Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/09/12 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 12, 2007 City Hall Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Planning Commission: Felber_Vinson Moctezuma_Bensoussan Tripp_Clay ton_ Spethman_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 8, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commissions' 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) Project Manager: Maria Muett, Associate Planner Planning Commission Agenda -2- September 12, 2007 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: PCC 05-53; Revocation of Conditional Use Permit, permitting outdoor seating for Baja Taco at 1052 Broadway. Applicant: Marcos Espinosa. (Quasi-Judicial) Project Manager: Brian Catacutan, Assistant Planner To a regular Planning Commission meeting on September 26,2007. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. August 8,2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: 6:15:34 PM Introductory Remarks ROLL CALL / MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman Member Absent: Vinson 6:17:43 PM INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 25, 2007 MSC (Felber I Bensoussan) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission approve minutes of July 25, 2007, reflecting Cmr. Bensoussan's clarification on Mr. Molski's inquiry pertaining to the KOA park site as it relates to the mobilehome park use. Motion carried with Cmr. Spethman abstaining due to his absence on 7/25/07. 2. Public Hearing: PCM 05-13; Request to amend the Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to increase the allowable square footage of the Otay Ranch Town Center by 93,000 sf from 867,000 sf to 960,000 sf. In order to expedite the discussion of item #1., "Mobilehome Closure Ordinance", Chairman Tripp took items #2 and #3 out of sequence. Chair Tripp took the following actions pertaining to Public Hearing PCM 05-13: . Dispensed with staff's presentation . Opened Public Hearing . There being no public input, closed Public Hearing . Asked for Commission comments, and . Called for the Question MSC (Spethman I Felber) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 05-13 recommending the City Council approve the amendment to the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - August 8, 2007 3. Public Hearing: PC A 08-01; Zoning Ordinance Amendment proposal to amend the Chula Vista Municipal Code to add definitions and informational language to Sections 19.60-060 and 19.60-600 of the Sign Ordinance. Cmr. Clayton recused herself from the dais. Chair Tripp took the following actions pertaining to Public Hearing PCA 08-01: . Dispensed with staffs presentation . Public Hearing Opened: - Richard D'Ascoli, representing the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors stated that this ordinance does some housekeeping to set-up another ordinance that will allow on a strict timeline a limited number of signs in the Public Right Of Way. . Public Hearing Closed . Asked for Commission comments, and . Called for the Question MSC (Felber I Moctezuma) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendments to Sections 19.60.060 and 19.60.600 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 1. Information Item: Information presentation on the update of Mobilehome Closure Ordinance (CVMC 9.40 & 9.60). Background: Mandy Mills reported that in October 2006 the City Council approved the establishment of a Mobilehome Overlay District in the General Plan. This action resulted from concerns that proposed rezoning of mobilehome and trailer parks to conform to the recently updated General Plan could increase changes in land use and increase the number of park closures and displaced residents. Ms. Mills further stated that State law governs mobilehome regulations and protects landowner rights to either sell or change the use of their property. The State also gives authority to the City to monitor relocation impacts should the landowners chose to sell or change the use of their property, and also determine compensation for displaced park residents. The ordinance update is intended to ensure that when a change of use is contemplated for an existing park that the relocation impacts on residents is properly addressed. The existing ordinance is outdated and market conditions don't reflect current market costs. Ms. Mills outlined five major topic areas; they are: . The right of first refusal . The notification timeframes . Tennant relocation for renters . Mobilehome relocation assistance should a mobilehome be able to be relocated . Mobilehome value in the instance where a mobilehome cannot be relocated Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - August 8, 2007 Commission Comments: Cmr. Spethman asked how many outreach programs were conducted in the mobilehome/trailer park community. Ms. Mills responded that a total of 12 meetings were held over the course of 6 months, which included Spanish translation. The City also mailed thousands of postcards to every mobilehome resident informing them about the process. Public Testimony: 7:41:44 PM Teresa Acero, President of Southwest Civic Association support the mobilehome park residents and believe that what staff is proposing is not adequate for the residents. She encouraged the Commission to consider passing along their recommendation to City Council opposing staff's proposal. There are many residents who are elderly, handicapped, or of extremely low income who are vulnerable and at risk of becoming homeless should their parks close. The SWCA request that the following changes be made to the draft ordinance: . Renters of low or extremely low income need the same rental assistance as mobilehome owners . The value of the mobilehomes must be determined based on the fair "on-site" market value . When determining the rental assistance, the actual net income of each resident should be used to calculate eligibility and amount of assistance . 25% to 30% of the actual net income of each resident should be considered the affordable rent for that specific resident. . The number of rental bedrooms should equal or exceed the number of bedrooms that the mobilehome has. Patricia Lopez stated that these residents choose to live in a mobilehome not only because they enjoy the lifestyle and their community, but because it is the only thing they can afford. As previously stated, a lot of these individuals are senior citizens on a fixed income, disabled individuals, or an extremely low income family. Park closures would be devastating to many of these residents and would cause a whole segment of our community to become homeless. Yolanda Cordero, stated she concurs previous statement that these residents live in mobilehomes because this is the only thing they can afford. It's unfortunate that these residents have to live with instability, not knowing if any day they'll be told to move their home or be forced to give away their home in exchange for a menial pay-off. Diana Lynn stated that no one in her park is wanting to move; there's a lot of confusion and sadness in her neighbors because of they fear that if they attend the public meetings, somehow the park owner will hold it against them. She urged the City to be compassionate in their dealings with these residents because this is all they can afford to live in and they are also concerned about their pets. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 8, 2007 Parks Pemberton offered the following two recommendations: 1) that the City open up a market in Eastern Chula Vista where investors are allowed to purchase large pieces of property to develop into nice mobilehome parks, and 2) that the City underground the utilities and allow mobilehomes to be parked in the easements where these power line use to be, which span and traverse the City from Southwestern College to Palomar. Ciro Reyes stated that he lives in a mobilehome park now because of his current financial situation, but is optimistic that this is just in the interim time until he is able to obtain a higher wage job. Most of the people in mobilehome parks are not as fortunate to have that option, and if you take away their homes in order for the land to be developed, you'll be creating a class of homeless people. Sean Ortega stated he's lived in a mobilehome park most of his life and there's a lot to be said about the advantages of living in a park and the sense of community that comes with it. Mr. Ortega does not oppose development, but urges the decision-makers to carefully think through their compensation proposals to the residents who will be displaced and face losing their homes; that it be fair and equitable using realistic financial figures based on today's cost of living. Goldie Sheldon stated if you sell one of these homes on-site, they're worth $40,000 to $150,000. The thought that at most a homeowner could get up to $11,000 for their home is outrageous and not fair; there needs to be a way to recover equitable costs for their life investment. Barbara Nunneic restated the need to ensure that residents that are displaced don't fall through the cracks and are allowed to become homeless people. She recommends that the compensation packet include deposit and first month rent once the resident has found a new place to live. Steve Molski stated that he's spoken with former Mayor Padilla recommending that the KOA park property would be an ideal location to place some of these displaced mobilehomes; you've got the infrastructure with running water, sewer, and electricity. Additionally, he stated that you should be able to get what the retail on-site value of that mobilehome is. Emilia Perez stated that the timing of when the notices were mailed and when the meetings were held was not sufficient time to get the word out to encourage as many residents to come out to the meeting. The compensation plan is inadequate; all they are asking for is that they be compensated the true on-site market value of their home. Dolores Dempsey stated how can you remove us from our homes like a used truck. Many residents have spent thousands of dollars on improvements to their home. Many people are paying mortgages on their home and they must get fair market value. The owner of the park has property rights and can do with his property what he wants, however, they also should have a moral obligation to ensure that the residents of his park, who have been paying on his investment, should equally be compensated by the park owner at the time that he decides to sell his land. End of public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 8, 2007 Cmr. Bensoussan asked what happens in a similar scenario if a park is going to go into bankruptcy or Chapter 11 like Jade Bay, will this ordinance have teeth in it that will be respected by the Bankruptcy Court. Mandy Mills responded that this ordinance in terms of bankruptcy would not have any say or any standing at the court level. The overlay district was put I place in order to have the landowner or developer, whomever is wanting to change the land use, they would have to prove that they satisfy the obligations of our ordinance. Cmr. Bensoussan stated that as an appraiser of personal and real property, she is concerned with the valuation terminology used throughout the report. It would be undesirable to see an ordinance that uses antiquated terms because of potential law suit if the terms are not accurate and reflecting those of the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Cmr. Bensoussan also stated she was confused why staff would be recommending that only the cost approach be used in an appraisal. There are three approaches to value; fair market value entails an analysis of