Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/09/27 (3) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2 Meeting Date 9/27/95 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-90-25M; Request for five year extension to an existing Conditional Use Permit for an RV Storage Yard at 1375 Broadway, within the S-94 zone - Broadway Palomar RV Storage RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, PCC- 90-25M, recommending that the City Council approve a five year extension for the RV Storage Yard located at 1375 Broadway, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft Council Resolution. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class I exemption DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The project site consists of a rectangularly shaped property of 4.5 acres with utility transmission towers bisecting the property from east to west. This existing storage lot contains 356 storage spaces and 20 customer parking spaces, and is surrounded by slatted chain-link fencing; the facility is open to customers from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The interim zoning in effect for this property is S-94, a County designation for utility transmission zones which allows open storage uses with approval of a use permit. 2. Zoning and Land Use North - South - East - West - C-C-P - C-T-P - S-94 S-94 - Commercial Center Mini Storage/Auto Center RV Storage Vacant 3. Proposal The proposal is for a five-year extension of the existing conditional use permit allowing a storage yard for recreation vehicles. This CUP expired on June 12, 1995; however, Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 9/27/95 the application for extension was filed prior to the expiration date. The applicant is further requesting that the City Council requirement for payment of an in-lieu park mitigation fee of $7,500.00 per year be discontinued. 4. Analvsis The existing conditional use permit was approved by the City Council in June of 1990. This approval was the culmination of a lengthy process beginning with the property's allllexation from the County during the Montgomery allllexation of 1986. At that time the property owner, Broadway Equities, was notified that the R.V. storage yard required a conditional use permit from the City (it did not have the requisite major use permit from the County and was therefore not considered "grandfathered"). In 1988 the Council, on appeal from a Plalllling Commission decision, approved the recreational vehicle storage yard for an eighteen-month term, subject to certain conditions. The conditional use permit was subsequently revoked by the Planning Commission for applicant's failure to comply with the conditions of the permit, and a new permit was applied for and was ultimately approved by the City Council in 1990. The aforementioned proceedings primarily centered around the applicant's failure to meet conditions of approval such as paving, screening, and landscaping, in a timely mallller. Further, the SDG&E easement areas were, at that time, among areas in Montgomery under study for consideration as open space and park areas. By the time of the Council's final consideration in 1990, the applicant had met all of the original conditions of approval. Further, Council members at that time expressed concerns about the ability to plan for permanent usage of the easement areas given unresolved public health concerns regarding the question of electro-magnetic fields (EMF) effects. As a result, the conditional use permit was approved subject to a time limitation of five years, which was intended to provide time for the studies which would resolve the issue of appropriate land uses for this and other properties under the easements (please see minutes from 1990 City Council consideration, as well as approving Resolution No. 15674, attached) Since the 1990 approval of the conditional use permit, the EMF issue remains largely unresolved; there has been no definitive resolve of the question of potential health risks associated with permanent usage of areas in and around electric transmission towers and lines. As a result, the City has not concluded studies regarding permanent land uses for the SDG&E easement areas, and the Parks and Recreation department has no plans for park uses on this site for at least the next five years. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 9/27/95 The recreational vehicle storage facility has operated without incident for the past five years and all conditions of approval have been met. The City has received no complaints regarding the site and has had no code enforcement activities involving this property. The storage yard is open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. After hours, a night watchman is employed which has apparently provided effective security for the site. The paved driveway leading to the entry gate is well maintained, as is the landscape buffer along the property's Broadway frontage. 5. Conclusion Based upon the existing condition of site, its operational history of the past five years, and the fact that long-term planning for SDG&E easement areas is not concluded, staff recommends approval of the five-year extension, subject to the conditions stated in the draft Council Resolution. The proposed conditions of approval include a provision for extension by the Planning Commission, upon finding that the issues discussed above remain unresolved or, if resolved, that the Commission determines that open storage uses are appropriate permanent land uses for the area. Additionally, the applicant has requested that the park in-lieu fee be discontinued; to date, the applicant has paid in excess of $35,000.00 into this fund. Since this is a Council-imposed fee and not a land use matter, we have drafted the Planning Commission Resolution so as not to include a Commission recommendation on this issue. However, since there are no plans for the usage of this site as a park through at least the next five years, we will be recommending to Council that this fee be discontinued. The Parks and Recreation Department has no objections to this recommendation. Attachments 1. Commission and Draft Council Resolutions 2. Locator and Site Plan 3. Minutes of Original Council Consideration (1990) 4. Resolution No. 15764. approving existing Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-25 5. Disclosure Statement (m: \home \planning\patty\pcc9025m. rep) COMMISSION AND DRAFT COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO, PCC-90-25M A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-25 TO BROADWAY PALOMAR RV STORAGE TO OPERATE A STORAGE YARD FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AT 1375 BROADWAY WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an extension of a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula vista Planning Department on May 23, 1995 by Broadway Palomar RV Storage ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, said application requested that the Applicant be granted an extension of time for a recreational vehicle storage yard located at 1375 Broadway ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, the Planning commission set the time and place for a hearing on said 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 an area greater than 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 27, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby finds that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 1 exemption, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends City Council approval of the extension in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and the findings and conditions related to the extension (but not the parks in-lieu fee) contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 27th day of september 1995 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C. Tuchscher III, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-25 TO BROADWAY PAWMAR RV STORAGE TO OPERATE A STORAGE YARD FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AT 1375 BROADWAY L RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as Broadway Palomar RV Storage and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 4.5 acres of land located at 1375 Broadway ("Project Site"); and, B. Project Applicant WHEREAS, on May 23, 1995 a duly verified application for extension of a conditional use permit (PCC-90-25M) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by Broadway Palomar RV Storage ("Applicant"); and, C. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, Applicant requests the extension of an existing conditional use permit to authorize the continued operation of an existing recreational vehicle storage yard for a five-year period ("Project"), subject to extension at the end of that term, and is also requesting that the previous condition requiring payment of a park mitigation in-lieu fee be discontinued on the Project Site, ; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on September 27, 1995 and voted _-_ to recommend that the City Council approve the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-90-25M; and, E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on 1995 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on September 27, 1995, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. II. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the Project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as a Class I exemption. Ill. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council 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 hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated findings to be made. A. 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 recreational vehicle storage yard provides a facility which assists property owners in keeping large recreational-type vehicles off of the public streets, which is desirable and contributes to the well-being of the community. Landscaping improvements made to the property by the applicant, have further contributed to the well-being of the neighborhood in which this property is located. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing RV storage yard has been legally operating under a conditional use permit for the past five years, and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons or property within the vicinity. The project will be similarly conditioned for the length of the five-year term of extension, which will ensure that continued operations adhere to the same standards. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use, Compliance with all applicable codes, conditions, and requirements shall be required throughout the duration of this use. D. 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 approval of this permit is consistent with City policies, the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the General Plan. IV. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-25M subject to the following conditions: I. The term of the Conditional Use Permit shall be for a maximum of five years and shall expire on . and thereafter, the Applicant will no longer be allowed to continue the use herein permitted after this date, unless further extended. Applicant is hereby advised that the duration of this permit may not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to receive a reasonable return on any investment that may require a longer amortization term than allowed by this permit. Any such investment will be made at the Applicant's risk. Any subsequent extensions of this permit may be approved or denied by the Planning Commission, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.58.400. Any application for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of three months prior to the expiration date. 2. The Conditional Use Permit shall allow for the operation of a recreational vehicle storage yard, as provided for in Section 19.58.400 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Storage shall be limited to recreational vehicles, as well as a limited number of automobiles, trucks, and other similar vehicles. All vehicles shall be operable, and no dismantling or repair work shall be permitted on the Project Site. The applicant shall provide a current list of types of vehicles which are intended to be stored on site, which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning for conformance with this condition. 3. No vehicles over 14 feet in height, or stacking of vehicles or materials on vehicles resulting in a height greater than 14 feet, shall be permitted on the Project Site. 4. No vehicles or materials over 6 feet in height shall be located within 30 feet of the fence along Broadway. 5. The hours of operation of the facility shall not be greater than 7 a.m. until 7 p.m daily. 6. All improvements, including landscaping and screening, shall be maintained by the applicant. Landscaping shall be maintained as originally approved and installed, as indicated in the landscape plan dated May II, 1988 (Project No. 88- 03) on file in the office of the Planning Department. 7. The applicant shall maintain effective security measures for the purpose of ensuring a Project Site. 8. The Applicant shall utilize a standard rental or lease agreement, to be approved by the Planning Director, for all space rentals, which shall include the following information relative to restrictions contained in the Conditional Use Permit: a. Types of vehicles which are allowed to be stored on the site. b. Height restrictions on vehicles within the facility. c. Other use restrictions. d. Notification that the use may be terminated with notice after completion of the Montgomery Special Study. 9. A report shall be filed with the City on an annual basis by the applicant, as required pursuant to Section 19.58.400 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The report shall include the following: a. A copy of the standard space rental or lease agreement, referenced in Condition No.8, and verification that this agreement has been utilized for all space rentals during the previous year; b. Verification of property maintenance in accordance with conditions of approval (e.g., photographs of site, copy of contract for landscape maintenance); c. Any other information which the City deems necessary and reasonable to determine compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, as determined by the Director of Planning. 10. The previously required parks in-lieu fee, condition 10 of Resolution No. 15674, is hereby discontinued for the period of this five year extension. V. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF GRANT 1. Comply with all City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution. Any violation of City ordinances, standards, and policies, or any condition of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, or any provision of the Municipal Code, as determined by the Director of Planning, shall be grounds for revocation or modification of this Conditional Use Permit by the City of Chula Vista. 2. This approval shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the grantee and after the City has given to the grantee 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 Grantee of a substantial revenue source which the Grantee can not, in the normal operation of the approval granted, be expected to economically recover. 3. This conditional use permit extension 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. VI. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL 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 applicants, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the property owner's/applicants' desire that the project be held in abeyance without approval. VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council 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 ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning (m: \shared\planning \pcc9025M. res) Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney 1 ---.....