf of the Northwest Civic Association as their vice president, stated V2 and V3 between F and G Street should be 45 feet. We should revise the parking requirement to make it consistent, which is one and a half space for a studio and one bedrooms, and two spaces for two and three bedroom units. Ensure that there is a program in place for the historic preservation implementation program. Lastly, having a walkable city is a great thing, however, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it will all be geared toward pedestrian traffic and not enough parking is provided . Planning Commission Minutes .7. March 28, 2007 My recommendation would be that you should consider holding off voting on this. There are issues related to the EIR and other design issues that need answering. Patricia Aguilar stated she was speaking on behalf of Crossroads II. Having served on DRC and the Planning Commission, it was standard practice that where there were changes to a draft environmental document, the staff report would include a statement to the effect that the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed those changes and has made a determination that no further environmental review is necessary as a result of those changes. That statement was not included in this report and she wanted to know if indeed the environmental review coordinator had reviewed the changes and determined that there is no further CEQA review necessary. If so, where is that documented in the public record? Mary Ladiana responded that the review of the changes were made by staff and the Consultant, Recon, We were very mindful as to the modifications that were being made and provided substantiation as to whether or not the changes were in keeping with both the General Plan, the UCSP and the Final EIR. Density and growth are not the problem; its about whether this plan will protect the charm and character of northwest Chula Vista as we grow, There are three choices; you can recommend to Council approval of the UCSP; recommend denial of the UCSP; or you can recommend approval of the UCSP with modifications. The latter is our recommendation. Crossroads II has a number of modifications: 1. Encourage redevelopment but at the same time protect the qualities of northwest. 2. The ability to increase building height by five feet. By allowing an increase of five feet in a higher than normal floor to ceiling ground floor, you allow another story. That's in conflict with the general plan and we oppose that. 3. One of the intents of the general plan was to protect the R1 zone property. (the R1 areas south of H Street between, between Broadway and 1-5), This is a well-maintained, single-family neighborhood, which straddles UC10 and UC11; we believe it should be removed from the plan, the same way that Holiday Gardens and the mobile home parks have been removed. 4. Maximum allowable height in sub district C1. The two corridor districts on the two ends of Broadway has a height limit of 45 feet. The corridor district on the south end of third, has a height limit of 60 feet. It seems that where we want to have the density is on the north end of Broadway, which connects Chula Vista to National City. Planning Commission Minutes .8. March 28, 2007 5. The parking requirements; we think that the simplest thing to do is just incorporate the same parking requirements that apply to the rest of Chula Vista. Lastly, H Street conceptually in the plan is called for as having lots of courtyards, but when you look at the actual setback requirement, those courtyards will not occur. So we think that there ought to be a 15-foot front yard setback required for all development on H Street between Third and Broadway to require these courtyards to actually implement the concept of the plan for H Street as a boulevard. I'm Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, The plan does not guarantee healthful location of new housing. The science is very clear that it is a very unhealthful place for children, the elderly and people with compromised respiratory systems to live within 500 feet of a freeway. There should be an exclusion lone. The Air Resources Board issued a land use guidance document stating that we should not be putting housing within 500 feet of a heavily trafficked road The second area is around energy. Buildings are about 43% responsible for 43% of the emissions that are causing global climate change. And yet, nothing in this plan requires anything above the minimum efficiency standards, which are baseline here. We can do better. The last thing, I would just say, we don't support the new exemption language. We think exemptions should only be allowed by an elected body that's accountable directly to the public in implementing the plan. Jerry Livingston, Building Industry Association stated he was there in support of the Urban Core Specific Plan, and encourage its adoption. However, there are some areas of concern; one being over parking. If we are going to be going to an urban setting, we should not be encouraging suburban-style parking, especially the recommendation to going back to the requirements that are in the code. Part of the goal of an urban setting is to have less auto traffic, and one of the ways you do that is by having less opportunity for cars to move from one spot to another. We did recommend that you reduce the visitor parking from, one to ten, to one to thirty. Recommend that you have a more limited number of requirements for parking in terms of one and two bedrooms, these should be one parking space, and three bedrooms, 1.5 parking spaces. We do support the idea of a consistent review, coming back to see whether or not the goals and policies are actually encouraging the development that you're looking for. We're concerned that the cost associated with doing the kind of development that you're Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - March 28, 2007 asking for won't be born by development here as it has been in the experience of the eastern portion of this city. My name is Lisa Cohen, CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. The Chula Vista Chamber's supports the Urban Core Specific Plan. The Chamber represents over 1,000 businesses and their 27,000 employees, The Urban Core Specific Plan will stimulate and encourage the building of valuable projects in our city. The Chula Vista Chamber respectfully asks for your support of the Urban Core Specific Plan. I want to thank city staff for all their time, coming out to our committee groups and explaining the importance of getting to a thriving western part of Chula Vista. My name is Paula Perry, J Street, 271 J Street. I did not even know that there was an Urban Core Specific Plan or a General Plan, till last summer. I found out in August, when a developer came by our homes and wanted to buyout our homes, I oppose the 65-foot height cap and believe it should be maintained at 45 feet, additionally oppose reducing the parking requirement. Charles Moore, President of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, supports the UCSP as presented to you today. The plan will work with appropriate step-backs and creative innovative urban design. Richard DeScoli representing the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors stated he supports the UCSp, These height limits that we're bringing down to 45 feet, 65 feet. Right now, there is no height limit. So you're actually taking away rights of some property owners to build things on their properties that before they would have been able to get past. My name is Tina Modina. We bought into the idea of redevelopment in our neighborhood so that our children's community would be a usable and prosperous community, the way it was when we were growing up. This means that we can shop, eat, live, and work in our community. The urban core areas are in desperate need of attention. I support the Urban Core Specific Plan and I urge you to do the same. Gordon Carrier, architect with Carrier-Johnson, stated he was there to express support for the Urban Core Plan and to thank city staff for working so hard over the last few years. Through the collaboration process, it seems the city has developed a plan that reflects an appropriate balance of community character and economic opportunity. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - March 28, 2007 One area that could provide some improvement is in the incentive portion of the plan. You're proposing to give an increase in ftoor-area ratio if certain milestones are achieved in environmental building standards. This certainly makes sense, because the city and, and all of us want to encourage projects to be built in an environmentally sensitive manner. Uh, but to achieve the desired result of a vibrant community, lid ask the city to look at a couple more incentives. Number one, encouraging employment-based uses. Employment-based uses in the urban core will help keep activity in the community on a 24/7 basis. Residential development activates a street in the morning and evening. Employment-based uses help activate the streets in the middle of the day, The combination of both, makes for a dynamic environment. Our recommendation is to add an incentive for employment-based, based uses. The incentive would be to bump AFR by .5 to 1.0 if you build a project that is at least 50% employment-based, Le. non-residential. Joanne Hatfield representing Earl and Karen Jentz, Environmental Consultant from the Planning Center, 1580 Metro Drive, Costa Mesa. We were hired by Mr. Jentz to conduct an adequacy review of the environmental documentation for adequacy and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In summary, we concluded that recirculation of this EIR is required, because the revisions to the Specific Plan are substantial and have not been analyzed or disclosed. My impression of the revisions to the projects are that they are substantial, and we don't know whether there would be significant impacts. I donlt think the environmental process right now is defensible. I donlt think it complies with CEQA. I wouldn't comment one way or another on the merits of the Specific Plan itself. My opinion as an environmental specialist is that the environmental impact for these changes were not analyzed. Alex Beaton with Citimark Development. 71 B Street, San Diego stated he lives in high- density housing where he walks to work, restaurants, does shopping and recreates. High density housing limits traffic, I am a developer and can say that having additional height makes projects happen, and unfortunately, limiting that will make projects not happen. Glen Googins stated he was representing Jose Cortez with respect to his interests in properties located at 311 to 325 G Street, all of which he desires to be included within the B3 subdistrict of the Urban Core Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes . 11 . March 28, 2007 The upper half of Mr. Cortez's property is already recommended for approval and inclusion within the V3 subdistrict; the lower half is not. What we're seeking is a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council that the entire area be included within the V3 district. Although the Urban Core Specific Plan covers vast areas of land, there are not many development opportunities where you've got property that's large enough to develop. A property owner may have the capacity to develop his property in a high-density area should not be taken for granted. Mr. Cortez is proposing a multi-family project with descending floors. Five stories closest to the proposed larger building, stepping down to four stories, and then to three stories, immediately adjacent to a, what would remain an R3 district, and what it's currently improved, with a two-story, multi-family building. The problem is that unless the entire property is included within the V3 district, this project cannot be built. The current line is immediately down the center of Mr. Cortez's property. This project fits within the context of the general plan. It also fits within the context of the Urban Core Specific Plan. Stella Sutton, owner of Stella's Restaurant on Third Avenue, stated it is imperative that revitalization take place by attracting new businesses and attracting people to move into an urban mixed use setting; she gave her enthusiastic support to the UCSP. Jeff Kuhn stated he and his wife moved to Chula Vista about 7 years ago because they saw the beauty of western Chula Vista. They are committed to investing in upgrading their home in the hopes that they made the right decision to buy here and that the downtown area will become a vibrant walkable, revitalized destination. He urged the Commission's support of the UCSP. Emily Stone stated she is in support of the UCSP and was very thrilled to see that mixed use was going to come to Chula Vista. Glenn Googins stated he was representing Bay Scene Mobile Home Park, which is also representing the interests of Terrace and Cabrillo Mobile Home Parks. Bay Scene is disappointed that the mobile home park properties, including their property, is not included in the Urban Core Specific Plan. The exclusion of the mobile home park properties is extremely significant and creates kind of a patchwork of sizeable properties that are in ideal locations, many of which were, were proposed for redevelopment at significant densities. High densities at these sites is where the affordable housing is going to happen in the west side. And without these properties included, the vision that was set forth in the general plan, will not be complete. Planning Commission Minutes .12. March 28, 2007 We would like the Planning Commission to consider in their recommendation to City Council that as soon as the mobilehome relocation ordinance update process is completed, that these properties be brought back immediately for inclusion within the Urban Core Specific Plan, either at the densities and development intensities that were proposed in the draft plan, or potentially, even at higher development intensities as appropriate in the different areas to provide affordable housing opportunities with high density on the west side. One last comment when I look at the maximum development percentages for the primary land uses on the various zoning sheets, it's not clear to me how that would be applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis. I would like to read a provision, and I would like to add to clarify how these percentages would work on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The primary land use maximum percentages intended, are not intended to be strictly applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Rather, if appropriate to the parcel, primary land use maximum percentages may be exceeded, so long as in the aggregate, district-wide primary land use percentage maximums are maintained, and that all other district development standards are complied with at the site. For purposes of determining a particular site's maximum FAR, no primary land use percentage or combination of percentages shall ever exceed 100%. Public Hearing Closed. Cmr. Tripp stated that based on the comments made regarding the adequacy of the environmental document, does staff believe that the EIR is adequate and sufficient? Mary Ladiana responded, yes. One of the things that staff was very mindful of when looking at some of the comments that were made through the public process was whether or not they would trigger a potential for recirculation. Staff wanted to stay within the realm of what the EIR looked at, because this is a programmatic long-range zoning document, it's a form-based zone as opposed to a regular zone. Some of the changes that were made, such as FAR, lot coverage, those were not specifically analyzed on a parcel-by-parcel basis for all 5,000 parcels. What we were looking towards, is what the general plan assumed for these sites. When we did the EIR, the traffic was based on what the general plan land use projections were. So a change in lot coverage didn1t necessitate a change in the overall projected build-out. Cmr. Tripp noted that the plan talks about use with later activities and that subsequent activities in the program are examined in light of the programmatic EIR, and may require further environmental review down the road at the appropriate time when they're proposed. Cmr. Vinson asked for clarification as to whether or not the proposal presented by Mr. Googins to add Mr. Cortez's property to V3, was feasible. Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - March 28, 2007 Ms. Ladiana stated that there are three separate parcels, and the one parcel that we recommended go to the V3 was contiguous with the parcel just immediately to the north that is part of an office building. It formed a nice square. The other two lots, as you move west on Parkway, are really adjacent to a lower density development, and we thought that the break really was at the lot that we drew. So there are three separate parcels, and they could be developed as one project. Cmr. Spethman had a question regarding Mr. Carrier's recommendation for incentive for employment-based uses, inclusion of ground-floor retail, and the FAR be exempted. Is that something that can be included in this tonight, or is that something that needs to be looked at under different circumstances? Mary Ladiana responded that those are something that we could modify if the Planning Commission is so inclined. They were not evaluated on a project-specific level because we don't know if people are really even going to use them. So it's something that could be mod ified. Mike Shirey stated that with respect to the public's comments raised in the draft EIR and the way staff handled those responses, his office would have preferred to have the proposed changes to the plan be reflected in the final environmental documents. A discussion ensued regarding the adequacy of the record and whether the Planning Commission is able to make a recommendation to Council based on the documents that they've received, Cmr. Felber stated he has concern with parking and is hesitant in recommending that the present parking requirements be lowered. Additionally, although he supports the pedestrian/walkable community concept, he is a little concerned with having bicycles and pedestrian traffic in a sidewalk MSC (Tripp/Spethman) (5-0-0-2) recommend approval with 1 parking space for 1 bedroom and 2 parking spaces for 2 and 3 bedroom; also to include Mr. Cortez property to be included in the V3. Motion carried with Cmr. Bensoussan and Montezuma abstaining. Item No. 1 ~I ft.. -.- ~-.... "-~~ --- CIlY Of (HUlA VISTA Department of Planning and Building Date: September 19, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: , Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Via: Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager Steve Power, Principal Planner Subject: PCC-07-011/IS-07-06 - Consideration ofa Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a fastfood restaurant with drive thru service at 919-945 Otay Lakes Road- ApplicantIRohwit Marwaha Backeround The Planning Commission met on September 12, 2007 to consider the request for a Conditional Use Pennit for drive thru service associated with the proposed fastfood restaurant, in accordance with CVMC Section 19.34 (drive-thru services within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone). The Planning Commission primarily expressed concerns with the proposed location ofthe menu board, pedestrian accessibility across the walkpath within the drive thru lane, and adjacent parking spaces. The Planning Commission requested the Design Review Committee consider these issues when reviewing the proposed fastfood restaurant, prior to their consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for the drive thru lane. Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the project to September 26,2007 for consideration of the Conditional Use Pennit. The Design Review Committee met on September 17,2007 and considered the proposed project and concerns ofthe Planning Commission. The Applicant presented to the Design Review an alternative site plan reflecting the menu board closer to the drive thru window, as suggested by the Planning Commission. The modified site plan also called for enhanced landscaping and reversal of the trash enclosure area with parking spaces #5 and #6. The Design Review Committee recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07 -06) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and voted (3-0-0-1) approving the proposed project with the alternative design. The Design Review Committee recommended against any demarcation of pedestrian pathways to the existing center and across the drive thru lane, as previously recommended in DRC conditions of approval. The Applicant and City staff provided comments from the project traffic consultant indicating agreement with the alternative design and identifying no new impacts. Staff has made an additional correction to the attached draft Planning Commission Resolution as requested by the Planning Commission by removal of condition #32 (duplication of Section V). Conclusion The proposed project with the alternate parking design is back for consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for drive thru services associated with the proposed EI PolIo Loco fastfood restaurant, in accordance with CVMC Section 19.34. A modified site plan is being provided to the Planning Commission that depicts changes made to address pedestrian safety. The Design Review Committee has approved the attached alternative site plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution adopting the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-O? -006, and Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-O?- 011, with modified site plan, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Planning Commission Resolution. J :\Planning\MARIA \PCC\EI Polio Loco\PCC-07 -011 CoverMemotoPCMtg92607 .doc CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 5T A TEMENT Item: 1 Meeting Date: 09/12/07 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-07-011; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a fast-food restaurant with drive thru at 919- 945 Otay Lakes Road - Rohit Marwaha. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building REVIEWED BY: INTRODUCTION: This is a request by the applicant, Rohit Marwaha, for approval of a fastfood restaurant with drive- through service at a proposed EI Pollo Restaurant within an existing shopping center. BACKGROUND The project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission per CYMC Sections 19.34.030, (see Attachment 6, CYMC Sections). The project also requires approval of Design Review Permit (DRC-07-014) for site improvements, including building development and architectural features. The project is tentatively scheduled for the September 17, 2007 Design Review Committee meeting for consideration and decision. A neighborhood public meeting will be held on September 6, 2007 at the Bonita Vista High School. The results of the meeting will be provided at the Planning Commission Meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed El Pollo Loco project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07 -006 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the overall project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS 07-006, (see Attachment 3, Mitigated Negative Declaration), PCC-07 -11 Page No.2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-07-0ll, adopting attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-07-006, and approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-07-011, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolution (see Attachment 2). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On July 16, 2007, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that Initial Study IS-07- 006 for the Project was adequate, and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-07-006 (see Attachment 4, Resource Conservation Commission Minutes). DISCUSSION Proiect Site Characteristics: The 0.73-acre project site is the last building pad of an existing shopping center that has been in existence for more than twenty years, (see Attachment 5), The project site is located on the eastside of Otay Lakes Road, between Gotham Avenue and Apache Drive, (see Attachment 1, Locator Map). The building pad is approximately 32,000 square-feet. The topography of the site is essentially flat and surrounded by the existing commercial center's paved parking, landscaping and internal circulation system, (see Attachment 7, page C2A). To the south of the site are multifamily residential uses (military housing). To the east behind the existing main portion of the shopping center, are single-family residential land uses. To the north, a gas station and continuing north are single-family residential uses. To the west, across Otay Lakes Road, are multi-family residential uses and a junior college (see Attachment 1, Locator Map). Proiect Description: The project consists of an approximately 2,200 square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive- through service to accommodate 6-8 vehicles, an outside eating area to accommodate 9-11 tables and 15 parking spaces. Hours of operation for the restaurant are Monday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The improvements also include landscaped areas, garden walls, walkways and path connections and signage. The building and a 3-foot high garden wall will surround the outside eating area. Compliance with Development Regulations: The project site is located within the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designation. PCC-07 -11 Page NO.3 General Plan CY Municipal Code Zoning Existing Land Use Site Commercial Ret~il Neighborhood (CR) Commercial (CN) Shopping Center North Residential - Low Single Family Medium Density Residential (R-l) (LM) Single Family Residences Commercial Retail Neighborhood (CR) Commercial (CN) Gas Station (located on adjacent parcel) West Residential- Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residences Medium Density (R-3) (Military Housing) (M) Residential- Low Single Family East of Commercial Center are Medium Density Residential (R -1 ) Single Family Residences (LM) Residential - Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residences Medium Density (R-3) (M) Educational Facility Junior College Public Quasi (PQ) South East Note: Adjacent land uses are from the overall commercial center boundaries, instead of the project site boundaries, ANALYSIS DISCUSSION: In recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission, staff relies on the following general code sections and points: Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.34.030: According to the City Municipal Code (CYMC), Section 19.34.030 (1), drive-in, take-out and snack stands in the CN Zone require a Conditional Use Pennit. Fastfood Restaurant and Drive-through Services: Stacking Drive-through services have the potential to create stacking and traffic hazards, The proposed drive-through lane has the ability to accommodate up to maximum 8 vehicles in accordance with City policy, therefore, accommodating vehicle stacking and facilitating commercial center traffic PCC-07 -11 Page No.4 flow. In addition, through project design and sufficient distancing from the project's primary access, vehicle backups and stacking onto Otay Lakes Road are avoided, therefore, not creating traffic hazards and traffic delays. Drive-through Circulation By building placement and drive-through lane design, vehicles using this service can smoothly integrate into the center's traffic circulation. The majority of vehicles entering the drive-through lane will enter off the southerly access along Otay Lakes Road. Vehic1es will then exit the drive- through and enter interior parking areas to the north, circulate within the commercial center and exit out the northerly driveway access along Otay Lakes Road, or proceed north exiting onto Gotham Street. Either circulation patterns can occur without creating an interruption or alteration to the existing center's traffic flow, Thus, the proposed drive-through lane circulation will not significantly impact or impede the commercial center's operational activities. Parking The existing commercial center site contains 285 parking spaces. The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CYMC) Section 19.62.050 requires 15 parking spaces minimum for fast-food restaurant uses, including drive-in, take-out and snack stands, (see Attachment 5, CYMC Section 19,62). The proposed 15 parking spaces surround the proposed project area consisting of existing and new parking spaces. The proposed project meets the City Parking Code requirement of 15 spaces. In addition, the commercial center has a reciprocal access agreement with its tenants, Traffic In order to assess potential traffic issues, a traffic study and circulation plan was submitted in support of the environmental document, Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 07-006. According to the traffic study and analysis, the existing commercial center and adjacent street segments with the proposed restaurant and drive-through use can continue to operate efficiently in the existing fashion without creating any major interruptions to the existing traffic flows or circulation patterns nor cause any new parking or traffic conflicts. Dtay Lakes Road Widening Otay Lakes Road is currently designated as a four-lane prime arterial according to the General Plan Update Circulation Element. It is a four-lane divided roadway with an existing median ranging near the project site from Apache Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. The City of Chula Vista currently proposes and has funding for the widening of Otay Lakes Road from four lanes to six lanes in between Telegraph Canyon Road and Canyon Road. This City Improvement Project is due to start in Fall 2008. The project has been designed with the widening project in mind and the applicant is required to comply with the roadway delineation and improvements as part of their project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Conditions of approval are included that will ensure compliance with the City requirements. Noise The project review included a noise report that addressed all noise generated by the proposed fast food restaurant. This also included the proposed outside eating area, drive through vehicle service, and menu board. The project was detennined to be consistent with the City Noise PCC-07 -11 Page NO.5 Ordinance. Noise issues were all analyzed and mitigated to less than level of significance. Refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 07-006, (see Attachment 3, Mitigated Negative Declaration). Menu-Boards Typically menu boards are associated with drive through services. The proposed drive through service includes a freestanding menu board. The noise study analyzed the menu board and as a result of the noise measurements' taken, it was determined that the noise source was not a significant impact to disturb the surrounding residential uses or other sensitive receivers. As noted in the noise study and in accordance with CYMC Section 19.34 and City Noise Ordinance, business operations including the menu board are limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p,m. Traffic Noise The proposed outdoor eating area adjacent to Otay Lakes Road could be exposed to a potential noise level of 75 CNEL and from mechanical equipment. The edge of the outdoor eating area is located 55 feet from the centerline of Otay Lakes Road. The ambient traffic noise level at this distance generates a level of 74 CNEL. The combined ambient traffic and mechanical equipment noise level to the eating area will be 74 CNEL, less than the City's maximum CNEL standard of 75. No significant individual or cumulative noise impacts to the outside eating area or other sensitive receptors (residential) will be created by the proposed project. Therefore, no physical barriers such as noise walls between the commercial and residential land uses or protective noise barrier around the outside eating area were required. CONCLUSION: The intent of a future fast food business was originally anticipated in the earlier Master Plan for the existing shopping center. Typically, fast food restaurants include menu boards/drive through services. The proposed project will create additional synergy to the existing shopping center with additional commercial services to the surrounding neighborhood compatible within the intent of the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zone. The project will include attractive building architectural features and. onsite improvements that will not only enhance the existing commercial center site but also compliment the surrounding commercial and residential areas. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with and implements the goals and intent of the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zone and General Plan Update. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution adopting' the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-07 -006, and Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-07-011, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Planning Commission Resolution, (See Attachment 2, Planning Commission Resolution). DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries ofthe property, which is subject to this action. PCC-07-11 Page NO.6 FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts from the preparation of this report and the processing of the Conditional Use Pennit and the Design Review. All costs are covered by the deposit accounts. ATTACHMENTS Attachments 1 Locator Map 2 Planning Commission Resolution 3 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 Resource Conservation Committee Meeting Minutes 5 Existing Commercial Center Site Plan 6 CVMC Sections 19.34 and 19.62 7 Project Plans 8 Ownership Disclosure F onn Prepared by: Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department J:\Planning\MARIA\PCC\EI Polio Loco\PCC-07 -011 staffreportdraft8132007EE.doc Bonita Vista High School Chevron Gas Station Multifamily Residential (Navy Housing) Southwestern College r CHULA VISTA BUILDING DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND - LO~!OR PROJECT EI Pallo Loco PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: MISCELLANEOUS I' " PROJECT Project Description: Proposing CUP to construct new 2,200 sq. ft. EI I College Plaza ADDRESS: Polio Loco fast food restaurant wId rive thru lane located on existing SCALE: FILE NUMBER: parkway on the Southwest comer of Parcel. NORTH No Scale PCC-07-011 Related cases: IS.o7.oM n~(' Jl7 - U J:\planning\carlos\locators\pcc07011.cdr 08.10.07 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 07-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-07-011, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, IS-07-006, TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A FASTFOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH SERVICES AT 919-945 OTAY LAKES ROAD, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) ZONE. WHEREAS, on August 23, 2006, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-07-011) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by Rohit Marwaha ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the application requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment and operation of a drive through service for the proposed fast food restaurant (EI PolIo Loco) ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is an existing 0.73 acre sub-parcel within the College Plaza Shopping Center at 919-945 Otay Lakes Road in the CN, Neighborhood Commercial Zone ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07 -006 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, IS-07-006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS 07-006); and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building set the time and place for a hearing on the Conditional Use Permit application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the 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 September 12, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was continued to September 26, 2007 and thereafter closed. ATTACHMENT"., Resolution Page 2 of9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it finds that, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of this proceeding, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS 07-006), which is on file in the Planning and Building Department, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and that the Project's environmental impacts will be mitigated by adopting of the Mitigation Measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the Owner and/or Applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS 07-006. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it makes the following findings: 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the project will allow the applicant to provide food services to residents of the surrounding neighborhood being of the same character as the existing retail businesses and services, used and needed in the surrounding neighborhood community. The neighborhood is developed with existing retail and performing service businesses, and this project will include architecture and landscaping that will improve and enhance the frontage of the commercial center and blend with the image of the neighborhood. Its location is desirable for provision of fast food services because the site is in a highly visible and conveniently accessible location. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The building has been designed and sited so as to not impact the nearby residents. In addition, the buffering provided by the southern wing of the existing commercial center, proposed building and business operations have been conditioned to avoid or minimize potential impacts to nearby residents. The outside eating area is located on the opposite side of the building so as not to interfere with vehicle or pedestrian traffic to and from the restaurant. The outside seating area and the drive through service area will be visually enhanced by architectural features that blend with the existing retail center and landscaping enhanced so that it will have a aesthetically pleasing and attractive effect. The property owner shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. The business activities including drive through/menu board operations will be conditioned within the CVMC regulations. Therefore, such use will not be detrimental to the surrounding residential property owners or employees of the retail center. Resolution Page 3 of9 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed drive through service use is consistent with the requirements of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zone, and the project conditions of approval require the operation to be in continuing compliance with all applicable city codes and regulations. The drive through services is part of business operations and in accordance with CVMC 19.34.170, Hours for Conducting Business, no business activities will be allowed between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and 7 :00 a.m. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. This Conditional Use Pennit is in compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, . land use designations listed therein. The proposed CUP permits drive through services, which are consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zone and Commercial Retail (CR) General Plan land use designation, and therefore will not adversely affect the implementation of the General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, that based upon the findings above, it hereby approves the Conditional Use Pennit (PCC-07-011) subject to the following conditions: I. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City, prior to issuance of building permits, unless otherwise specified: Planning and Building 1. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a Design Review Pennit (DRC-07-14) for the new fast food restaurant building. Use and reliance of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon approval of DRC-07-014 and satisfaction of DRC conditions of approval applicable to the drive through area and services. 2. The Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning and Building, and the City Engineer the mitigation measures identified in the El PolIo Loco Restaurant Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 07-006) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. If circulation or parking is compromised or negatively impacts other tenants of the shopping center, additional conditions and/or restrictions may be imposed on the project to remedy the problems. Planning and Building Department staff will review the project one year after operation begins to ensure that such problems do not exist. 4. The fast food restaurant and drive through services/menu board shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.34.170, Hours of Operation. Resolution Page 4 of9 5. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building pennit, the Applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ-1374. 6. The Applicant shall provide an approval letter from the property management company for the shopping center approving the design of the plans and usage of parking spaces, prior to Building Permit approval. 7. Building Permits shall be required for any structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing alterations. Building plans shall comply with 2005 Handicapped Acessibility requirements (SB 1 025), Energy Requirements and the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Plumbing code (CPC), and 2004 California Electrical Code (CEC) requirements. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Building Official approved plans or written evidence of approval from the County of San Diego Health Department. 9. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a sign pennit for each sign, including drive through service area, by the Planning and Building Department. Signs shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 19.60. 10. Any deviation to the approved plans for the drive through service area shall require the approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit, and any other associated discretionary review, by the Zoning Administrator and Environmental Review Coordinator. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a final soils report to the Building Official for review and approval. Engineering Department 12. The Applicant shall pay the following fees based upon the final building plans submitted: a) Sewer Connection and Capacities fees b) Development Impact Fees c) Traffic Signal Fees d) Additional fees, in accordance with the Subdivision Manual, will be necessary, if submittals of grading plans and/or improvement plans are required. 13. All on site sewer and storm drain system facilities shall be private (including maintenance) and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution Page 5 of9 14. 15. 16. Any grading plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review. The grading plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The grading plans shall be in confonnance with the City's Subdivision Manual and a grading permit will required prior to issuance of any building permits. The grading plans shall conform to the City Storm Water Management requirements. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, a final drainage study and geotechnical/soils study is required with submittal of grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. Any offsite work will require letters of pennission from the property owner. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department to perform the following work within the City's right-of-way; sewer lateral connections to existing public utilities, construction of curb, access, gutter and sidewalk with proper transitions to existing conditions and installation of driveways in accordance to Chula Vista standard design standards, CVCS-lA, all utilities service the proposed project shall be underground and connection from the public sidewalk to the restaurant entrance, and installation of pedestrian ramps, if any. 17. The Applicant shall dedicate right of way along Otay Lakes Road to meet future dimensions of the road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit final construction plans for the project indicating the delineation of the widening of Otay Lakes Road to the City Engineer. The construction plans for the project must show the limits of the current and future right-of-way for Otay Lakes Road. 19. Applicant shall treat any private surface flows prior to entering a public right of way. If such treatment occurs in a street inlet then the Applicant shall provide a funding mechanism for perpetual maintenance prior to building permit approval. 20. The Applicant shall apply for a Construction Stonn Water Management Plan (CSWMP) for Private Development/Redevelopment Projects, which is regulated and included in the Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards Requirement Manual. A copy shall be maintained at the construction site for the duration of construction activities. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the CSWMP or any additional BMPs required by a City Storm Water Compliance Inspector shall be implemented throughout the construction phase. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Technical Report and comply with all NPDES requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Water Quality Study shall include full implementation of required Best Management Practices to reduce the amount of pollutants entering the City's storm water conveyance system. Resolution Page 6 of9 22. 24. 25. The project is a High Priority Development project. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The Applicant shall comply with the City Municipal Code noise standards, Chapter 19.66 and 19.68. If the project does not meet the City's Municipal Code Noise Standards and Thresholds, the City may revoke or modify the pennit. This permit shall expire in one year after termination of the restaurant use, unless another restaurant occupies the site and is found to be consistent in nature with the previous use. The Zoning Administrator shall review this conditional use pennit for compliance with the conditions of approval and shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant, whether the project needs to be modified from its original approval as part of the consistency findings and in confonnance with Section 19.14. II. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the project site as long as it relies upon this approval: 26. The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit shall be applied to the subject property until such time approval is revoked, and the existence of this approval with conditions shall be recorded with title of the property. 27. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building pennit issuance. 28. The project site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans, which include site plans, floor plans, landscape plans and elevation plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 29. Any deviation from the conditions of this Conditional Use Pennit shall require the approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. 30. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this pennit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Applicant and after the City has given to the Applicant the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Applicant of a substantial revenue source which the Applicant cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover, 31. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their tenns, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to Resolution Page 7 of9 be so implemented and maintained according to their tenns, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, 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. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this pennit may also result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. 32. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold hannless 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 fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit and (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated on the project site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. The Property Owner's and Applicant's compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property Owner's and Applicant's successors and assigns. 33. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. Resolution Page 8 of9 III. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the Property Owners/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building pennits and/or business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant Date IV. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their tenns, 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 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. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Resolution Page 9 of9 V. INV ALIDITY: AUTOMATIC REVOCATION . It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Resolution and the Pennit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of September 2007, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Bill Tripp, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary J:\Planning\MARIA\PCC\El pono Loco\PCC-07-011PC Reso - El pono Fina1.doc Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: El PolIo Loco Fast Food Restaurant PROJECT LOCATION: 919 Otay Lakes Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 642-170-10 PROJECT APPLICANT: Rohit Marwaha CASE NO.: IS-07 -06 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: June 11,2007 DATE OF RCC MEETING: July 16, 2007 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: July 19,2007 Prepared by: Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner and Ann Pease, Associate Planner Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the draft Negative Declaration are denoted by underline. A. Project Setting The 0.73-acre project site is a portion of a shopping center that has been in existence for more than twenty years (see Exhibit A - Location Map). The project area consists of a leased area of 32,000 square-feet in the south portion of the site on Otay Lakes Road. The topography of the site is essentially flat, and currently contains paved parking, landscaping and lighting, with public access off Otay Lakes Road (see Exhibit B - Existing Site Plan). The entire project site is intended to provide continuous circulation between the shopping center and the restaurant, and provides just a minor increase in the number of existing parking spaces currently provided. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows: North: South: East: West: Commercial Center Small section of parking lot/Residential Commercial Center and residential Community College B. Project Descrintiml The project proposal consists of the addition of a 2,200 square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service for a maximum of six vehicles, a dining patio, trash enclosure and a total of 24 parking stalls, intended for shared parking with the existing shopping center. Hours of operation for the restaurant are Monday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. until!! :00 p,m, The placement of the proposed building and outside eating area is located between Otay Lakes Road and the existing commercial retail building. The proposed kiosk fast food restaurant and drive-thru is aligned with the existing commercial retail building and adjacent to the existing southerly driveway. 1 ATTACHMENT 3 .._~-,._~._-- The project site is located within the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designation. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable Zoning Ordinance and the Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed project requires the approval of a Design Review Permit by the Design Review Committee and, in order to accommodate a drive-thru service facility, a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. D. Public Comments On March 5, 2007, a Notice ofInitial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended March 15,2007. No written. comments were received regarding the Initial Study. On June 18, 2007, a recirculated Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on July 18, 2007. One public comment was received at the counter that related to an existing business hour of operation within the shopping center. This issue was referred to Code Enforcement. Noise is addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that, with minor mitigation measures, the proposed project should not have potential environmental impacts. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Air Quality In order to assess potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed construction of the restaurant, an Air Quality Assessment was prepared by Scientific Resources Associated, entitled Air Quality Assessment for the El Pallo Loco, Chula Vista, dated February 22, 2007. The Air Quality Assessment analyzed both construction and operational impacts of the construction, including site grading, utilities installation, construction of the building and minor paving, and traffic. Thresholds of Significance . To determine whether a project would create potential air quality impacts, the City evaluates project emissions thresholds in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SQAMD) standards. In order to analyze potential emission impacts, the emission factors and threshold criteria contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were used. Short- Term Construction of the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on the ambient air quality. The minimal grading of the site, building construction and worker and equipment 2 vehicle trips will not create any temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, or other air pollutants associated with the construction activities. Therefore, air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are not considered significant. In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold criteria contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were used. Based upon the emission factors and anticipated construction activities it is anticipated that the proposed project will not exceed the SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels. A comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant was analyzed. Emissions were calculated using the' URBEMIS 2002 model. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 contained in Section F below would mitigate short-tenn construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Long-Term In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to the regional air quality plan. The proposed project once developed will not result in significant long-tenn air quality impacts or create conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan as summarized below. The minimal project generated traffic volume would not result in significant long-tenn local or regional air quality impacts. No area source or operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The traffic study indicated that the project-generated traffic would not result in a reduction of the Level of Service (LOS) at any of the affected intersection. Therefore, according to the Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Protocol, CO "hot spots" would not result from project-generated traffic and no significant ambient air quality impacts would result. HydrologylW ater Quality A preliminary hydrology report was prepared in order to assess potential hydrology/water quality impacts of the proposed project (Techno-Dynamics Consultants, Inc., dated June 12, 2007). The following is a summary of the report findings. Existing Conditions There is currently no on-site drainage system, however, a stonn drain main is located along Gotham Street and Xavier Avenue. The site currently flows in a southwest direction towards Otay Lakes Road, The site as it is currently developed contains paved parking areas with landscaped surfaces, The site currently consists of approximately 97 % impervious surfaces. The site has been divided into two drainage areas; area 1 consisting of grass landscaped 3 building pad area and area 2 consisting of parking area north side of the grass pad.. This area sheet flows off site via the parking lot and drive aisles into the driveway located northwest of the building pad onto Otay Lakes Road. Additional parking areas on the east and south sides of the grass pad sheet flow off site through the parking lot and drive aisles into the driveway located southwest of the building pad onto Otay Lakes Road. Proposed Improvements The project area is within a fully developed commercial site. The proposed project would remove some of the existing landscaping (predesigned pad area) for placement of the building. However, the project will be required to provide additional landscape treatments along the Otay Lakes Road frontage and designated additional landscape areas on-site. This will result in an increase impervious surfaces with an increase of 12,068 square feet. The anticipated drainage runoff rates for pre and post construction flows are 0.64 cfs and 0.81 cfs, a 27% increase. The post development runoff is not anticipated to be significant based upon the minimal difference in runoff rates. Proposed preliminary best management practices (BMPs) to avoid impacts to the stonn drain system include at the minimum sandbags, sediment traps, preservation of existing and increased vegetation, dust control, stonn drain inlet protection and other additional practices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Therefore, the proposal is not anticipated to result in the generation of significant additional runoff or create significant impacts. . Long- Term Conditions The project area is less than one acre and therefore the applicant will not be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under the NPDES Stonn Water Pennit. The project site is a High Priority Development project and subject to the requirements of the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would not be required. However, the applicant is required to complete and sign a Construction Stonn Water Management Plan (CSWMP) for Private DevelopmentJRedevelopment Projects included in the Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. Compliance with provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. R9-2007-0001 with respect to construction-related water quality BMPs would be required. A final hydrology/water quality study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans. Appropriately designed drainage facilities will be required at the time of site development. In addition, detailed post-construction storm water pollution best management practices (BMPs) will be required to be incorporated into the final grading plans and implemented throughout the construction phase to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Based upon the project design, conditions of the project, and mitigation measures contained below in Section F, hydrology/water quality impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significance. 4 -----,_. Noise In order to assess potential noise impacts of the proposed project, a noise study was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, entitled Noise Assessment for EI Pollo Loco Restaurant, City of Chula Vista, dated January 12, 2006 and addendum dated May 2007. The noise assessment analyzed the project with respect to the regulations contained in the Chula Vista Municipal Code (noise control ordinance). A copy of the noise study is available for review at the Planning and Building Department. Potential noise impacts were divided into two groups: temporary and long tenn. Temporary impacts were associated with noise generated by construction activities, and long-term impacts were further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the' proposed project and those impacts that occur at the proposed project site. Noise sources included short-term construction noise, rooftop mechanical equipment noise, and the drive- thru service area along with vehicle maneuvering, vehicle noise in the parking lot, and ambient traffic noise along the adjacent streets. Sensitive Receptors The closest sensitive residential receptors are located to the east of the project site, behind the existing commercial retail building. Noise measurements were conducted both onsite and offsite at the closest points to the nearest residential units and floor levels. The analysis revealed that the proposed project would generate potential impacts created by the rooftop and HV AC equipment. For further details, see Section Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise, Short- Term Construction Noise Pursuant to Section 17.2.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, construction work in residential zones that generates noise disturbing to persons residing or working in the vicinity is not permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, except when necessary for emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member of the community. Due to the presence of the adjacent single family residential development, this provision of the Municipal Code applies to the project and would ensure that the residents not be disturbed by construction noise during the most noise-sensitive periods of the day. . Long Term On-Site Noise Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC) equipment is proposed for the roof of the restaurant. The noise generated by the machinery could vary depending on the type and size of the mechanical equipment. Based upon the preliminary mechanical plans and lack of complete noise assessment due to unavailability of final rooftop mechanical plans, the study concluded that noise generated from the HV AC could exceed the City's noise standard. Therefore, the mitigation measures contained in Section F later in this report have been 5 included to mitigate HV AC/or rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts to below a level of significance. Traffic/Drive-thru Activity Noise According to the noise study, street traffic, drive thru activity, parking lot maneuvering could create potential noise impacts. However, after measurement testings and analysis to detennine the noise generated by these activities separately and when combined including ambient noise generated by the traffic noise, using the worse case scenario source at the Leq noise level of 65 dBA from a distance of 10 feet from the menu-board, located to the east, it does not create a significant noise impact. This level is 5 dB greater than the highest measured Leq to consider worse case scenario during the busiest periods of activity; frequency and greatest occurrences even with combined circumstances or activities. The proposed outdoor eating. area adjacent to Otay Lakes Road could be exposed to a potential noise level of 75 CNEL and from mechanical equipment. The edge of the outdoor eating area is located 55 feet from the centerline of Otay Lakes Road. The ambient traffic noise level at this distance generates a level of74 CNEL. The combined ambient traffic and mechanical equipment noise level to the eating area will be 74 CNEL, less than the City's CNEL standard of 75. Therefore, no significant individual or cumulative noise impacts to the outside eating area or other sensitive receptors (residential) will be created by the proposed proj ect. Transportation/Traffic To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the project development, a Traffic Study for EI PolIo Loco Restaurant dated December 20, 2006 was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers. Traffic analysis were defined as either project-specific or cumulative activities. The traffic study is summarized below. Existing and Interim Conditions The project site is currently accessed via driveways from Otay Lakes Road. Unsignalized and signalized intersections were studied based on the anticipated traffic circulation within adjacent and surrounding street segments. At the existing project conditions, most analyzed intersections operate and will continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) "D,1 or better, Most peak hour intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) "D" or better in accordance with City threshold standards, Otay Lakes Road is currently designated as a four-lane prime arterial according to the General Plan Update Circulation Element. It is a four-lane divided roadway with an existing median ranging from Apache Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. The street contains bike lanes and bus routes/stops. The City of Chula Vista currently proposes and has funding for the widening of Otay Lakes Road from the existing four lanes to six lanes from Telegraph Canyon Road to Canyon Drive. The traffic improvement-widening project is slated for commencement in 2008. Through project design and conditioning the applicant will be required to dedicate right-of-way along Otay Lakes Road to meet future dimensions of the road. The proposed project development plans and traffic study included the delineation and 6 future Otay Road widening as required by the Engineering Department. The proposed project will not be impacted by the proposed road-widening project nor will the road improvements impact the proposed project. Existing plus Growth and Proposed Project (Intersections) Key intersections were studied during the peak hour operations and accesses to the site from Otay Lakes Road, East H Street, Elmhurst Street, Gotham Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Mira Costa Circle/Apache Drive were evaluated. All signalized and unsignalized intersections will continue to operate at adequate levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The key intersections will continue to operate at LOS "D" or better in accordance with the City threshold standards. No significant traffic/transportation impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality 1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator: . Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. . Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. . Use electrical construction equipment as practical. . Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. . Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. . Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. . Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. . Pave pennanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. . Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available. . Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. . Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. . Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. . Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. . Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. . Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. . Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles . per hour. 7 Hydrology and Water Quality 2. The City Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans and hydrology/water quality studies comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Regional Order No. R9-2007-0001 and with respect to construction related water quality best management practices. If one or more of the approved post- construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary de silting and erosion control devices shall be installed. Protective devices will be provided at every stonn drain inlet to' prevent sediment ITom entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator. Noise 4. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction activities including demolition shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. 5, The applicant shall be required to comply with the mitigation measures identified in the noise study. If needed, temporary construction barriers shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planning and Building Department. 6. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a subsequent noise study for approval by the Environmental Review Coordinator demonstrating that the final roof-mounted HV AC and other roof mounted equipment complies with the City's noise control ordinance at the property boundaries of 50 dBA Leq (one hour) during nighttime hours and 60 dBA Leq (one hour) during daytime hours or ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 7. All rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners on the fast food building and other accessory buildings shall include appropriate noise abatement and be screened by a minimum five-foot high rooftop parapet that blocks the line-of-site view Tram the backyards of the nearby residential properties to the exposed roof and mechanical ventilation systems, consistent with the noise study dated January 12, 2007 and addendum dated May 2007. The noise barrier must have a minimum surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. 8 G. Agreement to hnplement Mitigation Measures By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator, Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental hnpact Report. ~oh; ~ Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) 16~l W ignature of Applicant (or authorized representative) ,... ~ 1.tM~ " ~ 1 2001 Date Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Power, Planning and Building Department Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager Department Ann Pease, Planning and Building Department Garry Williams, Planning and Building Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Division Jim Newton, Engineering Division Frank Rivera, Engineering Division David Kaplan, Engineering Division Sandra Hernandez, Engineering Division Khosro Aminpour, Public Works Department 9 David Kaplan, Engineering Division Sandra Hernandez, Engineering Division Khosro Aminpour, Public Works Department Gary Edmunds, Fire Department Justin Gipson, Fire Department Lynn France, Conservation and Environmental Services Department Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District Otay Water District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 05-01, December 2005. Hydrology Analysis for EI PolIo Loco, Chula Vista, CA and dated June 12,2007 (Techno-Dynamics Consultants, Inc). Traffic Study for EI PolIo Loco Restaurant, Chula Vista, CA and dated December 20, 2006 (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers). Noise Impact Analysis for EI PolIo Loco Restaurant, Chula Vista, CA and dated January 12,2007 and addendum dated May 2007 (Mestre Greve Associates). Air Quality Assessment for EI PolIo Loco Restaurant, Chula Vista, CA dated February 22,2007 and addendum dated May 2007 (Scientific Resource Associated). 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The 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 and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: -:; ll'i !o T I I J :\Planning\MARIA \Initial Study\El Po11o Loco\!S-07 -006FinaIMND.doc 10 PROJECT LOCATION Southwestern Community College CHULA VISTA BUILDING DEPARTMENT -' PLANNING AND LOCATOR PROJECT EI Pallo Loco PROJECT DESCRIPTION: F'\ APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY ~ PROJECT Southwest Corner of Project Description: Proposing PER to construct new 2,200 sq. fl EI ADDRESS: College Plaza Polio Loco fast food restaurant wId rive thru lane located on existing SCALE: FILE NUMBER: parkway on the Southwest comer of Parcel. NORTH No Scale IS-07-006 Related cases:DRC-07.14, PCC-07-011 J:\planning\carlos\locators\is07006.cdr 08.31.06 -~..- ""-"" ~tjV yj '1IS~ flnHJ 1J]1jJ,5 mHl~ aNY 1Jy()~ 53"" mD -:- OlO~d O~'ICINV IS OO~U 031jlOOri T"" OJOl OllOd l3 C,,) .-0.",.,....,.", _1" ~JI'..wmrJl'XdU DPI___1MII~_s.r\II .. - ... .. ----..... .-.................. ..._'0.lIl..,..._..... .. ii_OMIt. __ ,... ,. OIl . _1.......--....... .....-.--..- .---.....-... 1'14 ....... JNCItW..... .... ... YO 'ftDIIW NYld JIJS ~ -hh ii, , I PI'm Ilf RU .0. 1,-- !~h~~! i I : I n~~! I;i Iii IlIlii i _ J III n , g e . I . ! , ! oJ - Q l z <( -l a.. >- I- Z o > ~ i i . i ~ i ~ .; I c:c:;c:~ iii_ ~ ~ '" .. . 99, II ill.'" ... .'.:1 !I !!! ! 11~~n I; II .... ,b' ~ ~ .~. 1t ; ;, r:n. ~ . ! ~ I ;; ,. I 2 ;; I> I ! I . .~ Bs ~": .~ a 8. *:i~ Z zU:; .~ ~~~! oi..~ , s Q ~ i..!s!; ~ i 1;11 ;:i! 1;:1 u~i I . 5! id ~! ~liS ~I !H5U 1.;1 ;"" i5s8~a Q l ! 0 ~ g " \\) \~// (\ I ~\,,<; t-.., V 'I,.~ CoV\ l l ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) EL POLLO LOCO - 18-07-006 - - - This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed ShinnILynndale Place Tentative Parcel Map project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-07 -006) The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Hydrology and Water Quality 3. Noise 4. Traffic/Transportation MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation C~mpliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written fonn confinning compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-07-006. to the' Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-006, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to detennine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. . J :\Planning\MARlA \Initial Study\EI Polio Loco\IS-07 -006MMRPtext.doc E ro '- c .;: o :!: c: o ~ c o :;; ro :0:; ~ ,.. Q) - .c CO .... . . . . . . . . u OQ (II p.. .. o 'i: 0. c: o .. a. CO 'C 0) > cu 0. I'D o ... ....UI c:"O Q)I'D U 0 ro" .~u 'C ._ cu- ,c I!! :J Q)a. r.e: m 0 ~~ ... -I: ~ Q) .!:Q) ~o =:C CO Q) iij> c: 0 -... c Q) > Q) .. 0. o ... .... 'C o ~ ~ CO .s:: ~ g o:J ...: .- e: c: :J N=OO .-:J_.!: ...I'DQ1... m.!: > Q) I'D C)e! 0. ~c:-m ... ';: 'C Q) ro:JC:= c: "0 ro E .- ~ Q) !OUIO c: I c:N .;;; ~ CO 'C ,v o,c Q) E - ... Q) 'c:Ju ..0 Q) ... X u .!!! Q) U):J'Cm -U'C="O :JQ)0c: .. .. UI.- -o=~ -...co :J'C ~ co...'Cm .!:roC:O) ...OQ)U O).c a. ro >Q)m't: OO):J:J U':;CI)m 01 c: ~ >,:J >, == CD == U'C U C)~ C:'" ~.5~ro~ C:"'ECI~ co 0) c: o (I) 1:: ,- =.5 co c: co 0. C) 0.5 0. o.c:Q)~(I) (woc..o x x x 0) ... Ci5 ~ u c: Q) 0 .s:: .- (,)1) c:(I) cog. -e: c.._ z:. '(ij 'C UI (I) E .. Q) Q) ... .!: - ~ ro o 0. E 0) .... .... o 'C cu ' Q),g! -.c tIIl'D c:_ '~ ro 0) > _co 0... 0.'- ..oj Q) C ~=ti 0= 0.:J E.c 0C) .. e: ... .- >,... _ :J '0 'C .;: m ...... UO 0)'" -co 0) .. 0) Q) me: :J& Q) .c -U) iijco ,!;UI m c: .!!! .!!! 0) c: 0. C. (1)01 Ec:.. :;:: Q)=ti2 '5 ,== I'D E :J ::I';: O'.c a. ~"Oe c:Co. ot'tlo. .. 01 cu ~.~ d1 ._ 'C en ...co- E OJ ~ ~(I).s:: =:0"0 ~ ~ m 0';: cu ... c.... .- 0. C co ro . 01_ en C - (I) ._ ro ... ~ c: 0 .Qoe: _0 C ui ...~= (l)0! ,!;.!:Q) !-en'C . '0 "0 c: Q) Q)"O .!:Q) ...> "'CU COo. .... e: .E ::I o c: 0.0 en- II) Q) 0) > o ro u .. co- c:! C.g ...!: U Q) , :J>'C .=>.~ me:" e: co :J o U U~ 0 0)).0 .s::rom "''CCU ,!;~.s:: mOIll ro~Q) ~ r. ~ Qju't: >co:J ;;>Q)en .~ :c :J 0. 'C Q) . - II) (I) 0 > c: e!(I) -.. o .. ...:J c: 0 ,- 0 -0 ::I... 90 ~III co2 ... :J -c: Q).- :cE 'Uj 0 ';> (I') >'.E c:.s:: ro== (I) ~ > m 0- E Q) Q)~ a::iij e1li -"0 c: CU 8 e gg .- .c II):J eO. (I) 0 ...- 0) e: ....0 Q)- E.!!! 'C... Q)2 a.ro cE Q)). '0:: ern ::I.... II) 0 - Q) :J 'Co ._~ > III e cu c..~ cau c:= ".c II) :J co. ;;:.s 0... ....0 Q).- .so. 02 0.- ,.,.m ....1: UI 0 CU.- Qj'O .c2 -;Ui > c: CU 0 c.U .. CU Oc: ....- Q):5 N'- =~ :c.!: . co ... 2- _ro... U) 0. c: ).- Q) -Q)"O c.>ro o.CUo <(.=.. . . . . . . . ..; c: iij Q) U E ti 0. CU "0 '5 .. II) 0' 0. .. Q) II) Q) c: co ~ o 1: g, ; Q) I g E ~ ~ 0. '0 c: ::I III o 0' co (0)01 01 c: c: 0 E ~ 'E 2 II) Ui ~ c: c: 0 co U ... ~ tij (5 .g c. ... ~ g .Q a; II) Q) III m :J :J o ... 0) :c 'iij U) o C. m co ). ~ u 'S a- m CU U) . cu'" Q)II) ... :J co'C 'CO) Q).~ 'C:!: mOl ... :J 01'" 0) Q) N.~ =E .c .- m c: UJE .s 0) :c m U) o 0. m cu ). ~ o 'S 0' UI co m 'C co o ... ... I: 0) , c:'" m m E-6 Q) Q) o..~ Q) E >.- co.f c..E 'C Q) .. Q) ~ o 0. I Q) m 0) :a E ::I E '2 'E ro ~ ro...; c: m o :J ._ 'C 'OQ) ::I > .::E 11)01 c: :J 0'" UQ) Q) .