HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1987-13223 RESOLUTION NO. 13223
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC
87-44M TO CONTINUE A SCRAPYARD AT 128 MACE
STREET
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, an Initial Study, IS-86-31M, of possible
adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the
Environmental Review Coordinator On May 29, 1986 and the
Environmental Review Coordinator concluded tht there would be no
significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Negative Declaration be adopted, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an application for a
major use permit to continue an existing scrapyard known as Chula
Vista Recycling located at 128 Mace Street, and
WHEREAS, the major use permit now in effect over the
property calls for permanent abatement of the use, the final
abatement date has been extended until August 30 to allow for
processing of the permit application, and
WHEREAS, the Montgomery Planning Committee, at its
meeting of August 5, 1987, voted 3 to 2 with two absent to
recommend denial of the major use permit request and permanent
abatement of the use, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of
August 12, 1987, voted 5-1 with one member abstaining to deny
major use permit PCC 87-44M.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby deny major use permit PCC
87-44M based upon the following findings:
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary
or desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The proposed use at 128 Mace Street has resulted in
unsightly and hazardous conditions included piling
of scrap so that it is visible to surrounding
properties, scattering of metal debris within the
roadway, and trucks blocking Mace Street while
conducting business. Therefore, the proposed well
being of the neighborhood and/or the community has
been negatively affected.
-1-
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 existing use over the past 1-1/2 years has
resulted in blocked traffic as well as debris being
left on over the roadway, which is potentially
detrimental to the health, safety, and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the
regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposed use does not comply with the
regulations or standards relating to on-site
parking, decorative fencing, or landscaping and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit
will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the
adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of a major use permit for the existing
use does not conform to the existing General Plan or
the draft Montgomery Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
finds that this project will have no significant environmental
impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-31M.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use shall be abated and
permanently vacated no later than 30 days from the date of the
final decision rendered by the City Council.
Presented by Approved as to form by
/i
Ge~e~ Kremp{,D~ii~ctor Of / ~omas J~larron, City Attorney
Planning ~ ·
3226a ·
-2-
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 25th d(~J Of August
19 87 , by the following vote, to--~wif:
AYES: Councilmembers ~[cCandZiss, Cox, Moore, Nader
NAYES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ~qone
ABSENT: Councilmembers Malcolm
Mo/~the City of Chulo Vista
ATTEST/_/, City Clerk
~..FE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thot the above and foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of
RESOLUTZON N0. t3223
,and that the some has not been amended or repeoled
DATED
~ Cify Clerk
C U ,A VIS[A
CC-660