-- -- 8 EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT LOCATION -~. I i I I I PALOMAR , - .'., 1 , , , --1 I I .. > <t :I ,. . . . . < '.,/ . .'- , . '.I I , " CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Broadway Plomar CONDlnONAL USE PERMIT C) ""'-ICANT, RV Storage PROJECT 1375 Broadway leque": For modifications of eonditions of an ADDIESS, approval 10 Reso. 15674, and 5 year extension. KALE, flL! NUMlE~ NORTH 400' PCC- 90 -25M LOCA TOR AND SITE PLAN I ...._4.._. fi PRO"ECT LOCATION o ' --.-. I I I I I PALOMAR "'~-nTl II, : I ! --., I .. w > .. ~ .. ...J ,. < I .. ~ ./ , ,'- , , '. - , , CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Broadway Plomar CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C) APPUCANT, RV Storage PROJECT 1375 Broadway Requelf: For modifications of tonditions of on ADDRESS, approval It> Reso.15674, and 5 year extension. SCALf, Fu..ENUMBER, NORTH 400' PCC. 90 .25M . FfJ~'~~'--j .0 . ElAo;mr'i"j ..~ I!> ",~_L '=B3'> ..,~ . L.Of 'I'"T) ... (} ., .. '" '" _~1 "'" '" :Jf-..., ~U~ ~ 1),/ o , '" '" = " , = ~1=>riNe, .10.<> cor1r1ep.c.IA V ~IL-DI.....,- . (,.!of.Ac!"lFf) ! "'\ ," ~:~ fi'""> ::1-7'" 0 ,~e ... ,?1 ~ >J" tr\ ~17 >'t ,., 'J.~ ~ ". ,>1 "" "'", I~ I?-' 1 I" Ii'; IV; 1/3.-..12- ilil I:>> I~ I'M- I~ I'll 1"'1" IU 1"111'\ I ~ II~ Iq~ 111 12> 1'1'\" II" 14- !qi~ 11' ''IiPi'1t 1':;' 1"1111';' 11 ~. 1:--::;e; ~I'I'I III ~ ... ~1 g~ II" t ~ ~ ... 101 10'1 ... ""!!>I J01-iloa ea- ?G>>II01 B3 1ofllt:)" ~ ;31 "'!1llo<? 817 ~"3)-z.- ~ eu 3~" ~kL.. ;01 I~ 131 ';"1 ~3 ;ot I"'!.- ~ <'?,;;. W JO"! 101 I l >0 1:, jj_~~1~ 1" t .,.u. ~~I"'" to'! ' 1-V7 'I~ = J"'I,,= :~ .,'J \ o -----1 J1) l~:! OO~ ~ ~orl'" i"'1'1") E>,<"'';c:!<I_~~ """''''''"~ \b :.. t ~~X' ~?'J..;:"""""'~ ,~ . , 10/\:: l' /~ / " ~-- ~'" ~.~ ~"I- .. tc,o,.l~l (>.loT A fAf-T) t ---/ \\~ / ~" ~ ~ 00 ,)/"-< ~ . ~ - \ ~ P ~ITE PLAN 1 '. MINUTES OF ORIGINAL COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (1990) . 4 , PUBLIC HEARING: FCC 9o-25M: APPEAL OF PLANNNING cn1MISSION"S DENIAL OF CDNDITIONAL USE PERMIT: RECUEST FOR RV S'IDRAGE AT 1375 BROADWAY - BROADWAY ECUITIES LTD. (continued from 5/8/90 at the request of the applicant). Staff recommends denial of the appeal of FCC 9D--25M. (Director of Planning) Staff report presented by Robert Leiter, Director of Planning. Questions of staff: McCandliss: Council had requested the special study to come back in about 18 months. Now it appears it will take another 18 months to complete the special study for the area because of the issue of electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines. Depending on the result of this, what would they be recoI!U11ending for use of the easement? :,~ Leiter: The original specific plan contemplates use of the SDG&E easement of open space for recreational type of uses. Since the issue of electromagnetic radiation hazard, there is a concern as to whether we should be designating that for long-term recreational uses if it is a hazard. The purpose of the additional time would be to allow for some studies which are currently being conducted at State-wide level to be completed in order to get a better handle on that issue. If the study indicates that certain types of recreational uses would be appropriate, then they would be brought back for Council consideration. If there are hazards, then Council may wish to consider other uses. McCandliss: What other types of land uses could be considered? Leiter: Certain types of uses such as storage which do not allow for a lot of continual public contact might be considered more appropriate if there is a hazard. This needs to be studied more carefully first. McCandliss: W)uld the SDG&E easement across the street be improved by the City? Leiter: This has not been planned. A decision would need to be made as to how large an area would be used for this purpose. ThE;. City would have to look at setting up some type of financing program for the' facilities. WOuld need to look at it from a land use point of view and then how it could be financed and maintained. Malcolm: Had concerns dealing with people who do not live up to their commitment. I might have voted for this if they had done the improvements. The per capita of RVs would be east of the I-80S while expecting the people west of I-80S to provide for the storage. However, if this is closed, it might put the RVs back on the streets or stored in front of homes. Are there sufficient storage areas available so these vehicles can move to? Leiter: Staff has identified other facilities in Chula Vista but have not done vacancy surveys. Staff has not heard that there has been a serious lack of storage space. We have received petitions indicating that this is a convenient facility. '. "" -~. ..~'. ) .. , - Malcolm: Are these with Conditional: Use Permits or under SDG&E easements? Leiter: orhere was. one, which' was approved in the . County and was later annexed into .the City. It is not under. a Conditional Use. Permit. Any new one would require a Conditional Use Permit under the City. - - - -. - - ~ - . . McCandliss: RV owners who store their vehicles there should be given i1mtediate noticec.so that at the end of the year/eighteen rr::mths they would have adequate time to relocate. One of the most damming pieces of evidence against. the operat:ors"wasthat,the iJrprovements were not done. In addition, a number of these conditions We.r.e allowed to slip before the City began to take action.: . Anunt>er of :.the commissioners have expressed a lack. of confidence tbat:evenif this,is allowed. to continue with conditions, they will not be met and",-will. result in the same situation as present. Does staff have any additional recommendations that if the Council were to place additional conditions,., how ,better ..enfQr~nto"Could-be-provided than!n the past? .-- --- Leiter; Any:a!'lditioIlal enfor~ment: 'would really come back to the City staff to act!lally go. out, ,and monitor : conditions of enfQrcement. One thing to consider would be... some sort_ of monitoring .program where there would be periodic checks" as to -.tne . compliance with conditions. that it be paid for: by the-applic,,"t; simila,!; tOe the .MiU<3a~ion Monitoring and Environmental Review,. McCandliss: compliance. - .. Then unless _ someone, _complains., we just assume they are in There is not some kind of regular way of checking periodically? Leiter; . Our Conditional Use Permit process is primarily based on a complaint basis. - ~. -' - . Moore~ If the usage is allowed to.. remain until long-term usage is decided, who decides? Is.this done-by zoning or by enticing the property owner? Leiter: The City Council, through the C11P, can set a time limit in which case the City would decide how long the applicant could stay. Moore: The electromagnetic issue came up a couple of years ago through another source, and there have been a number of thi'.l9s written on it. Does staff think they will come through with something definitive on electromagnetic radiation? Leiter: within a reasonable amount of time, the City would have to look at the information available and make some decisions. I do not think they could indefinitely hold back on land use decisions on an entire area like this and my understanding is that there are studies being conducted by the State Public Utilities Commission that are really targeted at this issue that should be forthcoming within the next two years. Once these studies are out, the City would then have to move forward and make decisions based on that information. Moore: I would not be surprised if electromagnetic radiation would be something like AGENT ORANGE which would go on for forty years and still be questionable. , Moore: What is the motor home, a boat, a above? .