~ :5E ....2 Q).- CUE ~.s ... o c: o :;::> ro . ..en 0):':: c.C: 0:J 11)'" :Jc 00) Q) E c: .9- co :J ==a- :J Q) .~ c: enO 0):;::> NO ._ ::I E'= ,_ en c: c: .- 0 :::!: u ... .E 'C ... ro ... 0) ... 01 c: 'E .. I c: o . -.... ... c: ~ 0) 'i: E .- c. Q)'- m :J :Jg .. .E c: o .. U :J 'C Q) .. .~ >...; -c ro 0) (;E 00. 11)'- I/) ::::J :Jg .... c: ctI '- :J co .... en Q) a:: "0 o o u.. .... C/) ctI LL o u o ..J .Q o a.. w E ro .... c 'C o ~ c .0 :E c o ~ ro ~ ~ 01 I: :E '5 >. a:!~ >. '0 (,) ::: 1::::' CJ- UIO I: 1:1: :::. Q).-Q) I:CJE~E ~f!: Q)!: ::C::IO.=IO 0.50.010. c..::: Q) I: Q) ~Q.owo 01 I: ~ ::::I>. CD~ >. '0 (,) ::: 1::::' CJ- Ut\1I:c:1: :::. Q).- Q) I:CJE~E 1110'S... Q)'" c:: .... c:: .... ::,.10._10 0.:;; 0.' CJ 0. c..::: Q) I: Q) ~Q.owo x 01 c:: :2 "5>. CD~ ~'C() .- I: :::. 01- C)ml:l:l: :::. Q).-Q) I:CIEmE ~.5t:Q)t: ::C::IO,=ro c.5c.Clo. c..::: Q) I: Q) <(Q.owo 01 CI c:: .= :2 :2 '5 >. '5 >. CD:::: CD= >. '0 () >. '0 C) o c:::' CJ-Ol::::' CJ- :::.m~'2~:::.m~'2~ ~~~!~l~~!~ Q,I:Q,CI Q,1:Q,CIo. c..!!! Q) c:: Q) c..!!! Q) c:: Q) <(D...OWO<(D...OWO x x x x X 't"" C) X X X - <"1 .c ~ CG Of) I- m p., .... t: ro .... :J ro ... I/j Q) a:: "C o o u. U; ro l.1.. o (,) o -.J .Q o D- W en ~. C ....J ::.' I: mQ) 10 Q) 'C __... ..c:Q) .- 0.10-05- -.c:. co o;=z.... Q)cij-; ~ Q) I:-....Q).......... _..c: :a 111 Q)-;::::I'O .-- IOI:'O~""'OQ) ~'O ....00......0::::1.... Q) E. 01 '81 '0 Q) .b co 0 c: _Q)-Q)....U)O'Q)cQ)1O ~ex:: ~'CU 0 C: ~::;.!!1 E OJ I;:::IO.2iE0 o.oC,Q)e G)~ ~I.I. c:: 4):: ~,~a.. ,I;....Q)I:O (/).c 0 0::::1 - 0 ex:: 0 II) .- = '1::" r::r CI ... ::: .- c: en 111 Q, ...., CD c:: t\1i1j 0'0 0Q..c: ,....:e fiC) ~2~~ en m I:'C 0 ~.... Q'- Ui . CD I: Q) g Q) g- ._0 1:111 IOc::Oc::..... ~U)r::oQ)5Q.o::::lC\!u.. > I: ra 0 o'-D... C.= E'C =.2cn ou'O~W!!! Q) S IOU) - ::::I~>."" \W ..c:'--o'" 10 ....CD... 0 0. 1/)~....05.U; UOIO~ .... .... 111 Q) _ I: c: .... II) ,- Q) 0.0 0.1: 0,2 CD 0 ~ 0 Q) CDenll)o-.r:.-r::- I:Q) CDE'O-r::O'- ._..c:o.... Ui::!....1I)05 CJ-......c: Q) o~ 0 E CD r::=c:=:C)o.U)r::Q)..o~ W '~ Uo ~ ~ 'C 5.Q 0 = I: >. ""111 Q) 013 r:: 100 =: >'>.0 E > ' 10 Q).c:;::o C)o..- I oUi....ElllCU Q) ErooUi C.o~ E c:g .c: 0::::10 Q) c.c.ro o'!!!'- f- () C'N.a ra !11 (/) () c.~ N ~ Ci5 ~ (,) r:: Q) 0 .c:;; C)O I:Q) 111~ -I: D..._ 01 I: I: . 'Cij ...:C '0.....:111 (I)'CCO....>. ~= !: .... 01::: co.!!!t:'CQ)()": o~.9E:;Q).9 0.'- (/) 0 r:::; ra E Q) ~-,-.... I: (1)..0 Q) U)'C 0:0 -->Q)Q)c.... ;:::"LV (I)::; 'O.Q g E.c:... n.Q)-n ....~m~ii:\)'" CDU)'C'i:E.!2~ 0. Q) Q) Q) Q).1fj Q) 0'0- ;;.- 01,>._ c .a ra ~ .5Q)~Q)=(/)a:: 'O'O....EroQ) t\1_ 0. O.r:..r:.-;;; .... 0 (/)... .w CJ.bQ)~I/)OC: 11II:.o_Q)-Q) ....O=c....IIIE o ()1OQ)::::Ir::c:: OJ I:..c: EI/)cu 0 OOI/)._IO'Q..... c._Ifj'CQ) 'S; 11I~Q)~Ecl: ::::I:;;.!:1_Q)Q)W ~"'>I:IfjE'C .-'C!Q)Q)Q)I: Q)C"">.c:> (tIQ)Q)f-ora ~ >~ ~i- 01.- 0. . 0. Q) Or::- E Q) _._(')0 EI: ....::::Q)...Q).-.- 0.---- CJ ._enOQ)III'Cr:: ....Q)....c>.c: a.. '0 a.. ._ Ifj ra W C") Q) - (j) ~ Oc Q) 0 .r:.;; UO I: Q) cu~ - I: Q.- Q) - (j) ~ () I: Q) 0 .r:.;; C)O I: Q) ra~ -I: Q.- >. _I: ":~G! OJ..... 10 1:0 c.....c: ........ :g 111:::1 Q)~"_ 5:;:1~ II) ....'0 (,)10 ~'->'IO _0 LL r:: :: 01 _0..0 ,. '0 ..c: Q) Q) Q) 0.'- .... Q) q .c: J!! :2 .r:...c: 10 0. ~ ~ co c.iij - ... Q) Q) 0 ~?-OU) cuEI1I m>~g_~8~ >~~5~ Q)~oQ)~~e;;oe<(-~ 10 ra Q)....'O :; ra 0.= ;::0 o.!!! E -mo. '3r::~=:; .'CEo .0'-....5'OW1! .r:..Q~ >''CU !!! g-Q)-'= ~~ ~ 8 oo~ ~ ()'O..om~ o....~'C~coO....Q)~~Q) 'C ..oc. Q)-:;CO....E....U).... - Q) 2'0 1:' .c: o.'u c.>'Q) Q)'- otD Q) ~~~O~ ~m~~~a~~~g~~~ ot:~~t'O Q)Q):J,l:o...~oll)-~g .....8~E.o C:=U;c:cuoU).9'O~~~... .. 0,0 >'J:Q)O 'OQ)IOC:!:'O""r:: ~i5.ro~ .o~~OI: ~~I1IC)c~! ~~~8'O i~g~c~g~U~5en.oE .-.o"C 1;:::>' t:o...o<e;..o:s ~~_~ra ;;'Q.~=~~t:o> >'010 ~-o'~'CE' ~Efi~~:e~C)I~!:.r:.""o ~ ~c 0 0 m-~ ~mQ) ~~I/)CUci ~o~ =0C'~~"~ U) cOr::.o ~o'Cf!C)....~,>-~e.~s o....c.oE ......Q)Q) 0~...1:._Q,:::0 ._ .- 0 10 ~._Q) "'::::I-.r:. _0 .= ci.o" '0.- t:~ ~::::Ie:: 0 0'Q)....r:. Q)o $Q)-ra_00 EE "'" Q)'C~o"" o~I:~....l:roi ~~~ ~ol::Oc ra::::lQ) om _~o_ E 0" m" Q) c.c-:s! I: :;:I:::: c: 0 0 ro CJ:::I _V'CO Q) oC~EQ)o- c>. _ - .... Q) . E .... III :::1.0 0 ~.... t: Q) 'i: CO ..: I:roC)_~~-Q)Q)o~u-~I::-Q)O::::l'CQ) o.co~ ~ ....:;:1 O~C:I1IEI:'C - ~~~ Q)ral/)..o::::l....ra-U)or:: ~ ~!11 - ~~'C-=(/)Ui~....=~I;:::~I:~I:~ ~c:~~'Ccororat:;;olO> ::::I-::::I~ ::::I::::IOor::::::II:.c:Q)OIO~.r:.I:Q)C'~O::::l a..~f..c:rocn~enE00~IIIW=Q)0.c:'O~ Li) (() ~ E ro ... c: 'i: o .... 'c: o ~ c: o :;::; ro :;::; ~ .... c ro ... ~ ro .... (IJ Q) Lt 'C o o LL .... rJ) ro LL o () o ....J .Q "'6 Q.. W o c: ~ '5 >. aJ= .?;-'t10 .- c:~ 01.... (..)coccc ~ 0).-0) ~g>>EQjE u.-t CDt :=C:m.5m c,5c,oc, c,~ CD c: 0) <a.OWO x >< ~ 4) >< 1"1 - .c 0 ca 00 (IS l- e. (I) .... (jj ~ u c: CD 0 l:::: (JU c: CD CIS~ -c: a._ CD 0) 0) ,C.....c: III "C (1).... '- c c,.... 0 . CU' CIS 0] c: Q)....=rnm(l) .c: c 'V "0 l: ... 0) c,......... ... cEc'~8= OCDO~""- rn ... ;: U "C ~ ...CUOIU(I)'" o).Qo,Clt)C: 61U"'CDO~ .- CD.c.c c'1II =IIICI...X'iij -g'o:CE(I)c: oC:ooQ)8 ~~ 0':= - ._IQ"I>OI/) . CIS 'i:: Q).~ ... e c&J "C a. 0).- II) 0) 0 c: E1: >.2!"'O CIS c,... (I) t ~N -o.E= 0) II)N' ~co~.!g.c:,.. IUCDEo"'o~ ...."C.- I 0.= t" ":JCCD_IUIU !/)-'-C:CU=;J c'gE=='Ec: E.- co CD C CD CIS :J= .e0)>"") c, IU ~.'" :E - "C c,l:.... It) It) cu CD ol/)"C~(I)u... ;:oa>U....2CU oc:c:.2>.m"C 0'- Q).Q.Q.c: > ...32Q)...~u"O :'50(00)(1)2 q:.cIll=cEIII o o 't1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,0 o o I r-- 9 UJ ~ ~ ~ -$. 'tj :;I ... UJ ~ ... '2 ~ ;; c' II) E c o ... ';; c ~ ~ c <: ""6ij c '2 ~ CI3 ~ -. r....: ~I~ -.- ....- ~-- -:.-::~~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM OlYOF CHULA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: Rohit Marwaha 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 7 Bluesail Cove Buena Park, CA 90621 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No. EI Pollo Loco Fast Food Restaurant May 21, 2007 IS-07 -006 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would ~eproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? o o o . b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o o o . c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? o D D . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o o o . Comments: a-b) The project site contains no scenic resources, vistas or views open to the public, and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway, therefore, there would be no impact to the aesthetics of the area. c) The proposed fast-food restaurant is located within a fully developed commercial/retail center and would incorporate architectural design and building height consistent with the existing structures. The project would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. d) The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CYMC). Compliance with these regulations would ensure that no substantial glare or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area. Miti~ation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In detennii1ing whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant enviromnental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) pr.epared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the proj ect: Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Fanruand, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? o o o . b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? o o o . c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFannland, to non-agricultural use? o o o . Comments: a-c) The project site and surrounding land uses are fully developed, consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated fannland. The proposal would not convert Prime Fannland, Unique Fannland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resom:ces would be created as a result of the proposed project. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. ill.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? o o . o Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 . 0 0 substantially to an existing or proj ected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 . increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? o . o o e) Create objectionable odors affecting a sub- stantial number of people? o o . o Comments: a, b-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. According to the air quality study, during construction, some nuisance odors and food preparation' odors may occur as a result of the proposed project. However, based upon the distance to the nearest sensitive residential receptors and the temporary condition of these construction and food preparation activities, the odors associated, therefore, would not be considered significant impacts to a substanbal number of people. These odors associated with construction activities and food preparation, are typically not considered significant long-tenn impacts. Miti2ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially' significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance. -- Issues: IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? . d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact D D D . o o o . o o o . o o o . o o o . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? o o o . Comments: a) The existing project site is fully developed, and no candidate, sensitive or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. b) No local riparian habitat or other natural sensitive communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the fully developed project site. c) No wetland habitat present within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area. d) There are no wildlife dispersal or migration corridors existing within or immediately adjacent to the fully developed project site. e) The project site is fully developed, therefore, no biological resources would be affected by the proposal and no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur as a result of the proposed development. f) The proposed project site is located in a designated development area as defined by the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no biological resources present on the project site and the proposal would have no impact to local, regional or state habitat preservation planning efforts. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 0 . significance of a historical resource as defined . ~ 15064.5? m b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 0 . significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to g l5064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 . paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ._~.,--,---_.--.."~--~ Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? o o o II Comments: a) The existing project site is located within an essentially developed shopping center area. No historic resources are !mown or are expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) The existing site is not listed in, or currently eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. No historic buildings or structures are present within the previously disturbed project site and no prehistoric or historic objects are known. Therefore, the potential for adverse changes to archaeological resource as defined in Section lS064.5 is not anticipated. - c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited disturbance for the proposed projec~ the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature is not anticipated. d) The proposed project consists of limited site improvements to an existing, fully developed commercial center. No human remains are anticipated to be present within the previously disturbed impact area of the project. Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the proj ect: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other suhstantial evidence of a !mown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special o o o I ._~A_~"__'_'_"__""____'_" Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? o o o . iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? o o o . IV. Landslides? o o o . b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ) o o o . o c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the projec~ and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? o o o . d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? o o o . e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? o o o . -,-~-,.'''''-'~---~,_,-,-- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The proposed project site is located within a fully developed shopping center site. The site has been previously disturbed over the entire length of the site with the construction of existing buildings, accessory structures and easements. The project site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone or an area with known or suspected seismic hazards. All prior grading associated with the building and accessory structures was performed in accordance with previous geotechnical study. Therefore, impacts to geological resources were determined to be less than significant. b-d) The project site and the surrounding land uses are fully developed. All prior grading associated with the subject shopping center, which included the proposed project site, was carried out in accordance with the previously adopted mitigation measures and approved soils report. o e) The proj ect does -not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Sewer services will be provided by the City of Chula Vista. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with the use of septic tanks or alterative wastewater disposal systems. Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? o o o . b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? o o o . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-d) The project site is located within a fully developed shopping center site and was previously looked at as a potential future fast food restaurant. The project site does not contain any hazardous site history nor is it included on the County of San Diego Department of Environmetnal Health Services Hazards Case List. No demolition of existing buildngs or significant hazardous materials is associated with the business operations of the project. Therefore, no potential hazards or hazardous material impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. e) The proj ect is not located within an airport land use plan nor withn two miles of a public airport or public. use airport; therefore, the proj ect would not expose people residing or. working in the project area to adverse safety hazards. D The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working in the project area to adverse safety hazards. g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency evacuation requirements. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is anticipated. h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fire service requirements. No exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildfires is anticipated. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o o o . ^._,-,,"---,.~ Issues: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a resul~ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proj ect area? fj For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proj ect area? g) hnpair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ~volving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact o o '0 . o o o . o o o . o o o . o o o . o o o . .._~".__..,.." ,._,"---,--- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-~ See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitieation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts to a level of less than significance. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? o o o . b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? o o o . c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? o o o . .- .,.-",. --,~...... ,----.".--- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With . Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project site and the surrounding uses are fully developed. The proposed project would not disrupt or divide the established commercial and residential communities and therefore no impact would' occur as a result of the proposal. b) The project site is located in the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designation. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and land use designations, therefore; no impacts are anticipated. ' c) The project would have no impact or conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies and would not conflict with the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, which designated the proposed project site as a Developable Area. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a mown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? o o o . b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? o o 0_ . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project site and the surrounding land uses are fully developed and would not result in the loss of availability of a !mown mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. No impact to mineral resources would result from the proposed project. b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection and no impact would occur as a result of the proposal. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of personS to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? o o o . b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? o o o . c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o . o o d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o D . D Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessivenoise levels? o o o . ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o o o . Comments: a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. It is anticipated that on-site workers, customers and adjacent residential population may be exposed to construction noi.se associated with short-term construction activities. However, the project will be required to comply with the City's Noi,se Ordinance. In addition, due to the minimal construction activities associated with the project, impacts to surrounding residential properties related to construction noise levels are not' expected to be significant. The project is not anticipated to potential violate the noise limits of the City's noise control ordinance. e) The project is not located withill. an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. ~ The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Mitifation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant noise impacts to a level of less than significant. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? o o o . b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o o o . c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?_ o o o . Comments: a-c) The proposed project involves minor expansion of the existing shopping center on a pre-existing pad area. The proposal does not involve residential housing and would not induce population growth in the area or require substantial infrastructure improvements. No permanent housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or people would occur as a result of the proposaL Based on the size and nature of the proposal no impact to population or housing would occur as a result of the project. Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order. to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other ~.~-_.._-- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact perfonnance objectives for any public services: a) Fire protection? o o . o b) Police protection? o o . o c) Schools? o o . o d) Parks? o o o . e) Other public facilities? o o o . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) Adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site without an increase of equipment or personnel. The applicant is required to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building construction, emergency circulation, and fire prevention. The City Fire Department has detennined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. The City perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) Adequate police protection services and response times can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The City Police Department has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista School District letter dated September 11, 2006, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building pennit school fees for the non- residential construction/proposed commercial buildings. d) The proposed project would not induce population growth~ therefore, the project would not have an impact on or create a demand for neighborhood or" regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities. e) The proposed project would not have an impact on or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and would be served by existing or planned public infrastructure. Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 0 C] 0 . regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities 0 0 0 . or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse --..-.-.-..- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no impact or physical deterioration to existing neighborhood parks and recreational facilities would occur as a result of the proposed proj ect. b) The proposed project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Parks and Recreation Element contained in the City's updated General Plan does not identify the site of the proposed project as an area planned for any future parks, recreational facilities, or other recreational programs. No significant physical effect on the environment would occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitit!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAmijC. Wollid the proj ect: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existillg traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? o o o I b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? o o o . c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial D o o 1- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Tban Significant Impact No Impact safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? D o D . e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D o . ~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D D . g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? D o D . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a, b, d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. c) The proposed project would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. e) According to the proposed development plans, the project as designed does not create or increase hazards such as dangerous intersections or incompatible uses. The proposed project is an additional retail pad within an existing commercial shopping center located in the fully developed eastern portion of the City. f) The proposal includes redesign of parking area and additional parking spaces on the existing commercial shopping center, in accordance with the Chula Vista Zoning Code. The proposal meets ADA requirements for accessibility and parking. g) See Mitigated Negative Declaration Section E. The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation programs. The existing bus turnouts or public transportation systems along this portion of Otay Lakes Road will not be altered nor impacted as a result of the proposed project. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTllJTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? o o o . b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental o o o . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 0 0 0 . storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve 0 0 0 . the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a detennination by the wastewater 0 0 0 . treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Q Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted 0 0 0 . capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? o o o . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water. Quality Control Board. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the proposed proj ect. b) The proposed project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. c) No construction of new stonn water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary as a result of the proposed project. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City's Storm Water Management Requirements therefore environmental impacts would be less than significant. d) The project site is within the water service area of the Otay Water District, and according to their letter of September 1,2006, there is an 8-inch water main located on Otay Lakes Road currently serving the project site. No new or expanded entitlements are anticipated therefore the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. e) See XVI, a. and b. above f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with sufficient capacity to serve the proj ect and meet the solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law. The proposal would have a less than significant impact on regional landfills. g) The proposal will be required to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste and would have a less than significant impact on the environment. Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A. Library 0 0 0 . The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30,2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B) Police 0 0 0 . a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police writs shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of7.5 minutes or less. C) Fire and Emergency Medical 0 0 0 . Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) Traffic 0 0 0 . The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service ,.-,--..------.---.". Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant . Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west ofI-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with :&eeway ramps are exempted :&om this Standard. E) Parks and Recreation Areas 0 0 0 . The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities /1,000 population east of I-80S. F) Drainage 0 0 0 . The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer 0 0 O' . The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual proj ects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan( s) and City Engineering Standards. -,-,---'.- Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II) Water o o o . The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmissio~ facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Signifieant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project would not induce population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No significant impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed projeet. b) According to the Police Departmen~ adequate police protection services can continue to be provided at the project site. The proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No significant impact to the City's Police threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) According to the Fire Department's comments, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be provided to the site. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Fire threshold standard would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. According to the Traffic Study, Otay Lakes Road and analyzed 0 near-term intersections currently operate within the allowable threshold standards. No significant impact to the City's Traffic threshold standard would occur as a result of the project. e) Because the project site is a commercial land use, the Parks and Recreation threshold standard is not applicable. f) The proposed project will provide the necessary drainage improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices (B:tv1Ps) to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems both during and after construction and prevent discharge of trash, debris, or non-storm water to the storm drainage systems. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007- 0001 and the City ofChula Vista's Development and Redevelopment Stonn Water Management Requirements Manual. Therefore, no significant impacts to the City's stonn drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards would occur as result of the proposed project. . . g) The Engineering Division has determined that the existing sewer facilities, with the exception of sewer laterals, are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new sewer facilities are necessary and no significant impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. h) According to the Otay Water District (OWD) in their letter dated September 1, 2006, water service can be provided via a 10-inch water main located on East H Street. Additionally, OWD has determined that the existing water storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are adequate to serve the project. The proposal would not result in a significant impact to the City's Water Threshold Standards. Mitbzation: No mitigation measures are required, Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation IncDrporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? o o o . b) Does the proj ect haye impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future proj ects.) o o o . c) Does the proj ect have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o o . Comments: a) The project site is currently developed and located within an established urbanized area within the designated development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and there are no mown sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site. No significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. b) No cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified. described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, project impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, Potential impacts to humans associated with air quality, hydrology/water quality, and noise would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Miti!!:ation: Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise are impacted categories where mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level ofless than significance. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-06, Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts and Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. X:X. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read. understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Koh,} mAQuJArifr Printed Name and Title of Applicant ( or authorized representative) 0"-' II~ I FI<aJrICh,)1' (. bWW Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) :J ume II~ J 2001 Date Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from applicant) Signature of Operator (If different from Applicant) Date As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, project impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential impacts to humans associated with air quality, hydrology/water quality, and noise would be mitigated to below a level of signific~ce. Mitb~ation: Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise are impacted categories where mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level ofless than significance. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-06, Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts and Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company' ~ authority to and do agree to the mitigation C measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) Date Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date -.------. XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. o Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Traffic o Public Services o Population and o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Housing Systems o Geology & Soils o Mineral Resources D Aesthetics o Agricultural Resources . Hydrology/Water o Hazards and Hazardous D Cultural Resources Quality Materials . Air Quality . Noise o Recreation o Threshold Standards o Mandatory Findings of Significance ------.----- -----.---...--.------ XXll. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd that the proposed project could hot have a significant effect on the environment~ and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environmen~ but at least one effect l) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o . D D III I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen~ because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, inchiding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. o t //1 /0 7- Datt ' J :\Planning\Ann \EnvironrnentaI\Initial Study\IS-D7 -OO6CheckJist2.doc DRAFT RCC Minutes - 2 - July 16, 2007 Commissioner Stillman asked if that meant the RCC was not making nominations at this meeting? Ms Lundstedt responded in the affirmative. The press release has to go out first. Commissioner Stillman stated that she and Commissioner Gilgun had a nomination for the environmentalist and a very worthy residential preservationist. Commissioner. Stillman asked if it would the best for her to prepare a handout for the next RGG meeting or something that could be emailed about both? Ms Lundstedt asked if Commissioner Stillman would type it up explaining how they meet some of the criteria, and staff would distribute it. Commissioner Stillman asked if the public would be invited to nominate, also. She thought that the RCC had to make the nomination as a Commission. Ms. Lundstedt stated that staff will take in public suggestions and then the RCC will make the final decision. NEW BUSINESS 2. 15-07-06 --- EI Pallo Loco Fast Food Restaurant, 919 Otay Lakes Road Ms Maria Muett (Associate Planner) presented the proposed project. Commission Comments Chair Reid asked if the widening of Otay Lakes Road also included re-alignment? He noted that the vicinity map is not correct. Commissioner Mosolgo noted that on page 3 at the bottom it says: "The site currently consists of approximately 97% impervious surfaces". That's not right. I understand you are under an acre, but I think you still have to do a Wate! Quality Report. So what is the preliminary plan to treat the runoff for ultimate conditions and post-construction? He would like to see in these documents if it planned to treat it in swales or some kind of treatment system. Commissioner Stillman liked the project, and couldn't see anything wrong with it. To learn that they are filtering their water before it leaves the site, I would have liked to have known that because I would have been very pleased to know that the City is able to work with new development and get that kind of conservation and environmentally friendly result. We would like to let people know what a great job everybody on our staff is doing. It just makes businesses our good neighbors, and that's good for everyone when it's expected. DRAFT ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT RCC Minutes - 3 - July 16, 2007 Vice-Chair Jasek stated that it's going to be a welcomed addition out there. Unless the situation in that strip mall is changing, it could have been a cumbersome project because parking out there is already at a premium, but if Henry's, in fact, is relocating, it will be interesting to see what replaces it. Staff and the consultant satisfactorily responded to the Commissioners questions. and concerns. MSC (Mosolgo/Macias) to recommend approval of the Mitigation Declaration. Vote: (6-0-0-1) with Davis absent. 3. Request for Appointment to the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Ms Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez (Associate Planner) indicated that the City Council approved the Historic Preservation Work Program proposal on May 22, 2007. Ms Lopez had come before the RCC in November of 2006 with an overview of that Work Program. At this point, we are ready to commence our Advisory Committee, so we respectfully ask that the RCC appoint one person to sit on the Committee and one alternate. We do anticipate that the RCC member will come back on a monthly basis, and staff will come back to the RCC before anything goes for final approval. MSC (Macias/Gilgun) to appoint Commissioner Stillman as the RCC member to the Advisory Committee. Vote: (5-0-1-1) with Stillman abstaining and Davis absent. MSC (Mosolgo/Jasek) to appoint Chair Reid as the alternate RCC member to the Advisory Committee. Vote: (5-0-1-1) with Reid abstaining and Davis absent. 4. Summary of Activities Report for FY 2006/2007 Ms Lundstedt stated that, if the Activities Report is acceptable, Chair Reid can sign it, and staff will move it along to the City Clerk. MSC (Stillman/Jasek) that the RCC accept the Summary of Activities as presented. Vote: (6-0-0-1) with Davis absent. 5. Election of Officers MSC (Mosolgo/Stillman) to nominate Vice-Chair Jasek as Chair. Vote: (5-0-1- 1) with Jasek abstaining and Davis absent. DRAFT ---~~_._._~_._- ~---~-- '11IIUWJi;tll.JO]:IIt'wm'I'iHl.JO~ )JlJ-:'-:~=:'~~ J.J1IKII'I:tIIllllSIMJISlllillT:UMII'I5IIf\I :NOI.JII1'~"I'I'4..!'IDIII.M'IDMIJI 1M/.IlIWn1WlIOlIDII:II'IUaI')SII-Jl'XIIICMIOL 1!IIII101'SiM31.11111111Q11W.~ JI.IJNIDMIIGIJII....MILIII>>WI ._"'fM)1d "'lii1oi.."" J<I ~''Of'1YIIIICI.I'N'J t'ftII"IfI'N"lIOfW - IY~ IRHIt I0Il 1NOItd........ .. w 'YNOfIW XXX-(J(J 'i') ''Q'J.SI^ \ilmD 1JMS ~~H109 ON~ O~O~ SJ~~l WIO .~;.. OlCdd OdVONV 15 OOW 031.JIOO~ j.m OJOl OllOd l3 '"" (.) :".:.=: a~v 9O/LI/iO ~ g ^ ILh L" ~~!~ g~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ i;~i H!I ~U~II.. ~z8u ~ N~ld JIIS Ifj Z ~ <( ~ ..J ~ a.. >- ~ I- ~ - u z -< 0 ~ - > ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ <( ~ ~ -j~,,~ ~ ~.~~~ h~i' "ij~ ti. CltI'IN Id ~H ~~t:'::~: ~~~~g! ! ! Q " . .g ~~ dt ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ - ~" > ~~~~ ~~~~ H , , ~.~ Ji ~l~ """ II!! ~. ~~ Ih U Ii ! D ~ g \\J \/ \ r (Q~ ~ ~I I 0//1 / / / / / / / / -- --.- -..-.- -.-.-- --~-- lIlllJWJI.j)JJII'f~J);)f.j)j~JQtJ "'j_Jl~I9CITMS__:'I~"''''SIII'1I _l~_~lIIIIOlII$fI'biOIW1IoI_ UJIKII'I'JllIIII.lMIOIIlIIIIJ1BJldtllllJ1/ )o.!OI!'IIfI.~II'JIN.IIO~II'ODIKJI 1M1l1IOImIWW1ICI~']5IH.1SIIK3IIIiOJ. QlnI'IUMJI lDDIum...., JlJt,IJIUa-...JIIi_HGllli*S. I lWIfi_'I:I!C:w$"OII'1oI a. II., JoL -.- - XV:lIftHII_ iIHOHd......... tNIIr.J"tJtOMW ~'':InWftlCWl'1W':) UK-OO ....... II1IIMI=I 10IIII ...-... ~~v H~ ~r\'(nl '/J 'V'lSI,~, vlnHJ jJ]~IS ~~HiD~ OW O~O~ \]~~1 WiD Oladd Od~ON~lS OOW O3I.JIOOfl OOOl OllOd lJ ,.. ....I 90/tO/.,O N~ld Jd~JSON\'1 b ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 0~ '> @~~o (cr 0 ~ U1 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ >- ~~:) Cl:: 5 ~ ~ ~ 0: ~~o ~ ~ : ~ ~ i ~~~ 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ VI ~6 0 ~ ~ ~ Cl:: ~ Z j~ to Cl:: 0 ..J ~ Cl:: ;r. <S:2w 2 5 ~ ~ U1 ~~5 <( .... ~ U1 <00 (j Q:: Z e Z ~ >-1- ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~8~ [J1 U1LoJ:(...J U1 ;> ~~~~ <( ~ Cl:: ::;~(j^ 05~1- 5 W 0 ::iZZ o..<l:Q::Z ~ ~ ~ ~~~g ~~~~ ::i ~ ~ ~~~~ ~8~~ ~ ~ 8 ~<(>-~ I~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~o~~ ...J 1 ,; 1-3wo :Jw....w ...J .<( In QuOw ::?: ~o>- <I: (II wz<Ca. 00"",< w I- ~ \!!~~~ ~~g~ ~ ~ ~ J:~C(~ ~Z>-01 ~ a:: g Z ~~ ~~Il.~~_ <( 0 Z: 2- 'I' >:J ~o 5 3 ~z ~ ~~~ ~ 8~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ::~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ <("'0 VI I-Z <( r- ~..JUl-o:: 0:: VI~VI a:: ~5 oi--J .~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 1-(.) zw8~~~~~:5a: ~'S~ ~fu ~~~j~;3~WQ.~ V1~~ 1-50~ ~oOi=ZU1zi...J~ ...J05 \I' ~~~28@8o~cr ~o:u u~ ~"':N~n~~OIli~ tD~~ o:j~ ~ EI1 z <( ....J 0... W 0... <( o Cfh O~ Z~ <(~ ....J~ CD 5 ~ i '~ ~~ ~" 8~~ cl~ ~~ ~~~ / \ \ :( ~tx I)'"" 9 ~ U ",>- ~~i ~~'" ~~~ . ~'''OI'1't'1/111011'r.: -.- - '1:1 '"11$1/\ 'f',nHJ 1JJ~iS ~'Hle~ aNY iJ'Ie~ SJ>lY1 me ",:- OlO~d O~~ON~lS OOW O]IJlaO~ OJOl OllOd l3 tIaIaIII...J.......OIMi IJ'I __ ....__ TWIll _11I11U1II ...w .... QlUIa ~,.,.... ~"_"''''lJQM.1JII''\II .. JIll........ '....:r-..... .11_ ....-.......... at GIJI'I.1IQI,IJ....~..... -...--..--..-- .""..".....-...... --.-- ._""- II'fj__ ___ _YO_ ~.=: 8~V "'/"/11 Nf1d HIS dJJNJJ n,-dlO ! f i )=...:",.:~.~~~~~.~~...:~ ~ ~ ~ = I ; .3 ~~ :::"': oC !~ ..~~ t ~g:i -~ }~~ ...~ ~ - h5~ ~ i '" hOI'~~; lB. .~- n ~5~ ~i---- ~~~a~H II r ! ~ . I . . I' H I i I: ~ ! H Iii I 1 i 3~ ~ ~ i iI-I ill. i. {II q. p ~ . r!.! t J jl Ii l. l.'! ; i ~ I!! I Ii!! in! II !!II mIl!!!!! ! ! j i I ~ . ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~il~ I: ~ ~. ~ ~ j" ; ~ I q I II I," I, i. I~" ; ~J .Hi .a....a~a.~...a...9.A.=. ~ 5~J~~~~~~E~~~~~E~!t~:=~a II ] .~ , ~l ~! l! ". 1'!! J!.3\1'1i\Jl1!J.!!J.~!!\ ~&l~~~~&&.I~~i!I,~8&cl~~ i i i !~~ ~ ui ~~ 516 ,- iii~n ~=i~H iI~a::i:! ~ i i ! ;~!Hi ~ i;inai ~wh dd <( C"II (,) z <( ...J 0.. >- I- Z o - > It) ~ Z W ~ :I: U <C l- I- <C ~ ~._~.,-_..~-,.,. ~''2'I~ -.- - .~ "ISlA ~'nHj 1J]ijlS I'II'H10j QN'! ()fOij SJ>ffl mo .~;- 010ijd aij~ONnS oom a3UIOOri OJ01 01l0d 13 ,.. () -..01 .. .,WZIJ JC . 1UIJ DJ....__11IIII~..1f ..-~-'~..- \DIIW . ... ... -*11 . .... III."".....,.'...III.~...... ........~.__.lII..'!WI..tt .., 1---.1 . __.......__ ...._.._"111_ .~--_............ I't......._ 1NDMII...._ 1IQI'fG'WNCINDIII :-..=:= ~~V t<<ld JjIS 1 ! i . _ _ i ! " - ~ . ~ e ;i i I I : 11 ~ i iT 2 ~ ~ ;; ~. ~'",".. _....!:$ ~ . 11111 ~ ; mn ~ -~ I ~~ . a ... 'a::'~ g ~ .~ s h~~ ~ ~ !~ "' I ~ ....~ ;;... t . . =~ z i ~ j ~ p;~ .> ~ ~! :-.~ I (II!. .. sn ~ -I~:I~ 'I ~ a -.! I' .~ . e. 8 j ~~~ c i ~~~ ~ i~H U ~ p :~ ~~I~~! I !! I; : 1m Ii ! '~-~iei! ~ii5a I~t w ~ g hi~ 'i~i .0' .. $ I' 0 i'i~n ~i-......~ ~ 1/1 0 (I,; I ~!d~ d ~ :!I~:' X _ 2 ice! : J .h n Z <t ..J 0.. >- t z CJ > ~ JI\ -----"._._"--~"-~ 19.32.130 19.32.130 Trash storage areas. Trash storage areas in the C-B zone are subject to the conditions ofCVM:C 19.58.340. (Ord. 1356 9 1,1971; Ord.1212 91, 1969; prior code ~ 33.507 (H)(6)). 19.32.140 Wall requirements. Zoning walls shall be provided in the C-B zone subject to the conditions of CVMC 19.58.150 and 19.58.360.. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.507(H)(7)). 19.32.150 Performance standards. All uses in the C-B zone shall be subject to ini- tial and continued compliance with the perfor- mance standards set forth in Chapter 19.66 CVMC. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.507(1)). , Chapter 19.34 C-N - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE Sections: 19.34.010 Purpose and intent. 19.34.020 Permitted uses. 19.34.030 Conditional uses. 19.34.040 Repealed. 19.34.050 Height requirements.. 19.34.060 Area, lot width and yard requirements. 19.34.070 Additional conditions and requirements. 19.34.080 Enclosures required for all uses- Exceptions. 19.34.090 Restrictions on sales of goods. 19.34.100 Site plan and architectural approval required. 19.34.110 Off-street parking and loading facilities. 19.34.120 Employee activity restrictions. 19.34.130 Market analysis required when. 19.34.140 Curb cuts and internal traffic circulation - Approval required. 19.34.150 Shopping centers - Presentation as planned development required. 19.34.160 Design of buildings. 19.34.170 Hours for conducting business. 19.34.180 Evidence of certain compliance required annually. 19.34.190 Trash storage areas. 19.34.200 Wall requirements. 19.34.210 Landscaping. 19.34.220 Prohibited uses. 19.34.230 Existing nonconforming shopping centers - Conformance with rules and regulations required when - Time limit. 19.34.240 Performance standards. 19.34.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a shop- ping center for convenience shopping in a residen- tial neighborhood where analysis of residential population demonstrates that such facilities are necessary and desirable. C-N zoning shall be applied to property having a minimum area of three acres and a maximum area of eight acres. It is the intent of the city council to insure that the character of the C-N zone will be compatible with and will complement the surrounding residential area. Therefore, parking areas must be landscaped as required herein, in order to relieve the barren (Revised 1/04) ATTACHMENT 6 19-84 --'-"'--"-~ Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.34.050 appearance which most parking lots possess. It is further the intent of this chapter to prescribe the number, type, size and design of all signs to protect the general welfare of the surrounding residential property owners and of the merchants and property owners within the shopping center by avoiding wasteful and costly competition among sign users resulting from the uncontrolled use of signs. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.508(A)). 19.34.020 Permitted uses. The following are the principal permitted uses in a C-N district: A. Grocery, fruit or vegetable store; B. Bakery; C. Drugstore; D. Barbershop and beauty shop; E. Clothes-cleaning pickup agency with inci- dental pressing; F. Business or professional office; G. Restaurant, cafe or soda fountain, not including entertainment, dancing or sale of liquor, beer, or other alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises or driv~-in car service; H. Commercial parking lot for passenger vehi- cles, subject to the requirements of CVMC 19.62.010 through 19.62.130; I. Coin-operated laundry, with maximum capacity washing units of 20 pounds and compara- ble drying equipment, and clothes-cleanmg agency; J. Any other retail business or service establish- ment supplying commodities or performing ser- vices for residents of the neighborhood which is determined by the planning commission to be of the same general character as the above-mentioned retail business or service uses, and open during normal business hours of the above uses; K. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities and satellite dish antennas, in ac- cordance with the provisions of CVMC 19.22.030 (F)(l) through (9); L. Agricultural uses as provided in CYMC 19.16.030. (Ord. 2526 92, 1992; Ord. 2108 9 1, 1985; Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(B)). 19.34.030 Conditional uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-N zone; pr()vided, a conditional use permit is issued in accordance with the provisions of CYMC 19.14.060 through 19.14.130: A. Automobile service stations, in accordance with the provisions ofCVMC 19.58.280; B. Sale of beer or other alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises only where the sale is . incidental with the sale of food; C. Electrical substations and gas regulator sta- tions, subject to the provisions of CVMC . . 19.58.140; D. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54 CYMC; E. Roof-mounted satellite dishes, subject to the standards set forth in CYMC 19.30.040; " F. Recycling collection centers, subject to the. :" provisions ofCVMC 19.58.345; G. Automated, drive-through car washes, in accordance with the provisions of CVMC 19.58.060; H. Establishments contained in the list of per- mitted uses above, but which include the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site use or consump- tion, including any new facilities and any facilities which expand the area devoted to alcohol sales or which require the issuance of a type of alcoholic beverage license by the State Alcohol Beverage Control different from the license previously held, in accordance with the procedures in CYMC 19.14.030; 1. Liquor store (package, off-sale only), in ac- cordance with the procedures in CYMC 19.14.030; J. Drive-through restaurants, those fast food facilities offering drive-through lanes in which food is both ordered and picked up from the vehi- cle, and taken off-site for consumption; but not including "drive-in" restaurants, those at which food is ordered from and consumed in the parked car on the premises. (Ord. 2715 9 3, 1998; Ord. 2560 9 3, 1993; Ord. 2552 9 1,1993; Ord. 2526 93, 1992; Ord. 2491 9 2, 1992; Ord. 2252 ~ 2, 1988; Ord. 2233 9 2, 1987; Ord. 2152 9 1, 1986; Ord. 2108 9 1,1985; Ord.1571g 1,1974; Ord.1356 9 1, 1971; Ord.1212 91, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(C)). 19.34.040 Sign regulations. Repealed by Ord. 2924 931 2003. (Ord. 2309A 97, 1989; Ord. 1734 9 1, 1977; Ord. 1575 9 1, 1974; Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1275 ~ 1, 1970; Ord. 12129 1,1969; prior code 9 33.508(D)). 19.34.050 Height requirements. No principal building shall exceed two and one- half stories or 35 feet in heigh~ and no accessory building shall exceed one and one-half stories or 15 feet in height, except as provided in CYMC 19.16.040. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(E)). 19-85 (Revised 1104) -"--- 19.34.060 19.34.060 Area, lot width and yard requirements. The following minimum lot area and yard requirements shall be observed in the C-N zone, except as pro- vided in CVMC 19.16.020 and 19.16.060 through 19.16.080, and where increased for conditional uses: Setbacks in Feet Lot Area. Front and Exterior (sq. ft) Side Yards Side Rear 5,000 15 feet. for buildings ~one, except when None, except when abutting an R district, then not less Zero feet for signs abutting an R disnic~ than 15 feet; provided, however, that where such yard is then not less than 15 contiguous and parallel with an alley, one-half the width feet of such alley shall be assumed to be a portion of such yard tOr not less than that specified on the building line map shall be provided and maintained. The setback requirements shown on the adopted building line map for Chula Vista shall take precedence over the setbacks required in the zoning district. (Grd. 1356g 1, 1971; Grd. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.508(F)). 19.34.070 Additional conditions and requirements. The following additional conditions set forth in CYMC 19.34.080 through 19.34.210 shall apply in a C-N zone. (Ord. 1356 g 1, 1971; Ord. 1212' g 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.508(G)). 1934.080 Enclosures required for all uses- Exceptions. Except as otherwise provided, all uses in a C-N zone shall be conducted wholly within a com- pletely enclosed building except for service sta- tions, as stipulated in their conditional use permi~ nurseries, and off-street parking and loading facil- ities and sidewalk cafes. (Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(I)). 19.34.090 Restrictions on sales of goods. In a C-N zone, goods for sale shall consist pri- marily of new merchandise and shall be sold at retail on the premises. (Ord. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(0)(2)). 19.34.100 Site plan and architectural approval required. Site plan and architectural approval is required for all uses in a C-N zone, as provided in CVMC 19.14.420 through 19.14.480. (Ord. .1212 g 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(3)). 