comparable sales. When you appraise personal property, as these homes are, you have an opportunity to look at different approaches to value and decide which is the most appropriate. Comparable sales is an extremely important approach to value personal property. Personal property appraiser aren't so quick to use Marshal Swift data and are discouraged from using price guides like Kelley Blue Book. The ordinance needs to be more scientific and reality based in terms of the valuation procedure. Cmr. Tripp stated that he understands how serious of an affordable housing issue this is for our community. The essence of the issue is that there are better economic uses of land other than as a mobilehome park; its disheartening for the mobilehome owner to hear that, but it a true statement. Cmr. Tripp encourages the residents to attend the Housing Advisory Committee meetings because they serve in an advisory role to the City Council, and the City Council has the decision-making role of approving whatever ordinance comes before them. Cmr. Felber stated that an idea that comes to mind is having some kind of a disclosure statement informing potential buyers or those moving into mobile home parks of what it means to be renting a piece of land on property owned by someone else who ultimately has property rights and can decide to sell his land. Cmr. Clayton stated that disclosure is already standard practice with her clients, however, the down side is that very few mobilehomes are sold by realtors; they are mostly sold by the mobilehome park or by the individual owners, therefore, there is no control over what they disclose. Cmr. Felber stated that perhaps this is something that could be considered to be written into the ordinance. Mandy Mills stated that this is already something that staff is looking into. Similarly, when lease renewals come up, this would be an opportunity to provide this disclosure information to the tenants, however, in a lot of instances, the homes are sold privately without the park owner knowing that the property has changed ownership. Conclusion of update on Mobilehome Closure Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 8, 2007 Adjournment: To a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 22,2007. Submitted By: Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission CHULA VISTA --^.^.--- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: .1- 09/12107 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 El PolIo Restaurant within an existing shopping center. BACKGROUND The project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission per CVMC Sections 19.34.030, (see Attachment 6, CVMC 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 EI Polio 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 thc Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the overal1 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 Negativc Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-07-006, and approve Conditional Use Pennit 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, IS-07-006 (see Attachment 4, Resource Conservation Commission Minutes). DISCUSSION Project 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 I, 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 residentia] uses and a junior college (see Attachment I, 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 I I :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-ll Page No.3 West General Plan CY Municipal Code Existing Land Use Zoning -- Commercial Retail Neighborhood Shopping Center (CR) Commercial (CN) Rcsidential - Low Single Family Single Family Rcsidences Mcdium Density Residential (R -I) (LM) Commercial Retail Neighborhood Gas Station (located on (CR) Commercial (CN) adjacent parcel) Residential- Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residences Medium Density (R-3) (MiJitary Housing) (M) Residential - Low Single Family East of Commercial Center are Medium Density Residential (R-l) Single Family Residences (LM) Residential Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residences Medium Density (R-3) (M) Educational Facility Junior College Public Quasi (PQ) Site North 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 Permit. Fastfood Restaurant and Drive-through Services: Stacking Drive-through scrvices 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, thcrefore, 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 projcct's primary access, vehicle backups and stacking onto Otay Lakes Road are avoided, therefore, not crcating traffic hazards and traffic delays. Drive-through Circulation By bui1ding placement and drive-through lane design, vehic1es 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 souther1y access along Otay Lakes Road. Vehicles 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 pattcrns 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 (CVMC) 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, CVMC Section 19.62). The proposed 15 parking spaces surround the proposed project area consisting of existing and new parking spaces. The proposcd 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. Otay 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 determined to be consistent with the City Noise PCC-07-l1 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 II:OOp.m. Traffic Noise Thc proposed outdoor eating area adjacent to Otay Lakes Road could be exposed to a potential noise level of75 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 centcr 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 Rcsolution). DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has revicwed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is subject to this action. PCC-07-11 Page NO.6 FISCAL IMPACT There arc no fiscal impacts Irom the preparation of this report and the processing of the Conditional Use Permit and the Design Review. All costs are covered by the deposit accounts. ATTACHMENTS Attachments I 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 Form 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 Tiffany Elementary School Multifamily Residential (Navy Housing) Soufhwestern College C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT EI Polio Loco PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT College Plaza Project Description: Proposing CUP to construct new 2,200 sq. fl. EI ADDRESS: Pallo Loco fast food restaurant wId rive thru lane located on existing SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: parkway on the Southwest comer of Parcel. l NORTH No Scale PCC-07-011 Related cases: 1~"(}7.J1nR nR(":.J17_1A 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 FAST FOOD 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 (El 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 thereafter closed. ATTACHMENT 2 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 Rcporting 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 ofChula Vista that it makes the following findings: I. 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 II :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 Permit 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 Permit (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 Permit (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. 6. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ-1374. 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 (SB1025), 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 permit 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 onsite 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 conformance 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 permit, 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 permission 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-I A, 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 Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) for Private DevelopmentlRedevelopment 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 rcduce the amount of pollutants entcring 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 permit. 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 permit 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 conformance 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 ofbuilding permit 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 Permit 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 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 pennitted, 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 ovcr time, if any of such conditions fail to Resolution Page 7 of9 bc 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. 32. 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 trems, 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. 33. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's 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. 34. 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 Ill. 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 permits 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 terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition 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 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. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th 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\EI Polio Loco\PCC-07-011PC Reso - E! Po11o FinaLdoc Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: EI 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. Proiect Setting The O.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. Proiect Description 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 11 :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. 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 Pemit by the Design Review Committee and, in order to accommodate a drive-thru service facility, a Conditional Use Pemit by the Planning Commission. D. Public Comments On March 5, 2007, a Notice of Initial 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 Availabilitv of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proiect was posted in the Countv Clerk's Office and circulated to DroDertv owners within a SOO-foot radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on Julv 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 Studv Checklist. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist fom) detemined 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 Oualitv 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 EI Pol/o 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, buiJding 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 I contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term 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-term 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. Hvdrologv/Water Oualitv 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. Existinf! Conditions There is currently no on-site drainage system, however, a storm 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 I 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 runoffrates 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 storm drain system include at the minimum sandbags, sediment traps, preservation of existing and increased vegetation, dust control, storm 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 Storm Water Permit. 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 Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) for Private DevelopmentlRedevelopment 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 significancc. 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 analyzcd 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 term. 