<!finition of an RV storage yard? Does it include the trailer, a pick-up truck, a camper, a car, or all of the Leiter: There was a definition in our zoning code that included all but the last two items. Pick-up trucks or cars and recreational vehicles typically include vehicles that are owned by individuals that are stored between uses rather than vehicles that are normally kept at home and used on a more regular basis. Moore: If I were to go to a normal storage yard I would find boats, boats on trailers, boats not on trailers, empty automobiles. Is this improper usage? motor homes and trailers and Leiter: The main difference between an automobile storage yard and an RV storage yard is it would be far more likely that an auto storage yard is going to be used for storage of vehicles for a longer term period and in some cases, would include storage of inoperable vehicles. This draws a fine line between a towing yard and a junk yard. So an RV storage yard is typically storage of vehicles that are used on a regular basis but are simply kept away from the home when. they are not being used, and there are some differences in the two uses. Normally, cities are much less likely to allow an auto storge yard or a junk yard or towing yard in an area near a residential or commercial area. Moore: Storage yards have automobiles to some decent number. As policy makers, it seems that the primary concern would be what is the benefit to the City? People live in the city. WOuld the removal of an RV storage be an asset, as well as an empty lot? Whether clean or littered, would it be an asset? I do not find too many under-utilized areas an asset to the City. There are codes to be enforced but the question is to what degree should these codes be enforced - - after one month of litter, three months. How long does it take to clean up, and how soon will the litter re-occur? Parks certainly are an asset if they can be used and not to have to worry about magnetism or radiation of some type. What does it look like now and what will it look like as anticipated when it is empty? Would it be an asset to the City to move a bunch of RV's out of the storage? My feeling is they failed to fulfill what we required and requested. .. . .' Tom Beatty, representing Broadway Equities Ltd: We developed the Broadway Palomar Auto center and self storage facility at 1403-1483 Broadway as well as the RV storage facility in question at 1375 Broadway approximately five years ago. In excess amount of $10 million dollars was spent of their own funds, as well as loan funds, to build the auto center and mini-storage facility and approximately $350,000 was spent to improve the RV storage facility. This included approximately $140,000 that was spent for the improvements that were required of them at the Council hearing in July 1988, in order to meet all the conditions of the RV storage facility and to comply with their Conditional Use Permit at that time. When the auto center, self-storage, and RV storage facilities were built, all the necessary permits were obtained for the auto and self-storage facility with the property in the County of San Diego. Therefore, they did not receive a permit for the RV storage since they were not aware a permit was required for the RV storage as a separate issue. When -they were later notified that the property was annexed to the City of Chula , ) , Vista and a Conditional Use Permit was required, they immediately applied for it and began processing for the necessary permit. They were denied by Montgomery Planning and the Planning Commission in 1987 and 1988. They appealed to City Council in July of 1988 and at tqat time received approval in order to continue for an eighteen month period providing all conditions were met. Beatty: At the time the Conditional Use Permit was received (1: 00 a.m.), it was not their understanding that the permit was for eighteen months or until special studies were completed, whichever came sooner. However, they did not complete the conditions within the time frame incurred by many delays with their own consultants as well as the amount of time it took to go through the normal processing channels with the City of Chula Vista. The 60 day time frame (stated at the hearing of July 1988) was unreasonable because of the amount of time it would take to do the designs, plans, obtain permits and necessary work. They also ran into some financial and cashflow problems during construction of the project which resulted in the consultants not working as diligently as they should have had the funds been available at the time to pay them and keep them moving along smoothly and efficiently. All conditions at this point have been completed and were substantially completed in October of 1989. The only two items at that time not completed was a small portion of the screening fence around the property (areas between the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park RV storage as well as areas abutting other existing properties and buildings.) (Mr. Beatty announced that he had a slide presentation and would have other representatives speaking if time allowed,) Beatty: We urge you to approve the Conditional Use Permit or at least allow us to stay for a minimum of two years until the special study is completed so that a determination could be made for the ultimate use of the open SDG&E property that they have improved. If not allowed to remain, this would put at least 200 to 300 people with RV's out on the street, Surveys have shown that there is a definite need for this facility, and therefore, we should be allowed to remain until the ultimate determination of the special study is finalized. ~ Mccandliss: On July 12, it was part of the motion that the improvements be made and that all recreational vehicle space renters be notified they would have 18 months to remain at this location. Have you notified the renters of this, and what was their response? Beatty: Most of the renters were panicked, especially those in the military who are often away from home. They were notified by letter. MCCandliss: How many of the renters have relocated as a result of the notice? Beatty: Not many renters have relocated in the hope that the facility would be allowed to remain. Cox: How long ago were the notifications sent out? --,"~ j-- "~,. " '--.~ -,--- } ..l , Beatty:, Notifications were. sent out at least a year. ago and again recently, Eric Larson, Mapager for Broadway Palomar Self storage and Broadway Palomar RV Storage: I recieve two to three calls per" day from the .general public inql,lidng about. the stoxage facilities. Thefacflity. has received numerous compliments regarding the landscaping and the employees are .often picking up trash on the empty lot. - ---. -- David . Barrett, 1404 .3roadl'!ay': ~Both mywif.e and I request tl1e storage .facility be, aU.owed b:> stay. TheY have been 9oodneighbors and improved the property. If the Councilc:does .not allow the facility. to remain, then. allow them to remain !:II1tilanother us~ is~api)l~oved, so the .propei.ty aoes not deteriorate. -. -------'. - - Robert Kolodney, .Attorney representing Broadway Equities: This is an asset to the. .City.that .. has the. support.of the neighbors and. businesses. sUl:rounding to!!l!\,3.the Chamber of .commer-ce, and citizens of-the ..corranunity... .Mr. Beatty has apqlog-iz~ for the delays; but 'the'bottomline. is that he. has spent $340,000 in making that the nicest.RV. storage. facility in the City.. EVery element necessary for a congitional Use Permit exists iri thiS sitUation. Theproposed use - 9fthe . location. ..for recreational.. vehicle. . storage. is . necessary and desirable, to. provide.a.JnUch needed:servfce. desired by~the. c6i!1Jnt.lhity .... This facility ~willcontribute to the .well being of the col11lllUnTty in.light of~ the obvious - ~.eds for. such a faCility to provide a s.torage .location. This . was previously established before the Planning Conunission and. the City Council when Council granted the temporary use. The Conditional Use Permit will not, under..these cir-cumstances, be detrimental. to .t)1e.health, safety, welfare. .of personS-.workingaround: the facility, On' the cOntrary, the .facility will fill a definite need since it I S clearly more convenient and desirable to those owning RV's, boats, etc. to store them in such a facility. The proposed use will. comply with conditions specified. in the Code for such use. All those conditions have been met by the expenditure of the $340,000 by the applicant. The Conditional Use Permit will not affect the General Plan of the City. When the Mayor asked the staff in July 1988, "How long will it take to do your study?", they replied, approximately eighteen months. We left thinking that the applicant had the right to stay until the special study came back. He began expending funds immediately. Immediately upon rour temporary approval, the applicant commenced working, expending another 1140,000 and created a real asset for the City. It is without question by. reading the Codes, the Code requirements have been satisfied; all the conditions for RVs, boats, etc. have been adhered to. They have expended considerable dollars and believe a Conditional Use Permit should be granted, but we are willing to come back in a couple of years when the special study is completed. Mc:Candliss: The best thing you have going for you is the landscaping you have in front. You still have equipment protruding over the fencing. It is really not blocked from view. Do you feel the improvements you have made now are long term improvements? Kolodney: If the City felt it appropriate to grant a Conditional Use Permit and wanted to condition it upon some additional landscaping and more permanent screening in light of the applicant's $300,000 expenditure on a 25-year license, he might very well consider that. ~_,."""""'~;'--"""'..<I""""'''i .~:.-_~_.-. ,.,..-...... - ,.-,<. .,,~ """., -. ,. ._',".~...~_._-' --..:.,;.",~-",j ...,. .~. , - ~.<'" '\ .. ( ( Bob Greenwald: 1409 Broadway, owner of Greenwald Auto Repair: Several of us in the automotive center use the lot to store customer vehicles overnight. The storage lot looks good. If the storage lot has to be vacated, it creates a huge problem for us. What will it be used for when it goes back to a vacant lot? The storage protects them from vandalizm. Most motorhomes run between 10-14 feet in height so an 8 feet limit is ridiculous. At the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting, no one spoke against the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and yet it was no'_ approved. Was it in the best interest vf the City; why was it turned down? For a future park site use, is that appropriate with the water shortage? Lee Whealand, 630 Walnut Drive: Not only did I speak against this use, but so did other merrtJers. One of my main concerns was that it was illegal in the beginning. This was denied twice. The promise to make certain improvements was not fulfilled in time. The landscaping' was pretty, but there are many storage areas in Montgomery, We do not want to give them another chance. An RV storage area should be for RV's not for other type of storage, Nader: At the last meeting when you discussed this, did the Committee envision the lot vacant and is that acceptable for a long period of time? Whealand: My reading of the Conunittee was that this was put into a special study area for the purpose of studying it. They have some things they would like to see happen, but nothing concrete. They were eager to see it go into a special study area. Nader: If we deny the permit while the special study is being conducted, there are concerns that either the property goes vacant and goes uncared for. Was there any discussion by the Montgomery Planning Committee regarding the desirability of having the property go vacant while the study was gOing on. Whealand: They did not discuss this officially other than the SDG&E property was vacant. Nader: Mr. KOlodney made the statement that it was his impression that his client was being given eighteen months or until the special study was completed or whichever was first. How do you think.. the Montgomery Planning Committee would feel about allowing this use ta stay with some staff conditions so long as the study is still pending? Whealand: I would have some concerns with the track record of the applicant. They had conditions before and look at what happened. Malcolm: If I were to consider an extension, I would do it on a thirty-day basis pending that the additional improvements be put in. According to my information, the applicant is trying to sell the property, so we need to make sure we get those improvements. Is this type of use, with the type of conditions by staff, something that would not be recommended for approval by the Montgomery Planning Committee or is this one of the possible uses that is being considered in the special study area? Whealand: We have talked in the past about some RV storage facilities, but ,they have not come to an agreement as to whether they would want any more. They have thought of other things for the SDG&E property from parks to nursery use. Malcolm: Regarding storage of vehicles, the applicant has an obligation to give the City of Chula Vista a list of all of the uses, including the different parking which is in there, plus file an annual report with the City which he has failed to do. There should be some type of tickler system by staff. Nancy Palmer: 9741 Fourth Avenue: We are trying to overcome a long history of abuse and negl-ect.-: Regarding €lectromagnetic' radiation - originally the MSPcalled for open space the entire length of the SDG&Eright-of-way, - She shoWed some slides of the site from various angles. Ma~or__declared the public hearing closed. Mayor: In July 1988,- - Council gave 60 days to have the improvements done. Clearly that was'not-done. What sort -of-action did staff initiate during that 60 .:lays or 1:mmediately afterward when it was evident theimprovemens Were not completed. was that something that was aggressively purSued? It was August 1989 before it was brought up before the Montgomery Planning Col1ll1ittee. Leite~' I-t was about a year before staff became aware of the non-compliance arid began to ,actively pursue it. The City does not have a proactive enforcement program. It is cnorinally by complaints being filed. and that was the - case- here. - Once staff - was aware of it, they proceeded -to begin a revocation hearing and di seuss ions with the applicant. Mayor: The requirement we imposed to have the improvements completed in sixty days was -probably unrealistic. I -think- that --maybe we knew that when we did It.-Btlt; Ithiiik fifteen monthS is ludicrous. As I look at that land use, it's' something we are considering whether there shouldn't be other land uses on'the SDG&E easement that's why we iriitially considered a parks/recreation designation, but in all fairness we should have a further evaluation and modify it to be a special study area. The land use that is there now is something I'm not sure I could support in the future. My preference would be to have it as an open space corridor, but I think there are a number of legitimate uses that the jury is .still out on. Even if we took action to approve the staff recommendation to deny the conditional use permit, we still wouldn't have an open space corridor. You have an ex~ting permitted use, and I'm not sure what the duration is on the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park that has a permitted use to have an RV storage right in the middle of that corridor. The greatest concern I have is if we denied the appeal, you would have a reversion of the landscaping that is there, and although it took a long period of time to get there, from what I've seen over the past several months, it is being well maintained, The fact that they didn't get their sign in until late in the process doesn't bother me. If they wanted to take the sign down, it wouldn't bother me either. I think that for right now the best thing that we could do is to go ahead with the use that is there right now, I think that there are a number of conditions that I would like to see imposed. At this point, until that special study is completed, I don't see anything that we gain by not allowing that use to continue. On the one hand, if we wanted to take punitive action, and in some respects it may be appropriate, we could deny the appeal because this particular applicant has not complied with the requirements in a timely fashion. But I don't think that would really solve 'anything, I think that there are some legitimate answers that we need to have regarding land use in that area. If the applicant can maintain that area in an acceptable manner with landscaping and some additional conditions, I don't ,.