19.34.110 Off-street parking and loading facilities. Off-street loading and parking is required for all uses in a C-N zone, as provided in CYMC 19.62.010 through 19.62.140. (Ord. 1356 ~ I, 1971; Ord. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code 933.508 (G)(4)). 19.34.120 Employee activity restrictions. The number of employees in any business estab- lishment in a C-N zone shall be limited to those necessary for the conduct of the on-site business and no person shall be engaged in the activity of processing, fabricating or repairing goods for delivery or sale at other locations. (Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code g 33.508(0)(5)). 19.34.130 Market analysis required when. A market analysis showing demand for new or additional C-N facilities shall be submitted together with any application for rezoning of a new C-N district, or extension by one acre or more of any existing C-N district. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(6)). 19.34.140 Curb cuts and internal traffic circulation - Approval required. All curb cuts and internal traffic circulation for ingress and egress shall be approved by the plan- ning commission subject to a recommendation from the city traffic engineer. (Ord. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code g 33.508(G)(7)). 19.34.150 Shopping centers - Presentation as planned development required. Shopping centers proposed to be located in a C-N zone shall be presented as a planned develop- ment; each unit shall then proceed in accordance (Revised 1/04) 19-86 Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.34.240 with the approved planned development. (Ord. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code g 33.508(G)(8)). 19.34.160 Design of buildings. All buildings in a C-N zone shall be designed so as to be compatible with surrounding neighbor- hood; and the general character of the development shall continue and promote the established theine of the community. (Ord. 12129 1,1969; prior code ~ 33.S08(G)(9)). 19.34.170 Hours for conducting business. No business shall be open in a C-N zone between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., unless specifically approved by the planning com- mission. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969;. prior code 9 33.508(0)(10)). . .. . 19.34.180 Evidence of certain compliance required annually. Each year, prior to issuing a business license or the renewal of a business license, establishments within the neighborhood shopping center shall present evidence of co~pliance with the require- ments of this title, particularly in regard to the nature of the business as set forth in CYMC 19.34.090 and 19.34.120. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.508(G)(11)). 19.34.190 Trash storage areas. Trash storage areas in the C-N zone are subject to the conditions of CYMC 19.58.340. (Ord. 1356 9 1,1971; Ord.1212 g 1,1969; prior code ~ 33.508 (0)(12)). 19.34.200 Wall requirements. Zoning walls shall be provided in the C-N zone subject to the conditions ofCVMC 19.58.150 and 19.58.360. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(0)(13)). 19.34.210 Landscaping. The site shall be landscaped in confonnance with the landscape manual of the city, and approved by the director of planning. (Ord. 1356 9 1,1971; Ord.1212 9 1,1969; prior code 933.508 (G)(14)). 19.34.220 Prohibited uses. Uses. expressly prohibited in a C-N zone include: . A. Residential uses; B. AI1y combination of residential and nonresi- dential uses on a lot, parcel of land, or in any struc. ture thereon; C. Industrial uses; D. Public address systems and/or loudspeakers outside of any building. (Ord.1356 91,1971; Ord. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(H)). 19.34.230 Existing nonconforming shopping centers - Conformance with rules and regulations required when - Time limit. All existing shopping centers which may, in the future, be classified in the neighborhood-commer- cia! (C-N) zone shall, within the time established herein, be made to conform to the requirements and regulations of the zone as applicable. The planning department shall Submit a letter to the property owner and managers of the businesses being con- ducted within said shopping center, outlining the requirements and changes necessary to bring the center into conformance with the zone require- ments. All of said changes shall be accomplished within one year of the date of such notification. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.508(1)). 19.34.240 Performance standards. All uses in a C-N zone shall be subject to initial and continued compliance with the performance standards set forth in Chapter 19.66 CYMC. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 91, 1969; prior.code 9 33.508(1)). 19-87 (Revised 1/04) -----~,-- " Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.62.040 Chapter 19.62 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING Sections: 19.62.010 Required when. 1.9.62.020 .Size and access ~quirements. 19.62.030 Floor area defined. 19.62.040 Alternatives to on-site parking. 19.62.050 Number of spaces required for designated uses. 19.62.060 Parking areas - Development and maintenance generally. 19.62.070 Parking areas - Curbing required when - Specifications. 19.62.080 Parking areas - Screening requirements. 19.62.090 Parking areas - Landscaping. 19.62.100a Parking areas - Surfacing . requirements - Waiver permitted when. 19.62.100b Pavement standards for private vehicular areas. 19.62.11 0 Limitation on areas to be used. 19.62.120 Parking areas - Lighting arrangements. 19.62.130 Waiver or modification of provisions permitted when. 19.62.140 Off-street loading - Number and size of spaces to be maintained. 19.62.150 Residential parking - Front setback restrictions - Generally. 19.62.160 Residential parking - Front setback restrictions - Exceptions. 19.62.170 Residential parking - Two-car garage requirement - Intent and purpose. 19 .62.180 ~esidential parking - Two-car garage ,requirement - Garage setbacks. 19..62.190 Residential parking - Procedure for _ . conversion to living purposes - Approval required. 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. 19.62.010 Required when. There shall be provided, at the time any buildiIig or strUcture is erected or is enlarged or increased in capacity, or any use is established, off-street park- ing spaces for automobiles in accordance with the requirements herein; provided, however, that when an addition is made to an existing building, only the sq~are feet in the addition need be used in com- puting the required parking. (Oni 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code g 33.801(A)). 19.62.020 Size and access requirements. Size and access of off-street parking and loading facilities shall be as follows: A. No parking area, except for a single-family or duplex residence, may be located so as to require or encourage the backing of automobiles or other vehicles acrO$S any street lot line, to a,ffect. egre~L from the places of parking. - B. Access to parking spaces for a single- family dwelling may be not less than nine feet in width throughout and paved in accordance with engineer~ ing specifications as adopted by the planning com- mission. . C. Driveways used to serve two to four dwell- ing units shall be not less than 12 feet if the furthest unit is 80 feet or less from the front property line, and a minimum of 15 feet if the distance is over 80 feet long. Driveways used to serve five or more dwelling units shall be not less than 15 feet for one single lane entrance; the combination of two sepa- rate driveways (an entrance and an exit) shall be not less than 25 feet; except, that a combined entrance and exit (two-way access) need not exceed 18 feet in width. Driveways for parking areas serving other than residential units shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide for one-way traffic and 24 feet wide for two- way traffic. The minimum vertical clearance shall be 10 feet to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles, based on minimum standards adminis- tered by the city traffic engineer. D. All aisles and turning areas shall be adequate to provide safe and efficient access to and from parking spaces, based on minimum standards administered by the city traffic engineer. E. Tandem parking shall not qualify as required parking unless specifically approved by the plan- ning commission. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.801(B)). 19.62.030 Floor area defined. "Floor area," in the case of offices, merchandis- ing or service types of uses, means the grass floor area used or intended to be used by tenants, and including floor area for service to the public as cus- tomers, patrons, clients or patients, including areas occupied by fixtures and equipment used for dis- play or sales of merchandise. (Ord. 1212 9 1,1969; prior code g 33.801(C)). 19.62.040 Alternatives to on-site parking. F or any new nonresidential use, structure or building, required off-street parking which, due to the size or location of the parcel, cannot be pro- 19-175 19.62.050 vided on the premises may be provided on other property not more than 200 feet distant by publicly available pedestrian access from said use, structure or building, subject to a binding agreement with the city as to permanent reservation of said space and access thereto; or if the proposed nonresidential use lies within the boundary of a parking district, - off-street parking requirements shall be considered to be met; provided, that any developer of a new commercial building within a parking distric~ or a developer of a commercial addition to an existing building therein, shall pay the required fee(s). (Ord. 2506 ~ 1, 1992; Ord. 1894 ~ 1, 1980; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.801(D)). 19.62.050 Number of spaces required for designated uses. In the case of any building, structure or pre- mises, the use of which is not specifically men- tioned herein, or in the opinion of the approving authority is not similar to any use found herein, the approving authority may apply a ratio based on a similar existing use not found herein. In computing parking requirements, a resultant fractional space . of one-half shall count as a full space. The number of off-street parking spaces required shall be as set forth in the following: Businesses or Use and Number of Spaces Required 1. Auctions (See CYMC 19.04.015 and 19.58.055): At the time of application for a conditional use permi~ the applicantshall submit parking informa- tion justifying the amount of parking proposed to be provided and the parking ratio. The information must consist of data upon which the approving' authority can reasonably base a determination of adequacy, such as expected patronage or a compar- ison with the patronage of similar uses. Said park- ing ratio shall range from one space for each 50 square feet of net usable lot area to one space for each 4,000 square feet of net usable lot area. Note: For pUrposes of this subsection, "net usable lot area" means the area of the parcel exclu- sive of setbacks, slopes, easements, required right- of-way dedications or other constraints which would preclude use of the land. If complaints are filed with the city regarding impacts related to off- site parking, the project shall be modified to add additional parking for employees and customers, and/or by reducing the auction and/or storage area, subj ect to the review and approval of the director of planning and city engineer. Failure to resolve such off-site public parking problems by the owner of the property constitutes grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. 2. Automobile sales facilities, new or used (see CVMC 19.58.070): "- . One for each 400 square feet of gross floor area, or one-tenth of the maximum car storage capacity, whichever is greater. 3. Automobile repair and service garages: One for each 400 square feet of floor area. 4. Banks and savings and loans: One for each 200 square feet of floor area; nllnimum of five. 5. Bowling alleys: Five for each alley. 6. Business and professional offices: One for each 300 square feet of gross floor area; minimum of four. 7. Car wash (coin -operated), self-service or attendant-operated: Three for each stall, plus one for each employee. 8. Children's homes: . One for each four beds, plus one for each employee. 9. Churches and private schools: One for each three and one-half seats in an auditorium or one for each 17 classroom seats, whichever is greater. 10. Dancehalls and assembly halls without fixed seats, and exhibition halls, except church assembly rooms in conjunction with auditoriums, nonprofit clubs and lodges: . One for each 50 square feet of floor area used for assembly or dancing. 11. Dwellings, single-family, duplex: . Two for each. family or dwelling unit; both . spaces shall be in a garage with a minimum area of 400 square feet (see Chapter 19.22 CYMC for remodeling of garages). 12. Dwellings, townhouses: Two for each dwelling unit; both spaces shall be in a garage or carport, a minimum area of 400 square feet. 13. Dwellings, multiple: One and one-half per unit for each studio or one-bedroom apartment. Two per unit for each two-bedroom apart- ment. Two per unit for each three-bedroom or larger apartment. * *F or every 10 parking spaces required, one of this total may be a "compact" space. 19-176 -~. .... ... Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.62.080 Note: No parking space shall be located within 20 feet of any curb return of intersection streets, or eight feet of any side property line, unle,ss approved by the city traffic engineer. 14. Funeral homes and mortuaries: One for each four seats of the aggregate num- ber of seats provided in all assembly rooms of the mortuary . 15. Furniture and appliance stores, and house- hold equipment or furniture repair shops: One for each 600 square feet of floor area. 16. Hospitals: One and one-half for each bed. 17. Nursing homes and convalescent hospitals and homes for aged: One for each three beds. 18. Houseboats: See dwellings, subsection (11) of this section. 19. Hotels, motels, motor hotels: One space for each living or sleeping uni~ plus one space for every 25 rooms or portion thereof to be provided on the same lot as use. 20. Machinery sales and service garages: One for each 400 square feet of floor area. 21. Manufacturing plants, research or testing laboratories, and bottling plants: One for each one and one-half persons employed at anyone time in the normal operation of the plant or one for each 800 square fee~ which- ever is greater. 22. Medical and dental clinics or offices: One for each 200 square feet of gross floor area; minimum of five. 23. Mobilehome parks: Two'spaces on each pad, one~third guest, space per mobilehome located within 400 feet of the farthest unit, and at the community center, one space for each five pads up to 50 pads and one space for each 10 pads thereafter. ' 24. Restaurants, bars and night clubs: One for each two and one-half permanent seats, excluding any dance floor or assembly area without fixed seats which shall be calculated sepa- ratelyas one space per 50 square feet of floor area. 25. Restaurants - Drive-in, take-out, snack stands: 15 spaces (minimum). 26. Retail stores, shops, etc.,'except as provided for furniture stores, in subsection (15) of this sec- tion: , One for each 200 square feet of floor space. 27. Rooming and lodging houses: One for each bedroom. 28. Schools: Elementary - one per teacher or employee, plus five spaces. Junior high - one per teacher or employee, plus five spaces. High - one per four students. 29.. Sports arenas, auditoriums,.theaters, ~ssem., bly halls and meeting rooms: One for each three and one-half seats of max. imum seating capacity. 30. Wholesale establishments, warehouses, ser:- vice and maintenance centers, and communication equipment buildings: . One for each one and one-half persons employed at one time in the normal operation of the establishmen~ or one for each 1,000 square fee~ whichever is greater. (Ord. 2584 97, 1994; Ord. 2132 ~ 1, 1985; Ord. 1856 g 1, 1979; Ord. 1531 92, 1974; Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.801(E)). ~. _..- 19.62.060 Parking areas - Development and maintenance generally. Every parcel ofland hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including a commercial park- ing lot and also an automobile, farm equipment, or other open-air sales lo~ shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the requirements set forth in CYMC 19.62.070 through 19.62.120. (Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code g 33.801(F)). 19.62.070 Parking areas - Curbing required when - Specifications. Off-street parking areas for more than three vehicles shall be provided with a suitable concrete curb or horizontal timber barrier not less than six inches in height, located not less than two feet from any street walkway or alley right-of-way line. All curbs or barriers shall be permanently anchored in a manner satisfactory to the director of public works, to confine vehicles entirely within said pre- mises, except in those cases where a wall is pro- vided on the boundaries of the premises which, in the opinion of the zoning administrator, is of such construction as to suitably protect the aajoining property. (Ord.1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 933.801 (F)(l)). 19.62.080 Parking areas - Screening requirements. Off-street parking areas for more than five vehi,,-- cles shall be effectively screened by a 10-foot-wide landscaped strip and a masonry wall or fence of acceptable design. Such wall or fence shall be not 19-177 19.62.090 less than three and one-half feet or more than six feet in height and shall be maintained in good con- dition without any advertising thereon. The requirements specified herein may be eliminated in whole or in part where, in the opinion of the zoning administrator, such requirements are not necessary - for the- proper" protection ofabutting--prQperty because of substantial grade differentials, the exist- ence of adequate walls or other equally valid rea- sons. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.801(F)(2)). 19.62.090 Parking areas - Landscaping. The total pC!rking area shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscape manual of the city. (Ord. 12129 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.801(F)(3)). 19.62.100a Parking areas - Surfacing requirements - Waiver permitted . when. Any off-street parking areas shall be surfaced in accordance with CYMC 19.62.100b, Pavement standards, so as to provide a durable and dustless surface, and shall be so graded and drained as to . dispose of all surface water a~cumu1ated within the area, and shall be so arranged and marked as to pro- vide the orderly and safe loading or unloading and parking and storage ofvehic1es. The planning com- mission may, by resolution, waive or modify the standards for any use within the agricultural zone, or any use deemed as temporary (operating for a maximum of one year); provided, however, such temporary use shall be done in accordance with the pavement standards noted in CYMC 19.62.100b (A). (Ord. 2743 ~ 3, 1998; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.80 1 (F)(4)). 19.~2.l00b Pavement standards for private vehicular areas. . Areas upon private property which are required to be paved per the various city regulations, or pur- suant to conditional approval of the planning com- mission, shall be paved in accordance with the requirements contained herein and with the stan- dard specifications for public works construction and any amendments or supplements thereto, including the San Diego regional supplement amendments and the city of Chula Vista standard special provisions. Such requirements shall apply to all areas to be paved for the movemen~ parking or storage of vehicles except as specifically noted. A. Temporary Use (Maximum of One Year). Temporary pavement shall consist of two inches of compacted decomposed granite, the top one inch of which has been treated with CRS-2 or CMS-2 asphalt emulsion to form a water-resistant and dust- free wearing surface. The asphalt emulsion shall be applied at such rates or a sufficient number of times to produce the specified wearing surface. A weed killer shall be applied to the entire area to . be -paved in ~ccordance with. the manufacturer's recommendations. ~ an alternative for pavements which will be used exclusively for the movement and parking of heavy trucks, processed miscellaneous base, including recycled asphaltic concrete base, may be substituted for disintegrated granite. B. Semi-Permanent Use (Maximum of Five y ears). Semi-permanent pavement shall consist of two inches of asphaltic concrete pavement with seal coat placed upon native soil. Asphalt concrete shall be Type ill, Class B2 or Class C2, as specified in Section 400-4.3 of the standard specifications for the public works construction; except, that it shall be permissible to use AR-2000 asphalt cement as an alternate to AR -4000 asphalt cement. A seal coat in conformance with Section 302-5.10 of the San Diego regional supplement amendments using an RS-1 or equivalent high viscosity asphalt emulsion shall be applied to the entire paved surface. Native soil to receive pavement shall be graded, scarified, and compacted to 95 percent minimum relative compaction per ASTM D-1557 to a mini- mum depth of six inches prior to installation of paving material. A weed killer shall be applied to the entire prepared native soil in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. C. Permanent Use. Permanent pavement shall consist of a minimum of two inches of asphaltic concrete pavement with seal coat, as described under "semi-permanent use" above, applied over a four-inch-thick Class II aggregate base or better.: Aggregate base shall comply with Section 400-2 of the San Diego regional supplement amendments and shall be compacted to 95 percent minimum rel- ative compaction per ASTM D-1557. Native sub- grade shall be graded, scarified, and compacted to 95 percent minimum relative compaction per ASTM D-1557 to a minimum depth of six inches prior to applicacion of the asphaltic concrete struc- tural section. Permanent areas for the storage only of passen- ger-type vehicles may be paved as specified under "semi-permanent use." This reduction in structural section shall apply o~ly to the specific storage areas and does not include areas designated for parking or movement of vehicles. (Ord. 2743 93, 1998). 19-178 .._--,_._-^~ Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.62.180 19.62.110 Limitation on areas to be used. No part of any front yard or exterior side yard (Le., street side of a comer lot) shall be used for off- street parking or access, except as noted in CVMC 10.84.020 and 19.62.150, unless so authorized by the zoning administrator, pursuant to an approved - - site" pIa (Ord. 2743 i 3, 19-98;Ord. 2-116 ~ 6,-' 1986; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.801 (F)(5)). 19.62.120 Parking areas - Lighting arrangements. Lighting used to illuminate any off-street park- ing area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining premises in any R zone. (Ord. 12129 1, 1969; prior code g 33.801(F)(6)). 19.62.130 Waiver or modification of provisions permitted when. The commission may, by resolution, waive or modify the provisions as herein set forth, establish- ing required parking areas for such uses as electri- cal power generating plants, electrical transformer stations, utility or corporation storage yards or other uses requiring a very limited number of per- sons as compared to the number of persons required by the usual industry of comparable size expressed in square footage. (Ord. 1212 g 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.801(G)). 19.62.140 Off-street loading - Number and size of spaces to be maintained. A. For every building or part thereof having a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, which is to be occupied by a commercial or indus~ trial use requiring the receipt of distribution by vehicles of materials or merchandise, there shall be provided arid maintained, on the same" lot with such building, at least one off-street-loading space plus one additional such loading space for each addi- tiona140,OOO square feet or major fraction thereof. B. Each loading space shall be not less than 10 feet in width, 25 feet in length, and 14 feet in height clearance. C. If such space occupies any part of any re- quired yard or court spaces, it may not be located closer than 50 feet to any lot in any R zone, unless enclosed by a masonry wall not less than eight feet in height. (Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.802). 19.62.150 Residential parking - Front setback restrictions - 'Generally. No required parking spaces or required maneu- vering area may be located in the front or exterior setback area (except as noted in CVMC 10.84.020); the total combination of driveways and " adjacent parking areas shall not-occupy more than 50 percent of the front or exterior side yard. (Ord. 217696, 1986; Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code g 33.803(A)). 19.62.160 Residential parking - Front setba"ck restrictions - Exceptions. " In those cases where street improvements are at their ultimate width, the front setback area, for parking purposes, may be measured from the back of the sidewalk. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.803(B)). 