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. Thereforc, 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. TrafficlDrive-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 determine 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 mcchanical equipment noise level to the eating area will be 74 CNEL, lcss than the City's CNEL standard of 75. Therefore, no significant individual or cumulative noise impacts to the outsidc eating area or other sensitive receptors (rcsidential) will be created by the proposed project. Transportation/T raffi c To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the project development, a Traffic Study for EI Polio Loco Restaurant datcd 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" 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 Janes 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 delincation 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 Necessarv to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Oualitv I. 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 permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. . Use electricity rrom 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 rreeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. . Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 7 Hvdrologv and Water Oualitv 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 storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from 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 Bui1ding 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 from 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 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 Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project bc held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Qoh; LmAf2.WA'rIA- 6w()e~rzo.c,~IYc.. Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) -S u().€- J I +h I 2007 Date 12tur~ APPli~ (or authorized representative) - ~!(f\II-e.. " ~I 2001 Date Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date H. Consultation I. 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 ofChula Vista General Plan Update, ElR No. 05-01, December 2005. Hydrology Analysis for El Polio Loco, Chula Vista, CA and dated June 12,2007 (Techno-Dynamics Consultants, Inc). Traffic Study for El 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 El PolIo Loco Restaurant, Chula Vista, CA dated February 22, 2007 and addendum dated May 2007 (Scientific Resource Associated). 3. Initial Studv 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: 7' II 'i I;;' T f j J:\l'lanning\MARIA\!nitia! Study\1-::1 1'0]10 l.oco\!S-07-006FinalMND,doc 10 PROJECT LOCATION Southwestern Community College C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: EI Polio Loco 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 w/drive thru lane located on existing SCALE: FILE NUMBER: parkway on the Southwest comer of Parcel. NORTH No Scale 18-07-006 Related cases:DRC-07.14, PCC-07-011 J:\planning\carlos\locators\is07006.cdr 08.31.06 -,..",........,., ",_oc ":;""ISv\1lr,YJ Li]~~S ""HIW IN. O"O~ S:J*" .>10 ,.~:.-- G10dd ~d'1aNV1S Qo,,:r O:;UIOC~ '. . O:Ol CllOd ~'J [) '....."'..~,.."""..~"'- "",- ---"'--" ...-""-.--... " ..--- ...- ..,,"', .,~,..._.'-~ -~-,_.. ~-....".... ""'" .-..-....--- .,.~_..".. ..~ . .~ -~_._~ - .,,, ..._ ..oow____ _"'''''''''''''' ---- 8t:1'v' _n .~ ,0{,,100 I<\fldjlJ$ ! 0 ~ g , 51 ~~;!,'- ~I q~ l~~ "~."n I B I I l~, I ! ~ . _ " --Ii ~ ~ ~ n.~ ~ ~ ~i~i 1, ::; I '"' ~ : p;ei U;di I;;;L - ,;:~ ~~ ., ! ~; ~ H~;L:~ ii~ ! Ii'" Ii t ~~!.~i~~~ 31'li".!>! ~ <! ~!::; ". ~ 8 , ~ ' ~ i 1, ; 0" Iii! !h~ 1/ hs~ h j'H! ; ;; I "I ~... 8 ~~ HH ~ i , , ~ ~ ~h "! $ ~ p~ ~'^ I! 1 I"" I! ~ ~ I ~ ! ~ ,J 011 II j 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 Shinn/Lynndale Place Tentative Parcel Map project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated 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): I. Air Quali ty 2. Hydrology and Water Quality 3. Noise 4. Traffic/Transportation MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance 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 form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-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 I, 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 determine 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\MARIA\Initial Study\EJ PolIo Loco\IS-07-00GMMRPtext.doc E i" .s .9 'c o ::; c .Q ro "' ~ (Q o ..:. o rh 'E '" '; '" 1;; Q) rc 'C o o u.. 1;; '" u.. o u o --' .Q o (L w ... ~ ..c '" I- ::!: <( 0:: C) o 0::. D.' C) Z ~ o 0. W 0:: C Z <( C) z iX: o I- Z o ::!: z o ~ C) E ::!: ~c o .Q c>1;i c U 'e =E i=~ ~c 00 ,,:;:; o ~ -S!e " - :;; " > " 5 o ~ " :;; c .2 1;i ~ :1j c 0 OZ :;:;Q) ~ - c>' ._ 0 :!:: m :;; " :;; c> c ~ >-'5 >. :!:: IJ) - ()'C U CI~ C:c ~.= (I) ro (l) ijiwEgE u Q) 1::,- t ._ c: ro C en ~'~ar.ffig- <{woo..O ~'t; 0..8 >< ,,- C.III ';:c: , 0 cu >< .- _0 0..0 U >< 2 en 32 U c " 0 .r:::.:::; ()U " Cc. ~ 00 o:c " .c >- t- :; <{ ::J o no <( 00 rom .c 00 00 C 00 m -ca.. Q) Q) en a. E c:.. :s .~g ~ E ~ ::I";:: ".c c. ~"D e cCc. :2 ~~ .~:g ~ '" m.~ E OJ Q) >'".c =::00 ~ ~ !J) 0"-- ro c._ "m g. 0_ 0>_ 00 .S ro.8 ~ c 0 ..Qoc o c: VJ- '; ~ yg .c.c'" t-00'C '0 c .Q ~ 00 Q):!:: c.C o=> me , '" g E c c. 19 '5 sO' E~ "in 0 NCl) 1:5 .- => U: c c ~8 C ro '" U E t3 c. '" 'C .~ 0. ~ ~ ~ 3: .Q C 8- 1:5 Q) Q, 2&.S Cii 'S 13 C '" 00 8 Q) ~ g :5 .2 E t5 'E 2 q> Vi c :5 ~ U :2 ro "6 .g c. U ~ '" .2 Q) '" '" 00 00 ::J ::J . . . c .Q U => '0 ~ U ~....: - C m '" ro E u c. ~ "5 ::Jg '0 '" :;:; ~ o '?- " 00 '" 'C .E 'C ro ~ 0> C 'E "' Co o . ;;;::c ~ '" "E'E .- c. Q)'S 00", ::J '" . "" '0; '0 00 '" E "' '" '" oS E => E 'c E m '" (ij....; COO o ' ._ 'C U '" ~~ C => o~ u '" '" N :5 "E W :~ roE ~.9 .9 .9 '" '" :c :c "(i) "iij 00 00 o 0 c. c. 00 00 m m >. >. 32 :;:: u u 'S '5 '" '" 00 00 m m 00 . 00 ~ - 'C ~ ~ ro co"'D e 'C '" Q).;;: "'C~ mo> - => 0>- '" '" N .t:::! :5 .~ m C U5 "E '1' '" . c;;; m , E'C '" '" c...t:::! '" E >"2 m.- D- E . e- m c; c. E 2 '0 'C ~~ ~~ ';;;"{ij ~~ 0_ c.'- Q5gl ~32 0.'5 E.c 00> .t: .S ~:s T3 "'D ';:: (f) 130 ~~ ~ ~ ::J1], ro u c= -.c -25- :;::0 0- Q) ,2 ~c.. 0'" 0"= _00 - c ~.Q a;u .c2 ~U) > c ~8 _ m Oc w;S ~';: :g:5 i- (j) ~c >.- '" a..~-g ~~ e ,9 :s. c Q c. m '0 '" > '" c. m .9 -~ c'C "'m uo m" :o.~ m:c 00 , :;:;c. .c c 00 0 ~ e- -'1' is '" .c'" ~<3 =:E m '" 1;;> ':=.9 .~ :c => c. 'C '" IDa) > u ~~ o ~ E8 =>0 90 ~oo ~2 :; .5 :cE '<nO "S; l":J >.c c::E m- w .~ E;~ g ~ 0::;;; '0 '0 C '" ,"'C .c '" - > - m mC. - c .S ::I o C c.o m- oo '" '" > um u - m-;;; c- o.~ :::;.r:::. u", . =>>'0 " '" - >." 00 C - 6 ro a ~:;,g .c"'OO _'Om .r:::.-tJ:: 00 0 00 ~ 3: ~ '$-5~ >"" >"'00 . . u '" ~ 0.. '1' '" > '" :s. .9 eu) _'0 Cm 00 u - c: .!::2 ,Q ::c 00 => Oc. :;:; 0 "- 26 "'- .5 .~ 0>2 c.~ eE "'>. '13= !Em ~o "';; 'Co ->~ Q ~ D- ~ a ~ > 00 ~ '" c. .c C gciJ:::I....: -- c: c: :::I N:'=OO .....:::I_-C (i)~~Q) ro cd!! 0. ~C:"""U) ..........uQ) ~ -5 ffi E "(tj:!= Q)Lt:I c9gN "m ~ E-g E - .... Q) .....0 .a u o ~ "~ ~ ~::::::I~U) g -g"o-g .to ~ ~.~ -S;ItI:= 1tI...."'O(I) ..c: rn c:: Q) .... 0 Q) U <1:1.0 Corn > <1:1 (I)'t: 8~cij~ . . . E [" .S; .9 .C' o :2 c: o ~ "' ~ '" o t-C o ch c CO 5 co <;; Q) DO: 'C o o lL <;; co lL o U o -' g o (L W 0>- <:: <:: ~ ~ <>" 1ft}; 0."0.>< ~3u c)ii !::'fa ;:::c X :::1'0 Q:9 ...... '" J:) os I- *Jj'o-. !~x D.;',o LfP ~ ~_ g c roO) rn ~(I) "0 c.. ro ci 5- -~:S om 015: Z ..... Q) ro 0 .s= Q) c-......w..c:.......... ,"=:5 'ijctlIDCij-,:::I"C ;:: en c: -C ~...... ts Q) a C>.~O"C~.s ro ~"E E _Q>_Q)....(/'jO"Q)cwl'O ~c:::~rooC:~:5.~EOJ <;::; ro.Qi5 E 0 Q.oa.Q.) e Q)'c 0)..... (; C Il):: E.~c.. .c::'-Q)C (1')..000::1 :::.EO::.Q ~'~='C:u gg> :J'.j ctI~ au oa...~ ~ . '-:e o,ITr=ug>.s::!::~VI(1)5c8.. c:z,;v Co 0 VI . to ffi ~;,;;; ~ Q) w\l'~" .;:: C VI C - -- U It! c::: ,..Q)VlC:OQ)Oc..cn:::l~ H.;; > c: ro u.!::!::::o.. C,; t:"tJ ~.=.Q(f)OOU WVlQ)C ~~(:;~.~-c::: ~5~~6 a..ct! Of!t':U)~'-ua.VJ 0urn~ ZiEi,,-,-('\jQ)_t:c .....11).- y,a>a.oa.c::oOQ.>oEO c:r::if.. W Q) m gs Q) Y 1:5:E C :=: >-;11ji .~..c. (5 '- E...... :::I..... Q) 8 c c>illi 0)- .b :5 IV :g .b 0 E Q) 0 Ojl C:5 c.- ~a.~ C (1).0:2 ;...,j,:it w.~ 0 ~ C"C o.Q U = c 0:(>' O......!tIIDUt5croO 0:::'>: <3 ~ >,0 E >..!.. ro Q)E.r:::.:::: .....!ti'i a.=~...... 2 VJ(;j II) ~ ~}i. (!) E roo VI 0..8.:;::; E ffi:;::; :r;:W; f:. 8 5-~ ~ g- ro m 8 a.~ N 0> <:: :Q 'S >. CD:'!: ~-g~ OJ...... ~ ro [j.~ a5 ffi g>.s ~ .5 U'- '- Q).... ._ erne rn 2:~ g-"g> g- <(c..OWD x x x 2 u; :;, " <:: "0 ..c::;::; U" " <::0. "'''' a:.s 0> <:: <:: Om c:C ~-o'~ [!!z- ~19 E"'C ~o...: o~.9E:5Q).9 o..-oooc:5ct1 E~ ~V):;o'~ 2_g!tl)Q)c"E ......Cijw:Suog 'g~ro ~~~U (1) VI"'C';:: ~.!!:! ;: a. B (1)$ (!)~.~ 01-:; ~ C:"C C'C > C (1) > (1) _ VI Cl) '6"'C2ErowC::: ~o ~2~:5$ C'C-E.o::[fi.9~ _o=c'-VlE o U C'C Q) :::I c: C Q)c~.s~~o U 0 "'0 Q) 0.,= C'(i} ID Q) E...... > rn 0 U 00 c: c ~Ci>':;c~(!)w ,~"'O (!) (!) Q) ~"'O Q)c"'C>oC>iij .sro~~1-2,- 0)._ a. , a. (!) .9 _5 u.9 E E Q) '- ~ (!) w.-s .Q '(i) 0 W V)"'C 0) ct.gD:~ ~@tTI oi 0> <:: :E 'S >. cc~ ~-g ~ 0)...... urnccc i;;g OJ ~'~ E ~ -~ 't Q) 1::: ._ c rn C OJ ~~ g--~ at <(o....owo ~~ ~;F~ x 0.:;0 1hFH: C)^~ t:icn 1:"CX ::1;;0 Q19 \~ e(,~x Q;.70 14<> 0> 0> <:: <:: 32 32 'S >. 'S >. ID~ C)~ ~-g~O)......~"'O~OI"'" ~ro:E.5:E~@a5Cc c g>E mE C OIE'~ E ~._,-w,-~,5't~t = c ctI.~ OJ "'5.. 2 rn _ rn 8:~ at g> Q) a.~ g- g> g- <t:o....owo<t:o...owo x x x x x x N v co ~ "- 2 u; :;, " <:: "0 .J:::= U ~ " 0. '" '" c:s: 2 u; ~<:: " 0 .c: .- UU <:: " ",:F 0:..5 c'E~ Cl)>::",- Cl)~............ C:::Jd) 'E.~~-g ;:E~ fij-Cij Ole .5 ~ ,S! m~'~6o<(g.~ :5 ~m E -=mo . >..o.~_ 5"'Cw.!!1 urocouo...Jd) C::002Q)1O<(~ ~';.E Qj,~occa; G-g~:5 g [fi~-~ u...... '- 0 11)-- to g ~1I).9"'C~ro"'C...... o Cl) rn c ._"'0 c c ,_ c d).~_5 roO c rn.~ "'0::0 (!).2...... O"Eo Q) 5 (1).0 ~~c:::::: c~.s 0<(:;.0 '- E =a.(!)_rnr.;;:co> >.5rn :EE:5~o.:::e<1>UI:2t..c::'- "'OOc::1I) <1>:::J::"'O~<1>Cl)o .- u-- ~:=:.:: g.~$ II) 8"E ~ ~o"'OmUooo>c:<1>'-;;:;;;:::I ro......~.-<1> .0<1>:::1=0.-0 "'C!E t:..c:: ~ :::I cr: 0 a. <1>-a.J::: .!B~crn"""cll)-EE.J:::--Cl) ~'S<1>"cornctl!B~o::C::E a. (T~ 5 c:: ~:=: :E 0 ~ I'IJ g>~ u) _s ~ g; 13 g ,~E E 2 ~ ~ .;:: rn <ri (!)(!)'-:::IUo:::lcroEC-6"'C- oo"C::I....OJ......II)Oc rn C)ro 002::1.... .6=~V)~o=.=r.;;:.~c>::"c~ :::J~~C~(!)5~.;::~~(!)~~5~ rn~=II)Eu(I)O""lI)wS<1>o.c"'O.~ ... .0 <6 E '" c: ~ '" o ::;; c: .Q ro .'" ~ <<> CO ,.:. CO rh 'E ro :; ro u; " 0:: '0 o o u... u; ro u... o '-' o --' S? o "- w 0> c: ~ '5 >- a:l;::: "", U (5 c~ OJ..... :=. CIJ ~.!: :5 ~gEwE 0'- t a> t ._ c ro c: ro ~~ ~.~ ~ <co....owO x x .... CI) :c III I- x ~, ~ "" " "- 2 Uj :;;, u c: w 0 .c.:;:::; u:E c: 0. " ~ B:E w w w ..c......c:: In -g~:: '0 . CU'CO o"C C ~"E(ijU)ffi~ ...... Q) 0. "E ...... ..... C E c. CII g J:: oQ).9~"':=:: U)Cti-o-o~ w..c 0 ro Q).... C:t'lJe..c~~ .Q Q)..c::~ a.Ui ;g.!!? .QI..... ~ 'Vi l5g~~Q)8 uwo.=:S .= ro "i' ~ 0 00" . ~'~$.S!-;;; ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ . a. E::: Q) UJ N- ~ro::).!g-c:.- ~~.S9o..gi::' vi.2.S~ro~~ a.gE=_cc: E .- ro Q) c: (1) ro ::)=>,.c.a.J>-' 0.2 ..c-",;;; ~ (ij v g-Uj"C..::.::wu2 .t= OJ (l) U ..... '2 ro o c: C:.Q >. rn"C 0'- (1)..o..c J::~ >- 5! Q)..... rn U"'C ~E~~~E~ u o '0 :e 0- '" :;0 :;0 ~ o o '" 9 '" 0: '" :;0 :;0 >- '0 o 00 ] ~ .. " " S 2 .~ ~ E <: '" ~ E o ,p ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ~If?- ~:; 01Y Of CHULA VISfA 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: El Polio Loco Fast Food Restaurant 5. Date of Checklist: May 21,2007 6. Case No. IS-07 -006 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic D D D . vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, D D D . but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D . character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 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 vi ews in the area? D D D . 