- have a problem in allowing that use to continue. I would suggest that it continue for-a period of 24 months. The reason I say that is that I hope we can get the special study done in the next 18 months. But, given our track record in the past, I'm not sure we will. Even. if we did get it done in eighteen months, we are going to need a certain amount of time to take whatever actions on recommendations that may be coming forward from staff, the Montgomery Planning Committee, and the Planning Commission. I would think that in any event, if this were allowed I would want some requirements that in all their leases, in a certain size, bold type, that this use is on~y permitted for a period of twenty-four months, and as had been represented in the staff report, that if it was to be approved that there are some conditions that they would want to have. McCandliss: We started the special study some time ago, and now we have the added dimension of the electromagnetic field. Why does it take another 12 to 18 months to make a determination on that and then decide on land use? I don't understand why its taking so long. Leiter: My understanding is that the concern on electromagnetic radiation has reached state level where the state has now commissioned some research studies which will not be completed for at least that period of time, and until those are completed, it is our feeling that we should not be making any long-term land use decisions in those areas. Mccandliss: These are some of the questions I asked earlier. If we are waiting for that as a determination, can we at least determine that if there is a problem with the electromagnetic field, then the land use would be this; and if there is not a problem, then the land use would be a grouping of another, in a shorter period of time? Leiter: We could do some of that. I guess the question would be the kind of results we will see out of the sudies and whether they will give us some kind of di recti on on certain types of land uses. I really don't know what the results of the study are going to say and so we could do some contingency planning. It may be wiser to wait until the studies are completed so we have some real hard data to work from. I would think that within two years and a better assessment of where these studies are, we shol/ld start making some of these contingency decisions because you can't- wait- forever for scientific studies. I would think that within a two year period we would have a pretty good sense of that. Rudolph: I think that Mr. Moore's comment about AGENT ORANGE and 40 years is unfortunately humerous but accurate since it has been about forty years that this has been in dispute. I think Mr. Leiter is correct that we are getting to the point where somebody is finally going to make a definitive action at the State level. Several other States have already outlawed any kind of human use under wires because it has been so dangerous. So it is coming to a point where the State is finally going to make some definite decisions about it rather than us do it on a local level and on a case-by-case basis in an environmental review context. Mccandliss: I look at the easement across the street and as one of the . biggest proponents of open space area, this is not particularly attractive. If, over time we could decide that it was going to be retained as open space, , and we could begin a program of improvement so that it could be turned into an area more like we've seen in other easements around the City. That would be a goal to go after. This use is meeting some need, but I find myself concerned with compliance. I can't believe that the Counc.il grants a Conditional Use Permit that is not valid until the conditions are met and that we don't even go through an initial evaluation to see that those conditions have been met. I can understand that we don't have annual monitoring to see that they are continuing in compliance, but the Conditional Use Permit is not even valid until those conditons have been met. I would like, as a follow-up motion, to refer this back to the Planning staff to find out if this indeed is the case and if it is, we need to legally and certainly ethically, with the corrunitments we make to the neighborhoods and community when we grant a permit, make sure that those conditions are met. The applicant did not meet the conditions, and it is almost ironic to hear him say that .we have so much money invested in the property. because it reminds me of someone who shoots themselves in the foot and then wants sympathy because they're limp. Those conditions were placed as a temporary solutions to an illegal use some time ago. But it is difficult, until we have some decision as to what the land use should be, to have them leave. As a minimum, I think we need to clear out some of the trash that we see being stored. It does not meet the standard that we would set anywhere else for an RV storage. Boats need places to be stored, RV's need places to be stored, but we saw tarps that should not be acceptable. Nader: I do not think we need to worry that it is going to take 40 years for the state to complete its study on electromagnetic radiation, and I don't think its taken 40 years to learn that AGENT ORANGE is a carcigenic. It may take 40 years for the Government to get its act together on the issue. I have to say that Ms. Palmer's presentation tonight is one of the most persuasive that I've seen down here in quite a while. There is a marked difference between the way this type of area is handled in Montgomery and in the rest of this City. It also convinced me that if it is left open, it does not have to be the eye-sore that I came in tonight concerned that it might be. It certainly is not in other parts of our coITUIIUnity. However, if we do extend the existing land use, there are a couple of conditions that I would want to see a little different from what you are suggesting. One is I am not comfortable with a fixed 24 month period. I am not convinced that we would have to take that long. Staff is talking about 18 mol}ths. If we are going to extend this land use on the premise that we want that. land use there until the study is done, then lets say we are extending it until the study is done. Assuming we can do that or perhaps with a certain period of notice by the City upon which the existing tenants must vacate, The other condition that nothing over 10 feet should be stored there. We have heard without contradiction tonight is that there is not much out there in the way of need for a facility that is less than 10 feet. If we are going to allow the use to continue at all, I think we should put a more realistic condition on it. Personally, I would tend to favor adopting the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Corrunittee. Cox: I move to deny the appeal of the revocation of Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried, Cox: I move to continue the public hearing, and direct staff to come back . with a resolution granting the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions. Motion died for lack of second. COx: We have been working with SDG&E, and their representative, Pat Barnes, and