19.62.170 Residential parking - Two-car garage requirement - Intent and purpose. It is the intent of this section and C\lMC 19.62.180 and 19.62.190 to require that all dwelling units in the A, R-E, R-l and R-2 zones as well as single-family and two-family developments in the P-C zone shall have constructed on the same lot, as a necessary and essential accessory building to the residential use of said lot, a two-car enclosed ga- rage containing a minimum of 400 square feet and minimum dimension of20 feet. The purpose of said requirement is to provide adequate off-street park- ing so "as to alleviate the congestion on residential streets and space for the necessary storage of mate- rials in an enclosure. The enclosed garage is neces- sary to protect the general welfare of residential areas by preventing the establishment of parking spaces in an open parking lot situation inappropri- ate to residential development and the open and dis- orderly display of gardening equipmen~ tools, boxes and other materials which would be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly appearance. (Ord. 2151 ~ 1,1986; Ord.1356 g 1,1971; Ord.1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.803(C)(1)). 19.62.180 Residential parking - Two-car garage requirement - Garage setbacks. Notwithstanding requirements contained in this chapter, minimum front yard shall be 22 feet from the inside edge of the sidewalk to the door of.a..__ garage or structure of a carport in the case of a driveway approximately perpendicular to the front property line. Any garage that has its access from 19-179 19.62.190 an alley shall be located 25 feet from the opposite side of the alley with a minimum setback of five feet from the alley. (Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.803(C)(2)). 19.62.199 Residential parking - Procedure for - '.. :: . conversion to liviitg purposes'- - '. Approval required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the conversion of any existing garage or carport for living purposes, the property O'WIler desiring such conversion shall be required to meet the following conditions: A. A new enclosed two-car garage as set forth in CYMC 19.62.170 shall be provided to replace the garage or carport being converted. Tandem parking as provided in this chapter will not satisfy the parking requirements. B. All plans for the conversions of existing garages or carports for living purposes, as well as plans for new garages, shall be submitted to the planning department for approval to insure that the conversion is compatible in design and materials ,with the existing dwelling. Plans for garage con- versions shall show either: ' 1. The exterior of the garage unchanged; or 2. The exterior of the garage fully altered to match the existing house elevation in colors, mate- rials and trim. C. A filing fee as set forth in the master fee schedule shall accompany each application for a garage conversion. (Ord. 2151 ~ 2, 1986; Ord. 2011 9 I, 1982; Ord. 1669 9 1, 1976; Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~,l, 1969; prior code g 33.803 (C)(3)). 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. , The planning arid building' &rector, code enforcement officers and other employees desig-' nated by the plannirig and building director shall have the authority to enforce this chapter in accor- dance with the procedures as set forth in Chapters lAO and 1.41 CYMC. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute an infraction, and the administra- tive citation provisions contained in Chapter 1.41 CVMC shall be applicable. (Ord. 2790, 1999; Ord. 2718 ~ 1, 1998; Ord. 217697,1986). Chapter 19.64 NONCONFORMING USES Sections: 19.64.010 Declaration of policy. 19:64.020' Continuance of existing uses. 19.64.030 Completion of construction started prior to certain date. 19.64.040 Existing conditional uses to be considered nonconforming when. 19.64.050 Enlargement, extension or reconstruction prohibited - Exceptions. 19.64.060 Substitution or extension restrictions. 19.64.070 Cessation of use defined - Time limits. 19.64.080 Uses subject to mandatory discontinuance. 19.64.090 Timing of discontinuance - Generally. 19.64.110 Discontinuance of structures having certain replacement value required - Time limit. 19.64.120 Removal of other uses and structures required - Notification - Time limits. 19.64.130 Uses not conforming to perfonnance standards - Time limit for conformance. 19.64.140 Uses without conditional use permit or subject to fence requirements - Time limit for conformance. 19.64.150 Nonresidential structures - Replacement restrictions. 19.64.155 Residential- Replacement permitted. 19.64.160 Modification of provisions permitted when. ,19,64.170 Repair or alteration permitted when. 19.64.180 Uses not conforming to setback or height requirements - Alteration or enlargement permitted when. 19.64.190 Reconstruction permits. 19.64.010 Declaration of policy. Many nonconforming uses within the city are detrimental to the orderly development of the city and adverse to the general welfare of persons and property, in that said nonconforming uses consti- tute a special benefit or monopoly. In conformance with good zoning practices, it is the policy of the , city that nonconforming uses shall be eliminated as soon as it is economically feasible and equitable to do so. (Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 933.1101 (A)). 19-180 ADDENDUM TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITIDESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (Applicant: Rohit Marwaha - EI PolIo Loco Franchisee) 1. Said requirements are only imposed on the Premises at Otay Lakes Road and Gotham Street (on pad south side of Southwest College Plaza Shopping Center), Chula Vista, California 91313 (Assessor's Parcel #642-170-1000), which are the Premises for which the Application is being made, and said requirements do not affect the remainder of the Southwest College Plaza Shopping Center. 2. All costs or expenses resulting from the requirements imposed are borne solely by Applicant (Rohit Marwaha - EI PolIo Loco Franchisee), and shall be no obligation of Kelton Title Corporation ("Owner"). 3. The requirements shall not be binding beyond the term of Applicant's Lease and occupancy of the Premises. 4. Owner has executed this agreement on the condition Owner/Kelton Title Corporation does not become subject to any additional conditions, fees or expenses as a result of this Application. Owner: Kelton Title Corporation BY:,..?--2-- t! Mark Leekley Vice President .... ATTACHMENT 8 --,~-_.- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item:J Meeting Date: 09/26/07 Public Hearing: Review of Conditional Use Permit (pCC-06-095) for the sale of alcoholic beverages at "A Taste of Italy Restaurant" located at 1730 East Palomar Street, Suite 1- Steve Abbo, Applicant. Review of the Conditional Use Permit (PCC-06-095), approved by the Planning Commission on November 29,2006, is a requirement ofthe approval under condition ill-B, which states: ITEM TITLE: III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it relies upon this approval: B. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review six months after the date of approval at a noticed public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. At the review hearing, Conditions of Approval may be revised or modified, or additional conditions may be added. Steve Abbo, owner of A Taste ofItaly Restaurant, applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on June 19, 2006 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant as required by the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Villages One and Five. A Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing was held on October 23, 2006 and the hearing officers determined the case should be set for a Planning Commission public hearing, which was held on November 29,2006. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered under the Second Tier FEIR-97-03 as certified by the City Council on November 10, 1998 and in previously adopted Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 95-01. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive public comments and testimony and make a determination regarding the performance of the CUP. In the absence of testimony to the contrary, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission note and file this report. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may assess comment and testimony and move to retain, revise, modify or add conditions to the Conditional Use Permit approved under Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06- 095 in accordance with the findings for approval. DISCUSSION: The Site Characteristics, General Plan, Zoning and Land Use, Proposal, Background, and previous Analysis Sections still apply and are found in the attached November 29,2006 Agenda Statement. -~-_..._---,<---- Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 09/26/07 ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission received testimony during the public comment portion of the public hearing held November 29, 2007, which in part led to the condition noted above requiring additional review of the applicant's Conditional Use Permit at a subsequent public hearing. Based on the residential communities concerns raised prior to the November 29, 2007 public hearing, staff recommended that the restaurant close at 11 :00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and 12:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday). In addition, those alcohol sales in the outdoor patio should be prohibited after 9:00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and 10:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday). The Planning Commission, working towards a compromise with the restaurant owners and operators, chose not to alter the operating hours, which remain 11 :00 AM to 2:00 AM seven days a week, and imposed the following condition on the hours for alcohol sales: III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it relies upon this approval: B. A. The sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday, and 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Since the approval last November, the Police Department reports that there have been 5 calls for service (see Attachment No.2). There are two noise complaints, a disturbance complaint, an incident evaluation, and a false alarm. One way to reduce the noise complaints could be if the restaurant closed a little earlier. Staff still considers the idea of the restaurant closing at 12 midnight on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) a modest proposal for residents of the Villagio community. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission respond to any testimony received regarding the performance of the CUP. In the absence of testimony to the contrary, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission note and file this report. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may assess comment and testimony and move to retain, revise, modify or add conditions to the Conditional Use Permit approved under Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095 in accordance with the findings for approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map, Site Plan, Floor Plan 2. Police Department Calls for Service 11/29/06 - 09/17/07 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. PCC-06-095 4. November 29,2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 5. November 29,2006 Planning Commission Agenda Statement J :\PLANNING\HAROLD\PCC-06-095-PCREPORT 2007 JBH.DOC CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~~I~: Taste of Italy PROJECT DESCRIPTION: r'\ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I I ~~~1: 1730 E Palomar St. # 1 Request: Proposal is to serve alcoholic beverages on site. SCALE: FilE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCC-QS-Q95 J:\planning\carlos~ocators\pcc06095.cdr 11.17.06 Attachment 1 ~-->"-"-"",-,.- Santa Cora Av /~ ,/;' m OJ V\ ,.;. "'0 OJ - o 3 OJ ..., j I I I f ~ 1 ! l \, V'I ,.;. \ i >1 "ONlO V/,./\ i -,,/ '., " , , I ^ ""U ""U r+ c: c: (') 0- 0" :T - - -. -. CD (") (") ::J 0 -- ::J -0 c: a. ,-+ 0 a. ..., 0 CD 0 "'0 0 .., )> ..., )> )> ..., CD ..., ..., Q) CD CD OJ OJ 1]1/01 Q S.N3YWf,'\ G: 131101 S,N3~~ Q " " c::~t:" :: --------------------------- D Chula Vista Police Department CPRA CALLS FOR SERVICE BY ADDRESS & DATE November 29,2006 Through September 17,2007 Address: 1730 E PALOMAR ST Call Category Date and Time CalllD Case No. Disp. Reporting Party Disturbance - Noise 12/17/0623:31 L293 CK Incident Evaluation 02110/07 22:11 L329 CK False Burglary Alarm. 02/27/0705:24 L38 C5 Commercial Disturbance - Person 04/26/07 21 :02 L417 CK Disturbance. Noise 06/13/07 00:43 L14 CK Print Date: 91181200710:16:40 AM Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-06-095 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AT 1730 EAST PALOMAR STREET, SUITE 1 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE - STEVE ABBO. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use pennit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on June 19, 2006 by Steve Abbo, ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the application requests permission for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant located at 1730 East Palomar Street, Suite 1 within the mixed-use village core of Otay Ranch Village Five; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has detennined that the proposed project was adequately covered under the Second Tier FEIR-97-03 as certified by the City Council on November 10, 1998 and in previously adopted Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 95-01; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on October 23, 2006 and, after receiving testimony from the Applicant and residents, referred the Conditional Use Pennit to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use pennit 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 of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on November 29, 2006, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the subject application. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista made the following findings, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made: Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095 Page 2 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the restaurant will provide a public amenity that is desirable to the immediate neighborhood and community. The restaurant consists of three indoor booths and two indoor tables providing 20 indoor seats, and a 6-seat cocktail lounge, for a total of 26 indoor seats. In addition the outdoor patio area provides 11 four-seat tables, and 5 two-seat tables, for a total of 54 seats. The total restaurant seating capacity is for 80 persons. In addition, it will contribute to the commercial viability of the mixed-use commercial residential property at this location, and will not adversely affect the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The restaurant is centrally located in the heart of the ground level retail Mixed-Use Village Five Commercial District at the comer of Santa Cora Avenue and East Palomar Street. It is the focal point tower and pedestrian entry feature in- between the four-story 48-unit residential condominium building (1760 East Palomar Street) located above the other ground floor retail to the east and across from the restaurant patio, and the four-story 24-unit residential condominium building (1241 Santa Cora Avenue) attached behind and above the restaurant. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the restaurant is subject to all health, safety and general welfare standards and regulations set forth by the City of Chula Vista. The property owner shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. The subject property shall also comply with all conditions of approval as well as Municipal Code Chapter 17.24 (noisy and disorderly conduct) standards, so as not to become a nuisance to surrounding property owners. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The approval of PCC-06-095 requires compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, set forth by the City of Chula Vista. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. This Conditional Use Pennit issuance complies with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Village Five, and the Village Five Core Master Precise Plan. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista grants Conditional Use Pennit PCC-06-095 subject to the following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owners shall: I. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the subject property in reliance upon this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the following requirements: A. The applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer all pertinent environmental mitigation measures identified in previously adopted Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 95-01. B. Building Pennits shall be required for any structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing alterations. Building plans shall comply with 2005 Handicapped Accessibility, Energy Requirements, and the 2001 CBC, CMC, CPC, and CEC requirements. II. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the following requirements shall be met: A. Comply with any Fire Department requirements resulting from a site inspection for a business license. B. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans, on file in the Planning Division; the conditions contained herein, Title 19, and the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan One for Villages One and Five. C. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it relies upon this approval: A. The sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be pennitted between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday, and 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. B. This Conditional Use Pennit shall be subject to review six months after the date of approval at a noticed public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. At the review hearing, Conditions of Approval may be revised or modified, or additional conditions may be added. C. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095 Page 4 the Alcohol Beverage Commission (ABC), the Police Department and/or the Planning and Building Department on demand. D. There shall be no live entertainment such as dancing, topless entertainment, male or female performers or fashion shows on the premises. Live entertainment such as live music, disc jockey, karaoke may be provided in the interior of the premises but shall not be audible outside the premises. No live entertainment shall be allowed after 9:00 PM unless approved by the Planning Director. E. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of the issuance of the conditional use permit. F. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Applicant and after the City has given to the Applicant the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Applicant of a substantial revenue source which the Applicant cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the Planning and Building Department secretary. Failure to return said document to the Planning and Building Department secretary shall indicate the property owners/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for a Conditional Use Permit, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the Planning and Building Department office and known as Document No. Signature of Applicant and/or Authorized Representative Date Signature of Property Owner, 1730 East Palomar St., Ste. 1 Date Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095 Page 5 INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of a conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, as well as the Zoning Code, and all other applicable plans so that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION approves this Resolution granting the conditional use permit in accordance with the findings and conditions contained herein and that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 29th day of November, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Bryan Felber, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary J :\PLANNING\HARO LD\REsOLUTIONS\PCC-06-095-PCREso.DOC MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. VVednesday, November 29, 2006 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 6:06:58 PM CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Member(s) Absent: Cmrs. Felber, Clayton, Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Spethman Cmr. Tripp Staff Members Present: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public Input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 06.95; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages at "A Taste of Italy Restaurant" located at 1730 East Palomar Street, Suite 1. Applicant: Steve Abbo. (Quasi-Judicial) Background: Harold Phelps reported that on November 30,2004 a public notice was sent to 51 residential units located in the vicinity of the restaurant regarding the application for a liquor license. On December 2004 the liquor license was approved and a zoning affidavit was erroneously approved, indicating that a CUP was not necessary. With no public comment, the ABC license was issued without conditions on January 27, 2005. The Villagio condominiums opened in 2005; meanwhile the permitting and construction process took place for the restaurant, which opened in April 2006. The Police Department received a complaint for noise disturbances associated with alcohol consumption occurring on the patio. The complaint was brought to the attention of the Planning Department, where it was discovered that a CUP application should have been made for the sale of alcohol. The owner was notified and subsequently applied for a CUP. The Planning Department sent out notices to residents within 500 ft. of the restaurant for a Zoning Administrator determination and subsequently received letters and petitions from the residents. A ZA hearing was held on October 23,2006 and since a consensus could not be reached, the Zoning Administrator determined to refer the CUP to the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting a continuance to December 13, 2006. The Villagio residents are requesting that a continuance not be granted and that the Planning Attachment 4 Minutes of the Planning Commission .2. November 29, 2006 Commission move forward with the Public Hearing as scheduled for November 29,2006. Commission Comments: Upon a brief discussion on the merit of accepting or rejecting the applicanfs request to continue the public hearing to December 13,2006, the following motion was offered. MSC (Bensoussan/Moctezuma) (4-2-1-0) that the Planning Commission open public hearing, take testimony and continue the public hearing to December 13, 2006. Motion failed with Cmrs. Spethman, Felber, Vinson, Clayton voting against the motion. Public Hearing Opened: Steve Abbo, restaurant co-owner, 1730 E. Palomar St., Ste. 1, Chula Vista reiterated that at the time that they went through the entitlement process with the City and obtained their liquor license with the ABC, they were never told that a Conditional Use Permit was required. Mr. Abbo stated that their ABC license was granted based on the hours of operation they submitted and were approved by the City. He indicated that their business concept works and they have been successful because they are able to hold the hours of operation and sale of alcohol that they do. The restaurant is patronized by a client-base that favors late-night fine dining and want to enjoy and accompany their meal with an alcoholic beverage or wine. Their restaurant is competing with higher-end restaurants that you would find in the Gaslamp District and Little Italy. Their objective is to enable their clientele base to stay in the area and not have to drive to downtown San Diego to enjoy fine Italian cuisine. Mr. Abbo stated that they have already experienced a reduction in business due to more restaurants opening in eastern Chula Vista; in his opinion, the added restrictions that are being proposed under this CUP would most likely force him out of business. Cmr. Spethman asked the applicant to elaborate on who is patronizing his restaurant at such late hours during week days and inquired what is the average time that they stay open during week-days. Mr. Abbo responded that it's not uncommon to get a group of ten professionals or a family group consisting of couples that come in at 11 :00 p.m.; most like to sit outside in the patio area. During the week-days, staying open til1 :00 would keep their business viable, however, closing as 12:00 midnight would have a significant financial impacts. Cmr. Spethman clarified that his understanding of the applicant's position is that although their late-night busy days are Thursday thru Saturday! the applicant would like the flexibility to remain open late Sunday thru Wednesday for the occasional late night crowd, although past experience has been that they closed by 1 :00 a.m. Cmr. Clayton stated that this is a two-fold matter; first is the restriction on the hours of operation; secondly, of most concern to her is the restriction that alcohol may not be served on the patio after 9:00 p.m. She indicated that over 2/3rds of the restaurant's seating capacity is outside in the patio; this, in her opinion, would have a significant financial impact and the restaurant's viability may potentially be at stake. Minutes of the Planning Commission .3. November 29, 2006 Robert Riley, 1250 Santa Cora #736, Chula Vista, CA stated that he is a local resident who enjoys patronizing the restaurant at least twice a week. He noted that the only defect on the project design is the location of the trash receptacle for the restaurant; it doesn't seem appropriate to have the restaurant dispose of their trash in the same area as the residents. A new location should be considered. Diah Asker, 4001 EI Cajon Blvd. Ste. 211, San Diego, CA 92105, restaurant co-owner. Mr. Asker re-stated that they fulfilled all of the requirements of the entitlement process in good faith; proper noticing to the area residents was conducted and that residents were aware through their HOA CC&R's that the area they were choosing to live in was zoned Mixed-Use. Zenia Morlet, 1839 Cherbourg Dr., Chula Vista, CA stated that she patronizes the restaurant on a frequent basis. The restaurant offers fine dining, is an attractive, clean restaurant, and a tranquil place to enjoy a late-night diner accompanied with a glass of wine. She has never witness disorderly behavior. One of the things she mostly likes is being able to walk to the restaurant from her home, and she supports the restaurant maintaining its present hours of operation and hours for sale of alcohol. Jaime Garibay, 1839 Cherbourg Drive, Chula Vista, CA stated he patronizes many restaurants in Chula Vista and A Taste of Italy is one of his favorites for all of the reasons previously stated by his fiance, Ms. Morlet. He emphasized that they appreciate a restaurant of this caliber being in the South Bay where you are able to enjoy fine late-night dining. He too supports the restaurant maintaining its present hours of operation. Neset Yalcinkoya, 1760 East Palomar St., #301, Chula Vista, CA stated that inebriated people leave the restaurant screaming, laughing, sometimes fighting, honking horns or peeling tires. He opposes the present hours of operation because of the nuisance late-night noise that is severely impacting the quality of life for his family. Evelyn Bermick, 1241 Santa Cora Ave. #134, Chula Vista, CA made some points of clarification that unlike the other restaurants that have been mentioned, i.e. Miguel's, Alejandro's, and others, this restaurant is located in a Mixed-Use area where both businesses and residents need to peacefully co-exist, which is why it is going through the Conditional Use Permit process now. Ms. Bermick pointed out that over 98% of the signatures on the petition submitted by the applicant in support of maintaining the status quo are residents that do not live in the area, therefore, are not impacted like the Villagio condominium project. Ms. Bermick and her neighbors have endured disorderly behavior that goes beyond nuisance, from both the patrons and employees of the restaurant. The restaurant owners and managers have not been good neighbors and shown total disregard to the neighborhood's complaints. Aja Reed, 1760 E. Palomar Street, #303, Chula Vista, CA stated that she has patronized the restaurant, but right now they are not being good neighbors. She indicated that when the restaurant closes at midnight, the employees don't leave until 1 :00, the kitchen employees don't leave until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. and when those employees are leaving they are slamming car doors, blaring their radios, saying their good-byes yelling back and forth, and talking on cell phones. Minutes of the Planning Commission -4- November 29, 2006 John Melvin, 1760 E. Palomar Street, #114, Chula Vista, CA stated there are serious problems caused by drunkenness and has personally witnessed people urinating on cars, and he has had his windshield smashed. He stated that this is his life's investment and these undesirable conditions is causing his property value to go down. The applicant's argument that they were never told in the beginning that they would have to apply for a CUP, although unfortunate, is not valid. The code requires it and it is up to the City to conditionally approve or disprove the CUP. Viktor Zagorol, 1760 E. Palomar St., #105, Chula Vista, CA restated the same disturbances others have already talked about, regarding the employees leaving at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. He stated he is disheartened that he and his family cannot enjoy an uninterrupted peaceful, silent night, where they can sleep with their windows open. He urged the commission to impose restrictions on hours of operation. Mayra Pizarro, 1760 E. Palomar, #305, Chula Vista, CA stated that she has experience inappropriate comments and hackling from drunk patrons when she is returning home after being out for the evening. Ms. Pizarro stated that often times she would rather take the longer route walking to her home in order to avoid this situation. Justin Liptord, 1760 E. Palomar, Chula Vista, CA stated he too lives in the Villagio's and concurs with all of the comments the residents have raised, however, as a Social Services employee his perspective is advocating on behalf of the population he serves, which are adolescents. His concern is with the hours and sale of alcohol and the behavior associated with its abuse. It is a public safety issue and should be taken seriously. Public Hearing Closed. Cmr. Vinson stated he encourages a compromise by both parties. After hearing the public testimony, it is clear that one of the major problems is a lack of employee management and supervision on the part of the restaurant owners. Making a good-faith effort to being a better neighbor would go a long way. Cmr. Vinson stated: . He supports Condition of Approval III. A. restricting the hours of operation from 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11: a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday. . Recommends eliminating Condition of Approval III. B. regarding the sale of alcohol ending at 9:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday, and 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday because it is a bit restrictive and could potentially cause a significant financial impact. Cmr. Clayton stated she concurs with Cmr. Vinson's comments and further recommended that prior to the Commission taking final action on the CUP that a caveat be added encouraging the applicant to better supervise his employees in being good neighbors and also recommended imposing a six-month trial period in which at the end of the test period the applicant and area residents could re-address the Commission to discuss whether they followed through and took the necessary steps to mitigate or eliminate the problems. Minutes of the Planning Commission .5. November 29, 2006 Cmr. Felber stated that in his opinion the hours of operation are not the problem. The restaurant owners are the one who know what works for them and if it's profitable for them to remain open late when no one is coming into the restaurant. He further stated that most, if not all, of the complaints can be eliminated with a strong effort and commitment on the part of the owners and managers to require that all of their employees undergo "sensitivity training" with clearly laid out rules and procedures on how to close down the restaurant, clean-up, dispose of trash, and how to properly address and handle any complaint that is received either by phone or in person. Every complaint should be taken seriously and directed to the owners to be properly addressed. Signs should be posted and clearly visible explaining the restaurant's complaint protocol. The employees need to have a clear understanding that the operation of the restaurant is only permitted through a Conditional Use Permit, that can be revoked at any time that it is determined that they are not in compliance; its their jobs and livelihood that is at stake. Cmr. Bensoussan concurred with comments previously offered by fellow commissioners to eliminate condition III. B. and retain III. A. She reiterated that good neighbor policies and training is the way to go and stated there are many creative ways that the restaurant can engage their patrons and employees to work together in being better neighbors, Le. posting signs on the parking lot to remind them. Cmr. Moctezuma stated she too concurs with the previous commission comments and favors a six-month trial period. Cmr. Speth man also echoed the previous comments on the sensitivity training. He commended the owner and made recognition on the restaurant being a high-end, aesthetically appealing restaurant, however, they are dealing with disorderly conduct that doesn't normally occur with this type of establishment, but rather, with much less desirable ones. He further recommended that perhaps the owners should seriously consider hiring a security guard or bouncer to address any disorderly behavior that occurs in the restaurant and surrounding area and parking lot. Cmr. Spethman stated he concurs with eliminating III. B. and would offer a motion for discussion with a recommendation to amend condition III.A. to extend the hours of sale of alcohol to 12:00 midnight during Sunday through Thursday, and 1 :00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Cmr. Vinson indicated that the hours stated in III.A. are in line with other restaurants. Cmr. Vinson further stated that he would be inclined to consider extending the hours as proposed by Cmr. Spethman, however, he would favor holding off on it until after the six-month trial period. Cmr. Moctezuma stated that, in her opinion, a restaurant's success, among other things, is based on its clientele's knowledge and coming to rely on certain hours of operation, therefore, she is concerned with flip-flopping back and forth with changing hours of operation. Cmr. Bensoussan stated that she favors Cmr. Spethman's recommendation to amend Condition III. A. upfront now, granting the applicant the opportunity to operate under those conditions during the six-month trial period. At the end of the six month period when this matter comes before the Planning Commission again to evaluate their compliance with the issues of concern and their employee sensitivity training, at that time, if they still have not improved their relationship with their neighbors, stricter restrictions could be imposed at that time or the CUP denied. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 6 - November 29,2006 MSC (Vinson/Clayton) (6-0-1.Q) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 06-95 with the following changes to the resolution: . That Condition III.B. be stricken in its entirety . That Condition III.A. be amended to read "The hours of operation for the restaurant, including the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday, and 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. Friday and Saturday."; and . That this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review six months after the date of approval at a noticed public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. At the review hearing, Conditions of Approval may be revised or modified, or additional conditions may be added. Motion carried. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 06-12; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map to convert an existing 12-unit apartment complex to 12 condominium units for individual ownership at 582 Arizona Street. Applicant: Floit Homes. (Quasi-Judicial) Background: Luis Hernandez reported that on October 25, 2006 the Planning Commission heard and subsequently continued this item so that the applicant could have additional time to address the parking and open space issues raised at the hearing. Staff reviewed the original site plan, which was approved with approximately 6,580 sf of open space by the ORC in 1989. Minor modifications were approved during the building permit review process resulting in a reduction of open space from 6,580 to approximately 5,910 sf (projects requires 5,760 sf). Staff is of the opinion that the open space is in substantial compliance with the applicable property development standards, therefore, the two existing guest parking spaces may remain and no conversion to open space is required. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 06-12 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map PCS 06-12 based on the findings and subject to conditions listed in the draft City Council Resolution. MSC (FelberNinson) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 06- 12 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map PCS 06-12 based on the findings and subject to conditions listed in the draft City Council Resolution. Motion carried with Cmr. Spethman abstaining. Minutes of the Planning Commission - 7 - November 29, 2006 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 05-44; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a hand car wash facility and expansion of an existing mini-mart at a service station located within the Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center at 350 East H Street. Applicant: Lorna Ratonel/Carmalor, Inc. (Quasi-Judicial) Background: Luis Hernandez reported that the applicant is requesting a continuance to the next available Planning Commission meeting, therefore, staff recommends that public hearing be opened and continued to December 13,2006. MSC (Felber/Clayton) (6-0-1-0) that public hearing be opened and continued to December 13, 2006. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: To a regular meeting on December 13, 2006. Submitted by Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/29/06 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit (PCC-06-095) for the sale of alcoholic beverages at "A Taste of Italy Restaurant" located at 1730 East Palomar Street, Suite 1 - Steve Abbo, Applicant. Steve Abbo, owner of A Taste ofItaly Restaurant, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant as required by the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Villages One and Five. A Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing was held on October 23,2006 and the hearing officers detennined the case should be set for a Planning Commission public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has detennined that the proposed project was adequately covered under the Second Tier FEIR-97 -03 as certified by the City Council on November 10, 1998 and in previously adopted Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Final Second Tier Environmental hnpact Report, EIR 95-0 I. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: At the ZA public hearing on October 23,2006, the ZA Hearing Officer received testimony from the applicant and the residents and detennined that since both parties were unable to reach an agreement, the item should be set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approves Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095 approving the Conditional Use Pennit in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The project site is a mixed-use development, which, in addition to design advantages, intentionally brings residential dwelling into close proximity to commercial activities. This is distinguished from purely multi-family neighborhoods where such activities are precluded. Living in a mixed-use neighborhood has the advantage of convenience, and easy access to amenities, but carries with it a certain level of nearby activity that would not normally occur in a residential neighborhood. Attachment 5 Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 11/29/06 The restaurant is centrally located in the heart ofthe Village Five Mixed-Use Commercial District at the comer of Santa Cora A venue and East Palomar Street. The restaurant is part ofthe 10,000-sq. ft. of ground level retail in-between the four-story 48-unit residential condominium building (1760 East Palomar Street), and the four-story 24-unit residential condominium building (1241 Santa Cora Avenue) attached behind and above the restaurant. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The property is designated Mixed-Use Village Core in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and is zoned Planned Community (PC), where the District Regulations classify the land use as Commercial in the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One for Village Five. 3. Proposal The proposal is a request to allow alcoholic beverage sales within an existing restaurant located in the SPA One Planned Community (PC) Village Five Mixed-Use District CommerciallResidential Multi-Family Two (15+ units/acre) CIRM2 Zoning Classification. The Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant is required where the sale of alcohol is not limited to the incidental serving of beer/wine, and where the serving of alcoholic beverages includes a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment or dancing (SPA One PC District Regulations Section III-24). The restaurant consists of three indoor booths and two indoor tables providing 20 indoor seats, and a 6-seat cocktail lounge, for a total of26 indoor seats. In addition the outdoor patio area provides 11 four-seat tables, and 5 two-seat tables, for a total of 54 seats. The total restaurant seating capacity is for 80 persons. BACKGROUND: According to the Police Department, a public notice was sent to 51 resident units located in the vicinity of the restaurant regarding the application for an Alcohol and Beverage Commission (ABC) license on behalf of the restaurant on November 30, 2004. A zoning affidavit was erroneously approved in conjunction with the ABC license application in December 2004 indicating that a CUP application was not necessary. With no public comment, the ABC license was issued without conditions on January 27,2005. The Villagio condominiums opened in 2005, so the public noticing for the ABC license likely didn't capture any ofthe 72 residential units located adjacent or attached to the restaurant. Meanwhile, the building pennit and construction process took all of the remainder of the year 2005 and into the Spring 2006 before the restaurant was able to open in April 2006. The Police Department received its first Call for Service on April 2, 2006 for loud noise disturbances associated with alcohol consumption occurring on the patio. The complaint was brought to the attention of the Planning Department, where it was discovered that a CUP application should have been made for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Planning staff contacted the restaurant owner about Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 11/29/06 the CUP requirement and the owner duly applied for a CUP on June 19, 2006. Public notices were sent to residents and owners within 500-ft. ofthe restaurant in August 2006 requesting comments for a Zoning Administrator (ZA) detennination. The Planning Department received letters and a petition from residents of the mixed-use project, and a ZA public hearing was held on October 23, 2006. Since a consensus could not be reached between the residents and the restaurant owner, the ZA Hearing Officer detennined to refer the CUP to the Planning Commission. ANAL YSIS: The Taste of Italy Restaurant is a retail commercial use that is mutually desired by both nearby business operators within the Villagio Town Center as well as the surrounding Otay Ranch Village Five neighborhood community. At issue is what types of conditions need to be applied to the restaurant operation in order to enable it to maintain a positive relationship with the adjacent and abutting mixed-use residents living within the Villagio Town Center. Based on the testimonies received from the applicant and the residents at the October nrd Zoning Administrator public hearing (see Attachment 2), as well as the letters and petition received (see Attachment 3), it is clear that some operational controls should be proposed in order to allow the restaurant to be compatible primarily with the residents living in the 72 condominium units adjacent and abutting the Taste ofItaly Restaurant. Towards that end, the hours of operation for both the restaurant and the sales of alcohol should be addressed to reduce the adverse affects of loud nuisance noise and the potential for public intoxication associated with alcohol consumption. Currently the restaurant hours of operations are between 11 :00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. everyday. Staff proposes that the hours of operation be revised to between 11 :00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and between 11 :00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday). These proposed hours of operation comparable to those for other restaurant serving alcoholic beverages that are located within the vicinity of Eastern Chu1a Vista: Restaurant: Miguel's (656-2822) Island's (397-2643) Chili's (656-2910) Carino's (397-7307) Weekdays (Sunday - Thursday): 11 :00 a.m. - 9:30 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Weekends (Friday & Saturday): 10:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. The hours of operation at other Taste ofItaly chain restaurants are controlled as follows: Restaurant: Tal - Hillcrest Tal - Rancho San Diego Tal - Del Mar Vesuvio's - North Park Etna's - City Heights Weekdays (Sunday - Thursday): 11 :00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight 11 :00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight 11 :00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. Weekends (Friday & Saturday): 11 :00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight 11 :00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. 11 :00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight 11 :00 a.m. - 12:00 midnight 11 :00 a.m. - 3:00 a.m. Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 11/29/06 If the restaurant closed at 11 :00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and 12:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday) the complaints about late night employee activities, such as after hour gatherings and clean-up involving the dumping of trash receptacles and the opening of trash enclosure gates and dumpsters, should be eliminated during the early morning hours of3 :00 and 4:00 a.m. Such activities would be limited to occurring between 11 :00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight on weekdays and 12:00 midnight and 1 :00 a.m. on weekends. In addition, based on limitations that are typically applied by ABC licensing to establishments that provide outdoor alcohol sales and consumption, it is proposed that the sale of alcoholic beverages be limited to the indoor portions of the restaurant and prohibited on the patio after 9:00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and 10:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday). As noted above, 54 of the 80 seats are in the out door patio area, while only 26 seats (including a 6-seat cocktail lounge ) are indoors. Based on the testimonies that most of the nuisance noise reported were the result oflate night noise associated with alcohol consumption on the patio, limiting alcohol sales to the indoor dining areas and the cocktail lounge in the final two hours before the restaurant closes would reduce the potential for nuisance noise projecting into the adjacent and abutting residential units closer to the quiet hours of the late evening. Other proposed special conditions have to do with the primary function as a restaurant in relation to the sale of alcohol and live entertainment. In keeping with the intent of the ABC license, the restaurant should distinguish receipts of total food sales from alcohol sales on a quarterly basis, verifying on demand that food sales are greater than 50 percent of the total restaurant sales. Regarding live entertainment, it is proposed that limited fonns of live entertainment such as live music, karaoke and disc jockeys be allowed in the interior of the premises before 9:00 p.m. nightly and no later unless specifically approved by the Planning and Building Director. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the restaurant close at 11 :00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and 12:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday). In addition, those alcohol sales in the outdoor patio are prohibited after 9:00 p.m. on weekdays (Sunday through Thursday) and 10:00 p.m. on weekends (Friday and Saturday). As a restaurant, food sales should be greater than 50 percent of the total restaurant sales, and quarterly sales receipts should be available on demand by the City to verify that the restaurant is in compliance with the intent of the ABC license for restaurants. Live entertainment on limited basis shall also be allowed in the interior of the premises. Based on the addition of these conditions, staff recommends approval of the conditional use pennit as noted in the draft Planning Commission Resolution PCC-06-095. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map 2. October 23,2006 Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes 3. Letters and Petition from Surrounding Community Residents 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 5. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement 6. Villagio Town Center Site Plantfaste ofItaly Floor Plan J :\PLANNING\HAROLD\PCC-06-095- PCREPORT.DOC