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 commerciallre~il 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 (CYMe). 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 determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 . 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, 0 0 0 . or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 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 farmland. The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be created as a result of the proposed project. Miti!!:ation: No mitigation measures are required. III. 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 D . D D substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net D D D . 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 D . D D pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a sub- stantial number of people? D D . D 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 substantial number of people. These odors associated with construction activities and food preparation, are typically not considered significant long-term 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proj ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 0 0 0 . 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 0 0 0 . 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, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? o o o . d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 0 0 . native resident or rnigratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or rnigratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of nati ve wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict \vith any local policies or ordinances 0 0 0 . 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? f) 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. Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Potentiall)-' 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 D D D . significance of a historical resource as defined ill 9 15064.57 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the D D D . significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D D D . paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature7 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact D D D . Issues: Comments: a) The existing project site is located within an essentially developed shopping center area. No historic resources are known or are expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defmed 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 1'5064.5 is not anticipated. c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited disturbance for the proposed project, 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 project: 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 substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special D D D . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Publication 42. n. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 . 111. SeisnTIc-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 . liquefaction? IV. Landslides? 0 0 0 . b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 0 . topsoil? > 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 . unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proj ect, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 0 0 0 . Tab1e 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 0 0 0 . the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? --_.-,-- 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 project 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. Mitil!ation: 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? D D D . 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 project is not located within an airport land use plan nor withn 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 adverse safety hazards. f) 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. Mitil!ation: 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 . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 . 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 0 0 0 . of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use 0 0 0 . 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 project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 . airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 . interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 . risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitil!ation: 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 proj ect: 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. Miti2atiou: No mitigation measures are required. X. MIl'\'ERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 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 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 land uses are fully developed and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of Califomia. No impact to mineral resources would result ttom the proposed project. b) The State of Califomia Department of Conservation has not designated the proj ect site for mineral resource protection and no impact wou1d occur as a result of the proposal. Miti(!ation: No mitigation measures are required. Xl. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise D D D . levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of D D D . excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient D . D D noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in D D . D ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 excessive noise levels? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 . Issues: f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the proj ect 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 noise associated with short-term construction activities. However, the project will be required to comply with the City's Noise 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 within 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. f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airs1rip; therefore, the project development would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Miti!!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant noise impacts to a level ofless than significant. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 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) ? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact D D D . Issues: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o D o . c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D o D . 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 proj ect. Mitie:ation: 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 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact performance objectives for any public services: a) Fire protection? 0 0 . 0 b) Police protection? 0 0 . 0 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 increa,se 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 determined 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 performance 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 Septemberll, 2006, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit 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 inftastructure. Mitil!:ation: No mitigation measures are required. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 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 or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse o o o . o o o . Issues: physical effect on the environment? Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact 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. Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the proj eel: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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 o o o . o o o . o o o . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 0 0 0 . feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 . f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 . g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? o o o . _,______n__ --- 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. Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES 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 JIom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 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 Regjonal 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 storm 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 I, 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 ofChula Vista is served by regjonallandfills with sufficient capacity to serve the project 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. Mitieation: 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 units 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 Emergencv 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 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 on-80S 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 freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. E) Parks and Recreation Areas o o o . The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities 11 ,000 population east of I-80S. F) Drainage 0 0 0 . The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer 0 0 0 . The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plane s) and City Engineering Standards. Issues: H) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission 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 permit issuance. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ""jth Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 . Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project would not induce population grow1h; 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 project. b) According to the Police Department, 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 proj ect 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 (BMPs) 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 :!\TPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007- 0001 and the City ofChula Vista's Development and Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual. Therefore, no significant impacts to the City's storm 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 ofthe proposed project. Ii) According to the Otay Water District (OWD) in their letter dated September I, 2006, water service can be provided via a I O-inch water main located on East H Street. Additionally, OWD has detennined 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. Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required. Issues: XVIII. 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? b) Does the proj ect have 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 projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact o o o . o o o . o o o . 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 known 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 belav-.' a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section E. Potentia.1 impacts to humans associated \vith air quality. hydrology/water quality, and noise would be mitigated to belm\! a level of significance. Miti2"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 of less than significance. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MInGA nON 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 MITIGA nON MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read. understood and have their respectivc company.'s authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein. and will implemcnt same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Revicw 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 abcyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. )2oh,.J- mAQwAWfr Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) O\()f\-(n J Ff<cIIrICh,}(,,~ ~w~ Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) .::::! ...me II J.4. I 2007 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 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 I 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'S' 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 Proj ect 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 0 Transportation/Traffic o Population and 0 Biological Resources Housing o Public Services o Geology & Soils 0 Mineral Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources . Hydrology/Water Quality . Air Quality 0 Threshold Standards o Hazards and Hazardous Materials o Cultural Resources . Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance ---- ...-. ----..-------- ----------- ---------- XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I [md 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 environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier docunlent 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 7- //'1/0 7- Datb J :\Planning\Ann\Environmental\Initial Study\IS-07 -006Checklist2.doc o . o o . o ----- DRAFT RCC Minutes - 2 - Julv 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 RCC 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. IS-07-06 --- EI Polio 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 Water 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 _...~.. ~ '-"P~" ~ ,~_ .,.. _ """_._ ._u....... ,~. ......'~~- ,-...-.. , ...~ -..........-- "'.". .~,.........'-~ ~._'.....~_. _."'...~ -...-,.-.....,............. n~.__" ....."".. .__~DM__.....~~ =I _............-"'- WO&A.,",-,,,, ~~v -".~....,-- ~ ; . I". - I' . ~ ~._'~ 'i;W ~ I ,_:: ..:!:;;E o ! ~ ! J j]Etjj~j~~;J~]f~JJ1~;$J1~ I' "oj '^ ~ "" . ,~~" . , , I" ,!, . ~!!!j! ~ n~ ~i~ ;::::,~ ~ ~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~?~!1~~~~~ : I ; ~ i - "."" 1, I . ~ j I " ,. u. 1'< ~1~ I j ~ ~ .~ ~ ! ~ H ~ t ~~ ~ 1m! "! " .!,;; .~ .-_ . 2 ~ } , , ; i I . :. i !} z . ~! '! ~ I . .....1 ;! ;iH~h:H~.!~!~itHLt ~ !iIJJE\!iii!ii\,!jjJJ!lJ! . ~~. ~.,..~ 0."" ~~.~ .~~ ~:I ~.~~ ! , ; ; , , " I I i ~U "----( '\' ., " /....,,', / /'.<<'------"" , .f'f.....>"'/ '------"::~~ ":~'::/-/ / , 'II / ">.:>-~; "',-,~l ,i]~IS ~",.,~.J '~'N 1'0, -l.,l _"': ;~C'dd 'id"o]',1"= ,y-,~- ]"Ij.:]CI'~ OM"" r::::;Cl "'-dlj1,oj";jJll.-" f-..~.'<~"~.'.-.-..-...i '.... /!.,~~ ;;~j'/ ! '~I~ _!_~~)!IL Ir~~ -_=I~[J - '~JI: ~ ~ "t I ]~" I .'~::;~ _ ~l"'c,.~..c,., ~<1' - "":,;:,'h( <( '" u Z! <(I ...J' [L >- I- Z, oi >1 10 I- Z w ::i: :I: U <t l- I- <t ~---, 111 ../":/'. 1:lv~Y , 'J(~ ~:1 ~ '\' Z' ;:OSr"'>- -3---1 -----=/'>." ", / <( I ~../ ;:/__--~ \y' ---II />T' \' 0... c ;:/,~'\' ~Is ,~, C~\, ' ~/ ,-~,-,^, /~--"'- / ---::~;:\t>--^', _/~ ; ~ ,~' " ",\1 '. ' /' ~.:P ~\ \,~" '/ "" "- is -/,' \ \,\ ~ 1"0,":'':'/ ~ ' '. 'v'\ .Z;:: \j\ "" ;:':' /,\ ,/,'" "", ;; ~:; C/ /' /~A/- . .-0''''''''''''"''''' ...........w..-w ~~~1~~~:ff~ --- - "'......-- :-.:-7;--5~v .""-;:. .,. --- ! , , , , ~ ~ IH.~~ j ~::;! i i ~~~j ]~:~j ! , , , j , , , , j , , ~ i i i , , I ! ., ~~ ;' ~ ;; I:i':!! ' ,!!M ~ " ~\! . :;; ~ ~ g; ~ ~ f ~ Ii!! :!ii ~ ~E~~ ~n~ ; ! . . ~ ~ W Ij ~~' ~h~: ! I",,;:. ~B~!H .. ~ ~:;! ~:;::EJ. i I ,I! , , ~~! \; ~ .Hiln , i ~ ~ H~ ~~ I: i I'" 11 m" 'I~'\" ~ ~. , ",., _,~ 'd~ n ~Obdg ; ! ~ . " /,/ ,/' :!~~ v -0\ 1/ Co '" ~ ~/' /),/, /' h /.' /) ~// ' , // / // / /l , // /'/ / // 'v // ,/ t / / ~'-~/ , \, .' -~_/// ---------_.';// - - '::\':\;':::;!:;;\?~,~\;?:; M." ',eo',"" ,;--~ ~;>:,>/, 'J:"~~</ ~. :t\~ 1~~Ql_ 1:' ' l_r~I,J : ~~...!! I I I "'"\-"~I ~ , //' , ' 'Y// ,',/ " / u """,'15 ZI <( -' 0... >- f- Z o > -114 iI0'~/" ,~) ;;/ /~ /' V / / //' ' / /' / ///// ." ..y "-;/ ;::: ,'~.-- ., , , '~ 19.32.130 19.32.130 Trash storage areas. Trash storage areas in the CoB zone are subject to the conditions ofCYMC 19.58.340. (Ord. 1356 ~ I, 1971;Ord.1212 ~ 1, 1969;priorcode~ 33.507 (H)(6)). 19.32.140 Wall requirements. Zoning walls shall be provided in the CoB zone subject to the conditions ofCYMC 19.58.150 and 19.58.360. (Ord. 1356 ~ I, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.507(H)(7)). 19.32.150 Performance standards. All uses in the CoB zone shall be subject to ini- tial and continued compliance with the perfor- mance standards set forth in Chapter 19.66 CYMC. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.507(1)). . Chapter 19.34 CoN - 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. CoN 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 sUITounding 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 ITom the uncontrolled use of signs. (Ord. 12129 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(A)). 1934.020 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 drive~in car service; H. Commercial parking lot for passenger vehi- cles, subject to the requirements of CYMC 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-cleaning 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 ofCYMC 19.22.030 (F)(I) through (9); L. Agricultural uses as provided in CYMC 19.16.030. (Ord. 2526 92, 1992; Ord. 2108 9 I, 1985; Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(B)). 19.34.030 Conditional uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-N zone; provided, 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 ofCYMC 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 offood; C. Electrical substations and gas regulator sta- tions, subject to the provisions of CYMC 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 ofCYMC 19.58.345; G. Automated, drive-through car washes, in accordance with the provisions of CYMC 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 ITom the license previously held, in accordance with the procedures in CYMC 19.14.030; I. 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 ITom the vehi- cle, and taken off-site for consumption; but not including "drive-in" restaurants, those at which food is ordered ITom and consumed in the parked car on the premises. (Ord. 2715 9 3, 1998; Ord. 256093,1993; Ord. 2552 9 1,1993; Ord. 2526 9 3, 1992; Ord. 2491 9 2, 1992; Ord. 2252 9 2, 1988; Ord. 2233 9 2, 1987; Ord. 2152 9 I, 1986; Ord. 2108 9 1,1985; Ord. 1571 9 1,1974; Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 933.508(C)). 19.34.040 Sign regulations. Repealed by Ord. 292433, 2003. (Ord. 2309A 9 7, 1989; Ord. 1734 9 I, 1977; Ord. 1575 9 I, 1974; Ord. 1356 9 1, 1971; Ord. 1275 9 I, 1970; Ord. 1212 9 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 height, 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 9 I, 1971: Ord. 1212 9 1, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(E)). 19-85 (Revised 1/04) 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 CYMC 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 None, except when None, except when abutting an R district, then not less Zero feet for signs abutting an R district, 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 *Or 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. (Ord. 13569 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 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 CoN zone. (Ord. 135691, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)). 19.34.080 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 permit, nurseries, and off-street parking and loading facil- ities and sidewalk cafes. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(I)). 19.34.090 Restrictions on sales of goods. In a CoN zone, goods for sale shall consist pri- marily of new merchandise and shall be sold at retail on the premises. (Ord. 1212 9 1,1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(2)). 19.34.100 Site plan and architectural approval required. Site plan and architectural approval is required for all uses in a CoN zone, as provided in CYMC 19.14.420 through 19.14.480. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 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 CoN zone, as provided in CVY1C 19.62.010 through 19.62.140. (Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 933.508 (G)(4)). 19.34.120 Employee activity restrictions. The number of employees in any business estab- lishment in a CoN 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 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(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 CoN district, or extension by one acre or more of any existing C-N district. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 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 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 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 9 1,1969; prior code 9 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. 1212 9 1,1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(9)). 19.34.170 Hours for conducting business. No business shall be open in a CoN zone between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., unless specifically approved by the planning com- mission. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(lO)). 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 compliance with the require- ments of this title, particularly in regard to the nature of the business as set forth in CVMC 19.34.090 and 19.34.120. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(lI)). 19.34.190 Trash storage areas. Trash storage areas in the CoN zone are subject to the conditions ofCVMC 19.58.340. (Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508 (G)(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 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(G)(l3)). 19.34.210 Landscaping. The site shall be landscaped in conformance with the landscape manual of the city, and approved by the director of planning. (Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971;Ord.1212g I, 1969;priorcodeg 33.508 (G)(l4)). 19.34.220 Prohibited uses. Uses expressly prohibited m a C-N zone include: A. Residential uses; B. Any combination of residential and nomesi- dential uses on a lot, parcel ofland, or in any struc- ture thereon; C. Industrial uses; D. Public address systems and/or loudspeakers outside of any building. (Ord. 1356 9 1,1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 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- cial (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 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.508(I)). 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 CVMC. (Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 I, 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. 19.62.020 . Size and access requirements. 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. 19.62.110 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 Residential 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 building 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 square feet in the addition need be used in com- puting the required parking. (Ord. 1212 !i I, 1969; prior code !i 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 singie-family or duplex residence, may be located so as to require or encourage the backing of automobiles or other vehicles across any street lot line, to affect egre~s . 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 Jess 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 !i I, 1969; prior code !i 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 gross 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 !i 1,1969; prior code!i 33.801(C)). 