have identified those areas along the SDG&E easements throughout the City of Chula Vista that are lacking some improvements." We have tried to prioritize those that need to be done, and I ,think we are working in a cooperative aim to ",make sure that. in a period of years those can be acromplished in a relatively reasonable time frame.. .. . Malcolm: Let's poiIL,,". out that some of -the" land is owned by SDG&E andc some is not., 'Thereisa' difference in the area, and .1 don't know. why. because I am sure that the easement was. acquired, at the same time', but there, is private ownership along there. ' Malrolm'requested' that Mr. Foncerrada come forward. What would it' -cost' to plan and get ready a four and ~ half acre, green open space? Foncerrada." I would estimate it-to be between $lOO,OOO-to '$125,000 per acre to plant. ---- ... - Malcolm: ,I would like to. see a., $10,000. to $20,000 fee, attached as.. a mitigation fee' for' them to allow to rontinue there.", That would go into the Montgomery Park Fund, 'to 'be spent in the area to develop open space and to improve'the area. If we attach the .staff conditions and maybe the 6 feet along the border of the fence, 14 feet on the interior, have them comply with the ordinance regarding what kind of uses are going to be there, and get full compliance with some kind of mitigation fee for the area, until we got that study back or forced OUI: staff, I would be.willing to support moving forward. , , Cox:' I do not have a problem 'with your suggestions. Your raising the question of.. trying to rome up with a nexus or rormection between. the conditions and 'everything.SDG&E has previously agreed to put in the improvements on the opposite side of the street, and listing the priorities, I am not sure that was the first one on the list. SDG&E had previously made an offer to put in those improvements on the westside of Broadway, Maybe if we rould get SDG&E to move forward on those improvements, we could, as a condition of approval, require the applicant to landscape the area directly aocross the street within so many feet of the street improvements. .. Malcolm: My only concern is that we have the maintenance and I think that the use of the funds and what the mitigation fee would be is something we ought to be sending back to the Montgomery group. I think that it is appropriate for us to set the fee of what we feel is the cost of mitigation. I would rather keep the money designated for a park fund and let the rommunity group decide what to do with it and come back with a recommendation. It seems to me then that everyone can win. I don't think it is proper for me to base my decision on a land use because of the applicant's lack of following through, We should have penalized them, corrected it, so I take personally part of that blame that we did not. Moore: I think I could go with a conditional approval with a mitigation fee to be retained for full development improvements. The question is how do we arrive at that fee and what is best for Chula Vista? ,. Malcolm: I move- that they be referred back' to staff for proper mitigations and for a proper mitigation fee. When he sees the conditions, and if the fee is appropriate and _ enough, I will make my' decision as to whether I will support the project. Mo<:>re:. Second, ~ --'- Motion carried 5-0... -- - . .. - ,. - - . Rl..ldolph: There,were- a couple of. legal questions to. address while everyone is still pr~sent. You pointed out, when the original Conditional Use Permit was granted, SDG&E graciously made an offer to make improvements across the street and:. .t;hosechave not. been. done -either. Since their representative is here, perhaps we carle find out what SDG&E I S intention is and address, if necessary, the legal issue of whether SDG&E needs to be made a co-applicant with the applicant with regard.to the. Conditional Use Permit since they are the owners of the property. There may be some legal base to add that as an expressed legal condition. ~. -. -.' - - SDG&E' rep:We have been working on:a -list_and prioritizing it. I do .not know ifuthi~HITasnurrbe~"OI1e on the priority list._ ".- -. Rep: This is the first I have heard that they agreed to do some improvements. McCandliss: We can go back to the tape of the meeting to check. .. RESOLUTION NO. 15764 APPROVING PCC-90-25 , -, - '- '- ..j~.. '" RESOLUTION NO. 15674 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A PECREATION VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT 1375 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES, LTD. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, in 1985 Broadway Equities Ltd, established an R,V. storage yard in a then County area without obtaining the legally required major use permit under County procedures, and WHEREAS, in 1986 the area in which the R.V. storage yard was maintained was annexed to the City of Chula Vista, and WHEREAS, in February, 1986, Broadway Equities was notified that its use was unlawful and required a conditional use permit, and WHEREAS, in April, 1987 Broadway Equities applied for a conditfonal use permit for said use, and .: 'WHEREAS, on Ju~~ I j ~',: ~988' t~e, ~ity cpiu~~d '9r;~:nted the'app'eal ~ of Broadway Equities from denial of the conditional use permit application 'by"the Montgomery Area i Pl anni ng ,Conmi tt~@ r al1d,; Mle "Chul a V.i sta i' City -, Pl anni ng Commi ssi on ~nd grantedCondi ti oflal Use Perml t PCC-87,.39M for, 18 \iloriths, silbje~t to certain conditions, and -..,' ,... . " . 'i'- 'I.:: i i WHEREAS, on Oc;tob~r ~5, ,1.989' ;the Chula ,Vista-City Planning,Commission revoked. ,the Conditional i :Use i~ermi t ,PC~-~h'39,M , f9r ,appl icant' s , faU pr~ . ~o timely comply wit~ thee<:pT,lditip[1s pf ~aiQ:p"''I,I1i'; ~"9 !lPplica~~[M'!Iely. appeal~d said revocation, and . -,;, .-:, ~ '1'" " WHEREAS. ,in i January 1~9q ,applical)t, filep" an, app\i~ation, rfor a new cOT.1ditional. use .permit ,for> thei ,~al\1e "site for the same,us!!, a~d 011. ~anuar~ 24, W90. i:the..:Ch\Jla, Vi'sta .pty Rlanni:ng"Col1ll\iss,iqn "d~~ieq i,!pp:ica~t~s, appl~i:at~9i1 for a new conditional use permit in PCC-90-25M, and applicant timelY~~Dpeal'ed sa i d deni a 1, and . d,' ~ r .- WHEREAS, 'said appeals have been combined for joint consideration and came on for hearing on May 10 and May 17, 1990, and the Council having heard evidence in a public hearing and being fully informed in the premises, and Resolution No. 15674 Page 2 WHEREAS, staff was directed to bring back suitable findings to grant an appeal, and WHEREAS, an Initial Study IS 87-56101 of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Envi ronmental Revi ew Coordi nator on May 22, 1987 who 'concluded that there would be no signifi;ant environmental effects and recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopt~d. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does find that it has considered the information contained in IS 87-56M prior to making a decision on this project, and hereby certifies that said Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of.the City of Chula Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of the Planning Commission Revocation of Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-37M is denied as both correct on the merits and moot, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ci ty Council of the City of Chul a Vi sta does hereby grant the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a Conditional Use Permit and hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit to Broadway Equities, Ltd. to allow operation of a recreation vehicle storage lot operating at 1375 Broadway, based on the following findings: 1, The proposed use as conditioned is not in conflict with the adopted specific plan for the Montgomery area, "Special Study Area." 2. Effective visual screening, landscaping and the provision of adequate fire protection systems are a benefit to the property and are an improvements to the area. 3. The proposed use does meet with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for landscaping, height limitations and visual screening and as such complies with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. 4. The granting of this major use permit as conditioned would not conflict with the planning and design proposals of the Montgomery Specific Plan and, therefore, will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chu1a Vista. - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditional Use Permit No. PCC-90-25 is subject to the following conditions: 1. No vehicles over 14 feet in height, or stacking of material on vehicles resulti ng in a hei ght greater than 14 feet, shall be permi tted on the site. 2. No vehicles or materials over 6 feet in height shall be located within 30 feet of the fence along Broadway. Resolution No. 15674 Page 3 3. The Conditional Use Permit shall allow for the operation of .a recreational vehicle storage yard, as provided for in Section 19.58.400 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Storage shall be limited to recreational vehicles, as well as a limited number of automobiles, trucks, and other similar vehicles, which the City Council has determined will provide a convenience to the residents of the area, and are similar to and no more objectionable than recreational vehicles. All vehicles shall be operable, and no dismantling or repair work shall be permitted on site, The applicant shall provide a current list of types of vehicles which are intended to be stored on site, which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning for conformance with this condition. 4. The term of the Conditional Use Permit shall be for a maximum of five years, or until sixty days after the applicant receives written notification from the City that the City Council has made a determination as to the proper use for the San Diego Gas & Electric utility easements and fee ownerships after completion of the Montgomery Special Study, whichever comes first. 5. The hours of operation of the facility shall not be greater than 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. 6. All improvements, including landscaping, shall be maintained by the applicant in a first-class condition. 7. The applicant shall utilize a standard rental or lease agreement for all space rentals, which shall include the following information relative to restrictions contained in the Conditional Use Permit: a. Types of vehicles which are allowed to be stored on the site. b. Height restrictions on vehicles within the facility. c. Other use restrictions. d. Notification that the use may be terminated with notice after completion of the Montgomery Special StudY, 8. A report shall be filed with the City on an annual basis by the applicant, as required pursuant to Section 19.58.400 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The report shall include the following: a. A copy of the standard space rental or lease agreement, referenced in Condition No.7, and verification that this agreement has been utilized for all space rentals during the previous year; b. Veri fi cati on of .property mai ntenance in accordance wi th conditi ons of approval (e.g., photographs of site, copy of contract for landscape maintenance); c. Any other information which the City deems necessary and reasonable to determine compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, as determined by the Director of Planning, Resolution No. 15674 Page 4 9. San Diego Gas & Electric shall install curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and other related improvements to that portion of the San Diego Gas & El ectri c uti 1 ity easement fronti ng on the west si de of Broadway. SDG&E shall submit plans for these improvements within sixty (60) days of this approval, and shall construct these improvements in accordance with a schedule to be approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City of Chula Vista will cooperate with SDG&E to expedite processing of plans for these improvements, 10. This Conditional Use Permit is expressly conditioned upon the payment by the applicant of an in-lieu mitigation fee in the sum of $7,500 per year, payable to the City Director of Finance at the rate of $625.00 per month on or before the 10th of each calendar month, This in-lieu mitigation fee is acknowledged by the applicant as arising out of a reasonable nexus between the use of the property as an RV storage park instead of other open space or parks and recreation use, for which the property is more appropriate. Accordingly, the amounts paid by applicant during the life of this Conditional Use Permit shall be placed in an appropriate fund or funds related to acquisition and/or development of open space and/or parks and recreation facilities in the Montgomery Community. Presented by Approved as to form by ,t:t/:tL Bob Lel ter Director of Planning Resolution No, 15674 Page 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Ci ty Counci 1 of the City of Chu1 a Vista, California, this 12th day of June, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Counci1members: McCand1iss, Moore, Nader, Cox Counci1members: None Counci1members: Malcolm Counci1members: None ~~^., 1 t, r~;ory R. Cox,' r~ayor ATTEST: ~a,l~~ ever y . u' ne et, 1,1 y erK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss, CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authe1et, City Clerk of the City of Chu1a Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15674 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 12th day of June, 1990. Executed this 12th day of June, 1990, ~ tLli!.r.4,fIc"" DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .-........, ~,~ -.= .. .J THE CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Stalcmcnl of Disclosure of certain ownc~hip or nnancial interests, payments, or campaign contrihutions, on all matte" which will requi,e discretionary acllon on Ihe part of the Cily Council, Planning o,mmission, and all other official bodies, The following information muS! he d"closcd: 1. liS! the names of all persons having a nnancialtnteresl in the property which is Ihe suhjecl of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. S n r-~V_PRnpVR~V nWNVR BEATY INVESTMENT CORP. dba BROADWAY PALOMAR RV S'I'ORAGE-LICENSEE 2. If any person' identified pursuanll" (I) above" a curpurali"n or partnership. liS! Ihe nam,,-' of all individuals owning more lhan 10% of the shares In the corporation or owning any partnership intcrc...>;t in the partnership. TOM BEATY NANCY BEATY :1 If any pe"on' identified pu"uanl 10 (I) ahove is non.pronl o'ganiz.ation or a trust, list the nam"" of any person serving as dlfeclor of Ihe non.profit organj''''lion or "' t,USlce or benefteiary or trustor of the trusl. N/A 4 Have you had more than $2511 worth of husiness transacted wilh any memher of the City staff, Boards, o,mmissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve monlhs' '1'''''_ Noll- Ir y"", please ind,,,,,,e person(s):_ 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agenlS, employees. consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you hefore the Ctty in Ihis matter. FRANK BRINEGAR Tn NY MZU\1c:.nnR ROBERT KOLODNY VICKI WYATT NANCY BEATY h Have you and/or your office" or agen!;. in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a O)uneilmember in the currenl or preceding elcclion period' '1'''-'_ No.!.... Ir yes, state which o,uneilmember(s): , , , (NOTE: AtUlch additional pages as n BROADWAY PALOMAR RV 'T'OM RFA'T'Y Print or type name of contractor/applicant Date ,-?//:r/96 , . I . P("t"JOlIll defined as "An)' illdi,'ldual. /inn.. co.purtl!("r.\hlp. joiW .~rt. ~\O(lallntl. sr><:iiJl club, fra/row/ N!:aniuwmt, corpmatlOlI. estate, l1"USt, rtaivc, tyruliCalt, /hiJ and 011)' mhO' (OUlI!)'. city rmd e(JUI!lr'l' (/ry IrIWIICI!W!j!), daU1eL. or OUleT po/weal rubdH'woll. or 'lilY 0/110' group or cOll1bma/wfl actlllg as (] wiiL"