19.62.040 Alternatives to on-site parking. For 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 district, or a developer of a commercial addition to an existing building therein, shall pay the required fee(s). (Ord. 2506 9 I, 1992; Ord. 1894 9 I, 1980; Ord. 12129 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.80l(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 permit, the applicant shall submit parking informa- tionjustifying 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, subject 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 CYMC 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; minimum 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 ChuJa 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, unless 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-halffor 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 unit, plus one space for every 25 rooms or portion thereofto be provided on the same lot as use. 20. Machinery sales and service garages: One for each 400 square feet of floor area. 2!. 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 feet, 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- rately as 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, assem- 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 establishment, or one for each 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. (Ord. 2584 !} 7, 1994; Ord. 2132 !} I, 1985; Ord. 1856 !} I, 1979; Ord. 1531 !} 2, 1974; Ord. 1356 !} I, 1971; Ord. 1212 !} I, 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 lot, shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the requirements set forth in CYMC 19.62.070 through 19.62.120. (Ord. l212!} I, 1969; prior code!} 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 confme 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 adjoining property. (Ord. 1212 !} I, 1969; prior code 9 33.801 (F)(I)). 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 of abutting--pmperty because of substantial grade differentials, the exist- ence of adequate walls or other equally valid rea- sons. (Ord. 1356 9 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 @ I, 1969; prior code @ 33.801(F)(2)). 19.62.090 Parking areas - Landscaping. The total p"rking area shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscape manual of the city. (Ord. 1212 @ I, 1969; prior code @ 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 accumulated 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 of vehicles. 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 @ I, 1969; prior code @ 33.801(F)(4)). 19.62.100b 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 movement, 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 .accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. As 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 Years). 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-l 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 application 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 only 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 (i.e., street side of a comer lot) shall be used for off- street parlcing or access, except as noted in CYMC 10.84.020 and 19.62.150, unless so authorized by the zoning administrator, pursuant to an approved site plan. (Ord. 2743 ~ 3, 1998; Ord. 2176 ~ 6,. 1986; Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code 933.801 (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. 1212 ~ 1,1969; prior code 9 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 parlcing 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 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 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 and maintained, on the same lot with such building, at least one off-street loading space plus one additional such loading space for each addi- tional 40,000 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 ~ I, 1969; prior code 9 33.802). 19.62.150 Residential parking - Front setback restrictions - Generally. No required parlcing spaces or required maneu- vering area may be located in the front or exterior setback area (except as noted in CYMC 10.84.020); the total combination of driveways and adjacent parlcing areas shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the front or exterior side yard. (Ord. 217696, 1986; Ord. 135691, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code 9 33.803(A)). 19.62.160 Residential parking- Front setback restrictions - Exceptions. In those cases where street improvements are at their ultimate width, the front setback area, for parlcing purposes, may be measured from the back of the sidewalk. (Ord. 13569 I, 1971; Ord. 1212 9 1,1969; prior code ~ 33.803(B)). 19.62.170 Residential parking - Two-car garage requirement - Intent and purpose. It is the intent of this section and CYMC 19.62.180 and 19.62.190 to require that all dwelling units in the A, R-E, R-I 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 0120 feet. The purpose of said requirement is to provide adequate off-street park- ing so as to alleviate the cougestion ou residential streets and space for the necessary storage of mate- rials in an enclosure. The euclosed garage is neces- sary to protect the general welfare of residential areas by preventing the establishment of parking spaces in an opeu parking lot situation inappropri- ate to residential development and the open and dis- orderly display of gardening equipment, tools, boxes and other materials which would be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly appearance. (Ord. 2151 ~ 1,1986; Ord. 13569 1,1971; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.803(C)(I)). 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 !i I, 1971; Ord. 1212!i I, 1969; prior code!i 33.803(C)(2)). 19.62.190 Residential parking- Procedure for . conversion to living 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 owner 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. e. A filing fee as set forth in the master fee schedule shall accompany each application for a garage conversion. (Ord. 2151 !i 2, 1986; Ord. 2011 !i I, 1982; Ord. 1669 !i I, 1976; Ord. 1356 !i I, 1971; Ord. 1212 !i I, 1969; prior code !i 33.803 (C)(3)). 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. The planning and building director, code enforcement officers and other employees desig- nated by the planning and building director shall have the authority to enforce this chapter in accor- dance with the procedures as set forth in Chapters 1.40 and 1.41 CYMe. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute an infraction, and the administra- tive citation provisions contained in Chapter 1.41 CYMC shall be applicable. (Ord. 2790, 1999; Ord. 2718!i I, 1998; Ord. 2176!i 7, 1986). Chapter 19.64 NONCONFOR.'\1ING 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 performance 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 Nomesidential 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 nonconfOlming 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 !i I, 1969; prior code !i 33.1101 (A)). 19-180 ADDENDUM TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITIDESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (Applicant: Rohit Marwaha - EI Polio Loco Franchisee) I. 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 - El 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 OwnerlKelton Title Corporation does not become subject to any additional conditions, fees or expenses as a result of this Application. Owner: Kelton Title Corporation /-- J / By: L- Mark Leekley Vice President ATTACHMENT 8 CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 9/12/07 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Revocation of Conditional Use Permit, PCC-05-053, permitting outdoor seating for Baja Taco at 1052 Broadway. Applicant: Marcos Espinosa. SUBMITTED BY: Brian B. Catacutan, Assistant Planner REVIEWED BY: Jim Hare, Assistant Director of Planning and Building INTRODUCTION The owner of Baja Lobster was granted Conditional Use Permit (CUP), PCC-05-053, by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2005, to convert the key shop and sewing machine repair shop at 1052 Broadway (see Locator) into a taco shop (Baja Taco), which utilized outdoor seating. Soon thereafter, the Design Review Committee also approved the project on November 21,2005. The entire project consisted of the partial conversion of the building, the addition of a straw roof (a palapa), and the opening up of the east side of the building to providc outdoor seating. Also proposed was landscaping, new paving and parking, the addition of rest rooms and a new trash enclosure. BACKGROUND The original CUP requested that Baja Taco be allowed to operate twenty-four hours a day. During the public notice period of the project, several neighbors whose homes were located immediately to the west of this parcel called staff, expressing concerns about the addition of a taco shop on a site adjacent to a night club which was already the subject of a great number of complaints to the Chula Vista Police Department. The neighbors indicated a tremendous number of complaints made relating to noise, traffic and parking throughout the residential neighborhood. The opinion expressed by the neighbors was that a twenty-four hour taco shop, particularly one with outdoor seating, would exacerbate the problems they were already expenencmg. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 30, 2005 at Harborside Elementary School to provide a forum for further discussion on the issues raised by the neighbors. Several neighbors attended bringing a petition opposing the project that had been signed by sixty-four residents. The applicant did not attend thc neighborhood meeting but was instructcd afterward by staff to address thc neighbor's concerns. Staff, in consultation with thc applicant, agrccd to abandon the twcnty-four hour opcration and changed the hours of opcration to only open bctwecn 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. PCC-05-053M Page No.2 On October 12, 2005, City staff presented Conditional Use Permit, PCC-05-053, to the Planning Commission and recommcnded approval for the project with conditions limiting the hours of operation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the revocation action for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the action qualifies for a Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (existing facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Planning Commission revoke Conditional Use Permit, PCC-05-053, permitting outdoor seating for Baja Taco located at 1052 Broadway, and further that the taco shop at that location shall be abated and permanently vacated no later than 30 days from a final decision by the Planning Commission. 2. That the owner of Baja Taco remove all illegal signs from the establishment within 30 days of the date of this resolution. DISCUSSION Site Characteristics The project site is located at 1052 Broadway, on the southwest corner of Broadway and Crested Butte Street and is approximately .25 acres in size. Immediately to the west of this parcel is a single-family residential neighborhood separated by an alley. The parcel is bordered by an existing residential development to the west. The adjacent houses back up to an alley, which serves the rear of the commercial parcels along Broadway. The subject parcel abuts this alley, across from the residences. A variety of existing commercial uses are to the north and south of this parcel on Broadway, as well as on the other side of the street. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The project is located in the Commercial Thoroughfare with a precise plan modifier (CTP) zone, and it has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use Residential (MUR). The following table specifies the types ofland uses surrounding the project site: Site General Plan Zoning Current Land Use North: South: East: West: Mixed-Use Residential Mixed-Use Residential Mixed-Use Residential Single Family Residential CTP CTP CTP R-l General Commercial Nightclub General Commercial Residences ANAL YSIS: PCC-05-053M Page NO.3 Pursuant to Section 19.40.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, "All uses in a C- T zone shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, except for outdoor restaurants.. . and other open uses specified under conditional use permits as determined by the Planning Commission." Restaurants are typically permitted by right within the Thoroughfare Commercial (C-T) Zone, however, since Baja Taco was essentially an outdoor use, it triggered approval by the Planning Commission. Staff was aware of the issues voiced by the neighbors (particularly noise), when recommending approval of the original CUP. However, staff believed that limiting the hours of operation between 7:00am and 9:00pm would adequately address noise-related issues (Attachment 2). The Conditional Use Permit was granted to the owners of Baja Taco in good faith that they would comply with all the conditions and regulations of the permit and signed a resolution agreeing to the conditions. Subsequently, Baja Taco has continualJy violated the terms of the conditional use permit, particularly their hours of operation. City staff was first alerted of the hours of operation violation as early as November 7, 2006. On that day, the Code Enforcement Department received a voicemail from Chula Vista Police officer Detective Bartt Benjamin stating that Baja Taco was staying open until II :30 p.m. on a continual basis (Attachment 3). Violations of the conditional use permit have also been documented by a San Diego Regional Narrative Officer's Report, dated April 19, 2007, by Detective Benjamin (Attachment 4). The report stated investigations by Detective Benjamin finding the restaurant open as late as 4:00 a.m. On April 12, 2007, Detective Benjamin interviewed the manager of the neighboring business, Baja Club, who said that Baja Taco closes at 3:00 a.m. every night of the week. On April 19, 2007, Detective Benjamin again drove by Baja Taco at approximately 10:30 p.m. and found it open and operating. Additionally, Detective Benjamin entered the business and ordered food and asked the clerk their hours of operation and she said it was II :00 a.m. to 3 :00 a.m. every day. Additionally, a meeting between the owner, Marcos Espinosa, and city staff was held on May 30, 2007. The owner was informed that they were violating their hours of operation. The owner said that in order to stay economically viable, he remains open between 12:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Mr. Espinosa was given the option to modify their approved Conditional Use Permit to extend their hours (Attachment 5). However, an application to extend their hours of operation was never submitted. As stated above, Baja Taco has operated beyond its hours of operation, which is a direct violation of the terms of their conditional use permit. Hours of operation, in accordance with their conditional usc permit were"... no earlier than 7 AM, and no later than 9PM, seven days a wcek." This violation of the Conditional Use Permit by Baja Taco has had a negative effect on the quality of life of nearby residents. If it is allowed to continue to operate, it is likely to cause further disturbances to people in the vicinity, particularly with regard to noise related issues. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no PCC-05-053M Page No.4 property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is subject to this action. CONCLUSION Staff recommends revocation of Conditional Use Permit PCC-05-053 that would prohibit outdoor seating as part of the Baja Taco restaurant. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-OS -053 3. Code Enforcement email 4. Police Report 5. May 30, 2007 meeting notes 6. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-05-053M Prepared by: Brian B. Catacutan, Planning and Building Department J:IPlanning\Case Files\-08 (FY 07-08)\PCC\Public HearingIPCC-08-003\Staff Reports\PC\PCC-08-003I1I_Agenda Statement.doc ~~ - - \.- Western Dental Costco I Wal-Mart rUnder COrls!.1 Center \ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT LOCATOR PROJECT C9 APPLICANT: Baja Lobster Taco Shop PROJECT 1052 Broadway ADDRESS: SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale J:\planning\carlos\locators\drc0467.cdr 07.16.04 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-053 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-05-053 TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING AT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PROPOSED AT 1052 BROADWAY- BAJA TACO SHOP WHEREAS, on May 5,2005 a duly verified application for a Conditiona1 Use Permit (PCC-OS-OS3) was filed with the City Of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on behalf of Marcos Flores Espinosa ("Applicant"); and - WHEREAS, said application requests permission to operate a fast food restaurant (taco shop) incorporating outdoor seating on the Project Site ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the area ofland owned by the Applicant is the subject matter of this resolution, and is represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and for the purpose of general description is 12,650 square feet of property at 1052 Broadway, with a land use designation of Commercial. Montgomery (CMO) and a zone of Commercial Thoroughfare (C-T), ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, all uses in a C- T zone are to be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, unless open uses are allowed by conditional use permits as determined by the planning commission, and pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.40.110 such facilities require a public hearing before the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines, thus no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. WHEREAS. the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit 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 October 12. 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and: ATTACHMENT 2 Resolution PCC 05-053 Page 2 WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect to the Project, the Planning Commission voted to approve the conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: - 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility contributing to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. That the proposed use at this location provides a desirable service by allowing food service in an open setting taking advantage of the temperate climate in this portion of Chula Vista. 2. That such use will under the circumstances of the particular case not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project has the potential to generate noise and parking problems in the adjacent neighborhood to the west. However, these problems will be reduced through a condition limiting the hours of operation to 7 AM to 9PM. Without approval of this conditional use permit the applicant has the option of redesigning the project to keep all seating within the building and not have any limitations on the hours of operation. Such an option is not desirable as it would be detrimental to the general welfare of the neighbors to the west. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. This approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-OS-OS3 is conditioned to require the permittee and property owner to fulfill conditions and to cornply with all applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for the operation of a food service establishment. including regulations and standards adopted by the Planning Commission specifically for this location. The proposed taco shop is to be built in such a way that complies with the City's development criteria for new buildings, and all other City zoning and building regulations. Furthermore, the conditions of this permit are in proportion to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly related to and of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the Project. .t. That the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Resolution PCC 05-053 Page 3 The approval of this permit will provide a project that will be consistent with Goal 2 of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan which states: "The goal of the city is to improve and increase the retail base of the city, making the city an attractive place to shop for comparison and durable goods." In particular, the project would be a step toward implementing Objective 9 of the Land Use Element that states: "Encourage the upgrading of older and/or marginal retail uses along Broadway and Main Street. n." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves Conditional Use Permit PCC-OS-053 and places it subject to the following conditions, whereby the Applicant and/or property owners shall: PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS I. The project property shall be developed and maintained in accordance with all plans as part of Design Review Application DRC-04-67 approved by the Design Review Committee, who will have responsibility for approval of said plans. 2. Obtain all required building permits in compliance with the 2001 Energy, Handicapped Accessibility, California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code and California Electrical Code requirements, as well as all conditions of approval of the City of Chula Vista Fire and Engineering Departments. 3. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the Project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the C.V.M.C. regarding graffiti control. 4. Prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit and operation of the taco shop, a final inspection of the facility shall be conducted by the Department of Planning and Building to ensure that all conditions of approval have been met and all necessary permits have been obtained. 5. So long as the proposed restaurant includes open-air seating, the hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7 AM, and no later than 9 PM, seven days a week. 6. This 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 Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 7. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City. its Council members, officers, employees. agents and representatives. from and against any and all liabilities. losses, damages. demands. claims and costs, Resolution PCC 05-053 Page .t including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this conditional use permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation ofthe facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this conditional use permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 8. The Project Site shall be subject to inspection six months after the issuance of building permits to check conformance with Project plans and conditions of approval. 9. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 10. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until such time that the conditional use permit is modified or revoked. and the existence of this use permit with approved conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed unit, the Applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document. II. This permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval by the Planning Commission. If, prior to its expiration, the Applicant requests an extension of the term of this permit, the Zoning Administrator shall check the Project for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine. in consultation with the Applicant. whether the Project shall be modified from its original approval. Extensions of time may be granted in five (5) year increments. 12. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit may result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties and/or the revocation or modification of this permit. 13. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit may result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties and/or the revocation or modification of this permit. 14. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified conditional use permit. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL 25. The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below; said execution indicating that the property O'-'ller 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 returned Resolution PCC 05-053 Page 5 to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office. wner 12 (2 VI} )--- Date /;/2 ~/t;S . Date CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS 26. If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur, or if they are, by their te=s, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their te=s, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Developer or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this Resolution. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION 27. It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every te=, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more te=s, 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 ab initio. Resolution PCC 05-053 Page 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-OS-OS3 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in this resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Madrid, Bensoussan, Felber, Tripp, Nordstrom, Cort~s Horn ~Irv !v\ ~~~ Vicki Madrid. Chair ATTEST: J: \Planning\ANN,\PCC\Resolutions\PCC05053. RE so .doc From: Michael Walker Sent: Thursday, November 09. 2006 1 :33 PM To: JR Provencher Subject: RE: Baja Taco Yes. Ann Pease is the planner. Coincidently. an annual CUP inspection is due for Baja Taco. We should have a meeting with Luis and Ann to develop a strategy to resolve this and/or take immediate action...warn them to honor the operating hours as stated in the CUP. Continued violation of the operating condition would be grounds for revocation. I'm currently drafting a policy for revocation proceedings. Your thoughts on a meeting? -----Original Messagemu From: JR Provencher Sent: Thursday, November 09,20061:10 PM To: Michael Walker Subject: Baja Taco Micheal. I rcvd a VM from Det Bart Benjamin (11-7-06) staling that Baja Taco, 1052 Broadway, is slaying open and serving unlil 2330 hours on a continual basis. They have even stayed open until 0200 on other occasions. Can this info be passed along to the proper Assoc Planner for action?? Det Benjamin will provide a report if needed. Thanks J.R. Provencher Senior Code Enforcement Officer City of Chula Vista Planning & Building Department (619) 476-2386 ATTACHMENT 3 ~ AGENCY I CAD INCIDENT NUMBER SAN DIEGO REGIONAL AGENCY CASE NUMBER CVPD NARRATIVE 07-11726 RELATED CASE NUMBER (KEY CASE) FROM DAY DATE TIME OFFICER'S REPORT QNL Y ~ CODE SECTION AND DESCR!PTION (ONE INCIDENT ONLY) THROUGH DAY DATE TIME THURSDAY 4/19/2007 2230 lOCA TJON OF INC!DENT CITY 18EAT DISTRICT 1060 Broadwav Baia Taco Chula Vista 21 REPORTING OFFICER ! ID NUMBER I DIVISION I DATE OF REPORT I TIME Benjamin 705 SIU 4/23/2007 1456 PRIMARY VICTIM'S NAME I PRIMARY SUSPECTS NAME 1 SUSPECTS 008 AGE RNG Citv of Chula Vista Page of MISCELLANEOUS REPORT I had been previously contacted about a noise complaint coming from Baja Taco, located at 1060 Broadway. The complaint stated the noise from patrons continued until 0400 hours on weekend nights. After a brief investigation, I discovered there was a Conditional Use Permit on the business stating the business will close at 2100 hours on all nights of the week. I know from my experience of working the area that the Baja Taco has stayed open on certain nights until at least 2330 hours to midnight. On 04-12-07, I went into the neighboring business, the Baja Club to conduct an IMPACf inspection of the ABC licensed premise. I spoke with the manager, Rene Munoz DOB: 01-30-83. During the inspection I asked Munoz if he had knowledge of the Baja Taco stand next door. He said he also served as the manager there and "looked after" the both businesses. Munoz told me the Baja Taco closes at 0300 hours every night of the week. On 04-19-07 at approximately 2230 hours, I was working an unrelated ABC enforcement operation. I drove by the Baja Taco and saw it was open and operating. My partners and I decided to go in and see if they were open for business. We entered the business and ordered food. I asked the clerk what the hours of operation were and she said 1100 to 0300 every day. While we were eating our food, two other customers walked in, ordered food and sat down in the seating area. END OF REPORT. REPORTING OFFICER Benjamin ID" 705 DIVISION SIU REVIEWED BY DATE REVIEWED TIME REVIEWED ARJIS-9 (RE'J. 8100) ATTACHMENT 4 5-30-07 1000 Met with Marcos Espinosa, Luis H & Ann P Discussion of business staying open past CUP condition closing time of 2200 hrs. Espinosa says that he makes most of his money on the Taco Shack btw 2400 & 0300. He tried closing at 2200 during the first 6 months and he was loosing money. In order to stay viable he has to make sales btw those times. Luis explained that he was in violation of the DRC and CUP and the City could start the process to shut him down. His only alternative is too submit a CUP modification for the hours but he will receive opposition to those hours. I also explained that he was in violation of the DRC & CUP for the size of his sign. He pointed out that the sign design in the DRC wasn't there sign. The sign that should have been in the plan was the same type of sign on Baja Lobster, which is the same sign on all 3 of their restaurants. I explained that the sign in the plan was the only one which the DRC & Planning Commission saw and approved. Every day the current sign is up is a violation. I asked when Espinosa could submit a modification application for the CUP. He said he could make calls today. I told him I would hold off on any further enforcement; giving him until 06-15-07 to submit his application. He said he agreed to submit his CUP modification application by 06-15-07. All parties were clear and agreed to the date for submittal. ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-053M RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-05-053 ALLOWING OUTDOOR SEATING FOR BAJA TACO AT 1052 BROADWAY WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-05- 053) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on May 5, 2005 on behalf of Marcos Flores Espinosa ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this resolution is located at 1052 Broadway with a zoning designation of Commercial Thoroughfare with a precise plan modifier (CTP), ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, said application requested permissIOn to operate a taco shop incorporating outdoor seating on the Project Site ("Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CVMC 19.40.110, all uses in a CTP zone shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, unless open uses are allowed by Conditional Use Permits as determined by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2005, Conditional Use Permit (PCC-OS-OS3) was approved by the Planning Commission, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, condition of approval number 5 of Resolution PCC-OS-OS3 states, "So long as the proposed restaurant includes open-air seating, the hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 am, and not later than 9:00 pm, seven days a week;" and WHEREAS, since the date of issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant has violated their conditions of approval and have been operating outside of the hours permitted by the Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, Officers of the Police Department of the City of Chula Vista have visited the site on several occasions and observed repeated violations of the condition related to the hours of operation, in that the business has been operating as late as 2;00 a.m., five hours past the required closing time; and WHEREAS, Officers of the Chula Vista Police Department have responded to the calls to the location and noted that the business was operating in violation of the conditions of approval related to hours of operation; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has been notified by the City by meeting, phone and mail, of the continuing violations; and ATTACHMENT 6 WHEREAS, in such notifications, the Applicant has been given the opportunity to correct the continuing nature of the violations and advised of the consequences of the failurc to correct the violations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.14.270, the director of planning and building [Director] is mandated to investigate evidence presented to him/her to determine if probable cause exists to believe that the conditional use permit is being or has been exercised contrary to the conditions of said permit; and WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented to the Director, the Director has probable cause to believe that the conditional use permit is being or has been exercised contrary to the conditions of said permit; and WHEREAS, the Director, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.14.270, shall issue a recommendation to the permitting authority, which in this case is the Planning Commission, as to what action should be taken WHEREAS, the Director is recommending the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit (PCC-OS-053) based on the evidence of a continuing violation, the failure of the Applicant to make any effort to comply with the conditions, the continued disturbance to the neighboring residents, the difficulty in enforcing the condition, and the excessive resources that have been required to continue to monitor the site; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit 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.rn. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue, before the Planning Commission and; WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect to the Project, the Planning Commission voted (X-X-X- X) to revoke Conditional Use Permit, PCC-05-53; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the Project qualifies for a Class I (existing structures) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines, thus no further environmental revIew IS necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to CVMC 19.14.270 A & E, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: L Violation of Conditions. That the variance or conditional use permit is being or has been exercised contrary to the conditions of said permit, or in violation of any applicable licenses, permits, regulations or laws 2. Violation of Use. That the variance or conditional use pennit is being or has been exercised in excess of the use right granted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista hereby revokes Conditional Use Permit PCC-OS-OS3 with the understanding that this will require all activity associated with the Project to cease within 30 days of this resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of September, 2007, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: William Trip, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary