HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/06/12 (4)
Page #2
Item 3
Meeting Date 06/12/96
M-52 Zone rear yard setback requirement:
Requested variance:
15 feet from the property line
Six feet from the property line
M-52 Zone height requirement:
Requested variance:
35 feet
37 feet 9 inches
. The property lies in the West Fairfield area of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and still
retains the County's M-52 zoning. The area is characterized by a variety of mixed land
uses ranging from industrial to residential. The West Fairfield area is designated a
"Special Study Area" on the General Plan and eventually it will be rezoned to an
appropriate City zoning district. It should be noted, however, that the Montgomery
Specific Plan recognizes this as an industrial area.
. To the east, 1-5 passes to the north and south. Beyond 1-5, within the City, there are
commercial and residential areas which are 500 to 600 feet east of the easterly property
line of the subject parcel.
. The parcel also lies within the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Under the provisions of
the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, in order to construct and operate the proposed
facility, a special use permit must first be obtained from the Redevelopment Agency.
. The Applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback and height
requirements. Normally, in the M-52 Zone, structures are required to meet a 15 foot
rear setback and a 35 foot height. The circumstances for the request are described
below.
3. Proposed Land Use: In order to implement their area-wide personal communications
system (PCS), Pacific Bell Mobile Services is proposing to install two equipment cabinets
and a monopole at the southwest comer of the subject parcel within the rear yard setback
area. The monopole will slightly exceed the 35' height limitation specified in the County
Zoning Ordinance for the M-52 Zoning District, therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance for both rear yard setback and height, as well as a special use permit for the
facility itself.
4. Analvsis, The monopole approach to this site is supported by staff after much study and
consideration of alternatives. When PBMS frrst submitted their applic~tion they proposed
mounting the panel antenna along the edge of the building above the roof line. Staff felt
this was an unacceptable solution because of the visual impacts. After studying several
alternatives, including raising the parapet wall, constructing a penthouse structure and
rearranging the locations, both staff and the Applicant determined that the monopole
approach is the most desirable given the circumstances.
Because the monopole will be at the southwest corner of the property and there are many
intervening trees, the facility will not be visible from 1-5, which is about 15 to 20 feet
lower in elevation than the parcel. This is less visually impactive than placing the panels
Page #3
Item 3
Meeting Date 06/12/96
as originally proposed. If the monopole were placed along the eastern wall of the
building it would be very visible from the freeway, whereas the Palomar Street exit and
the building shield it from view from southbound traffic. Any views from northbound
traffic are blocked by mature trees.
In addition to the above, a variance is justified in view of the unusual combination of the
building, lots and streets, which create a hardship. Because Frontage Road meets Stella
A venue at a less-than-acute angle (greater than 90') the lots and building are oddly
angled along the freeway side. The building's west wall sits on the property line, the
area on the north side of the building is used for parking, and the east side is too narrow
to accommodate the facility. The only logical, and most desirable, place is the southwest
corner because of its distance from the freeway and because there is adequate space to
locate the facility.
Included in the draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution are two conditions which contain
wording related to electro-magnetic fields (EMF). The first condition, No.4, requires
that the Applicant comply with the standards adopted by the Federal government through
the American National Institute of Standards (ANSI). Any violation of the Federal
standards may invoke additional conditions of approval or actual revocation of the use
permit.
The second condition, No.7, is an indemnification condition requiring the Applicant to
cover any costs incurred as a result of a legal action against the City for having approved
such a facility.
It should be kept in mind the recently passed Communications Act prohibits denial of a
wireless communications facility based on EMF. The two referenced conditions, staff
believes, will not lead to such an action. They will, however, ensure a level of
protection for the City in the event the Applicant no longer meets the minimum Federal
standard or if an area resident decides to litigate based on a perceived liability.
5. Conclusion: Based on the Applicant's submittal package, staff has concluded that the
monopole at the proposed location will not adversely impact the surrounding land uses,
and a variance is fully justified because of the unusual lay of the building, lots and
streets.
This wireless communication's facility will enhance commerce, emergency
communications and the general well being of the citizens insofar as their ability to
quickly communicate will be greatly expanded.
Attachments
1. Commission and Draft Council Resolutions
2. Exhibits: Locators, Site Plans, Elevations
3. Disclosure Statement
(m:\homc\planning\martin\pbms\stella\0416pc. rpl)
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-96-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 863/865 STELLA STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit (SUPS-96-04) was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 15, 1996 by Pacific Bell Mobile Services
(Applicant); and
WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct and operate a wireless
communications facility at 863/865 Stella Street composed of a 37 foot 9 inch tall monopole supporting
up to six (6) directional (panel) antennas, and two radio equipment cabinets; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said special 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 within 500 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (to) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as Class 3(e) and Class 5(a)
exemptions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 12, 1996 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
recommends Redevelopment Agency approval of the attached draft Redevelopment Agency
Resolution for the Project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the
Redevelopment Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day 12th day of June, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\martin\pbms\stel\a\9604pc.rpt)
DR AFT RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT ALLOWING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT 863/865 STELLA STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit (SUPS-96-04) was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 15, 1996 by Pacific Bell Mobile Services
(Applicant); and
WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct and operate a wireless
communications facility at 863/865 Stella Street composed of a 37 foot 9 inch tall monopole supporting
up to six (6) directional (panel) antennas, and two radio equipment cabinets; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 1996 and voted
_ to _ recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve SUPS-96-04; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as Class 3(e) and Class
5(a) exemptions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said
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 within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:00 p.m.
July 2, 1996 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
hereby conditionally grants the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions, whereby
the Applicant shall:
1. Construct the Project as described in the application, except as modified herein or as may
be necessary to accommodate one or more similar uses pursuant to Condition No.3
below, and/or as required by the Municipal Code.
2. Paint the monopole and antennas flat gray, if not already that color.
3. Cooperate with other communications companies in co-locating additional antenna on
pole structures and/or on the tops of buildings provided said co-locatees have received
a Special Use Permit for such use at said site from the City. Permittee shall exercise
good faith in co-locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted
(m:\home\p!anning\martin\pbms\Slella\9604cc. res)
SUPS-96-04: Pacific Bell Mobile Services
at Stella Street
Page #2
site, provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level- or
quality-of-service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict
or financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether permittee has exercised
good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical
study at the expense of either or both the applicant and complaining user.
4. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) months after the
issuance of its occupancy permit, Applicant shall submit a project implementation report
which provides cumulative field measurements of electromagnetic and radio frequency
(EMF/RF) power densities of all antennas installed at subject site. The report shall
quantify the EMF/RF emissions and compare the results with currently accepted ANSI
standards. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of
Planning for consistency with the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI
standards. If on review, the City finds that the Project does not meet ANSI standards,
the City may revoke or modify this Special Use Permit. Review of said report may
require the execution of a third party agreement in order to have the report properly
reviewed by an expert(s) in the field of electromagnetic fields/radio frequency.
5. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area
television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City finds that the project interferes with
such reception, the City may revoke or modify the Special Use Permit.
6. Obtain all necessary permits from the Chula Vista Building Department and Fire
Department. The design of the equipment shelter and antenna array shall comply with
the requirements of the Zoning Administrator and with the edition of the Uniform
Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code in effect at the time of issuance of any permit.
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,
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 Special 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 of the facility permitted hereby, including,
without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic/radio frequency fields or other energy waves or emissions.
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this Special Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's
compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Special Use Permit and this
(m:\home\planning\martin\pbrns\stc11a\9604cc.n:s)
SUPS-96-04: Pacific Bell Mobile Services
at Stella Street
Page #3
provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and
assigns.
8. 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 can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
9. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of
the Municipal Code.
10. Execute the attached Agreement (Attachment "A") indicating that you have read,
understand and agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement
same.
11. This permit shall expire ten (10) years after the date of its approval. After the first five
(5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall conduct a special review of this Special Use
Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shaH determine, in
consultation with the Applicant, whether or not the facility should be discontinued or the
project otherwise modified from its original approval.
12. Applicant shall pay all costs associated with implementing any of the above conditions
of approval.
Findings of fact are as follows:
I. 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 facility will provide a necessary and desirable service in the
foHowing ways: Mobile communications service provided by such facilities is
growing in general use for both large and small businesses as well as individuals.
The technology allows for mobile business communications of two-way messaging
information. The growing importance of mobile communication devices makes
such service necessary for the future business climate of the City of Chula Vista.
(m:\home\planning\martin\pbms\ste!la\9604cc.rcs)
SUPS-96-04: Pacific Bell Mobile Services
at Stella Street
Page #4
The wireless messaging service is also of use for families and individuals to allow
instant communication with others as well as providing mobile contact with the
911 emergency service system, thus contributing to the general well bing of the
community.
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.
Wireless communications facilities such as that proposed operate on low-power
radio waves. Emissions from wireless communications antennas have been shown
to be below any levels that would cause hazardous biological effects. In addition,
wireless communications antenna emissions are so far below all recognized safety
standards that they constitute no hazard to public health or safety.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The proposed facility will comply with all the regulations of the Municipal Code.
Further, the Zoning Administrator does hereby find that the conditions herein
imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is
approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the
proposed development.
4. That the granting of this Special Use Permit will not adversely affect the general
plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Land use patterns within the City of Chula Vista will not be affected by the
granting of SUPS-96-04 for subject facility. The monthly maintenance visits the
facility will generate will not result in the intensification of traffic or the use of
the site. The minimal number of trips per month this facility will generate are
an insignificant increase in traffic for the neighborhood.
This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized
within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to
be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
(m:\home\planning\martin\pbms\stdla\9604cc.res)
SUPS-96-04: Pacific Bell Mobile Services
at Stella Street
Page #5
NOW, THEREFORE the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
conditionally approve SUPS-96-04.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
City Attorney
(m: \home\planning \ martin \pbms \stella \ 9604cc. res)
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES AND
THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 863/865 STELLA STREET
RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUPS-96-04 AND ZAV-96-16
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 in Resolution No. , and will implement
same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution
No. 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 to the City
Clerk. 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/applicant's desire
that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license,
be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative of
Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Date
Attachment: Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-16
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES
ALLOWING A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK
AND AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
HEIGHT IN THE M-52 ZONE FOR A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for variances (ZAV-96-16) was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on May 7, 1996 by Pacific Bell Mobile Services (Applicant); and
WHEREAS, said application requested reduction of the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet
and an increase in the maximum allowed height from 35 feet to 37 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate
the wireless communications facility requested pursuant to SUPS-96-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
variance 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 within 500 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 12, 1996 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as Class 3(e) and Class 5(a)
exemptions; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby recommends Redevelopment Agency approval of the attached draft Redevelopment Agency
Resolution approving variances for the Project, based on the findings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the
Redevelopment Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day 12th day of June, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(mlhomclplanning\martin \pbms\stella \9616pc . res)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING VARIANCES TO
ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK
AND AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
HEIGHT IN THE M-52 ZONE FOR A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 863/865 STELLA STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance (ZA V-96-16) was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on May 7, 1996 by Pacific Bell Mobile Services (Applicant); and
WHEREAS, said application requested reduction of the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet
and to increase the height from 35 feet to 37 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the wireless
communications facility requested pursuant to SUPS-96-04; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said
variance 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
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 2,
1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment
Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as Class 3(e) and Class
5(a) exemptions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
hereby finds as follows:
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the Applicant
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs
of the Applicant consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can
never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
Due to the configuration of the parcels, building and streets, as set forth in the
staff report, both the reduction in the setback and the increase in height are
justified in that applying the standard M-52 criteria would pose a hardship and
render the project more visually impactive than desirable.
(m:\home\planning\martin\pbms\stdla\9616cc. r~s)
Resolution No.
Page #2
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege
of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
These variances are necessary to allow the Applicant the opportunity to provide
customers with a wireless communications facility of at least the same quality as
other similar facilities in the vicinity. It therefore does not constitute a special
privilege.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance or public interest.
This project, through SUPS-96-04, has been conditioned to meet potential concern
of the citizens of Chula Vista and to ensure equitable treatment with other similar
properties. It will thereby not be detrimental to adjacent property.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The approval of the variance requests is consistent with City policies and the
General Plan based on the totality of findings cited above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby
grants the requested variances, subject to the conditions contained in SUPS-96-04.
This request for variances shall become void and ineffective if same is not utilized within
one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
approve ZA V -96-16.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
City Attorney
(m:\home\planning\martin\poms\stclla\9616cc. res)
o::~'"
w.'"
-,~II'
01
oi!d
~tr;
@i)
@)
~
.=
~
6
@)
<<!liJ
@)
=
.=
dQ)
@
~
@
d
d
[1ill]
@
-13
~
=
M::o
=
~
~
@:,
,
,
~'I
.: .
,:il
.1 .;Iil
I H,I
m~~iii; ~
,....;
,....
OJ
,...,
OJ
<":
H
Z
~
'0
o ~
~ H
H .....4
<X:
o U
U
. /".
fI) <X: ~
+J b '-"
f... UJ
~ ttl t:; ,....;
<X: ..-' 0
:2 P-.
<~ I
0,...; ,,",
.....4 Q) >-~ UJ
<X: fI) ~ If)
1'\ Q) '",; 0
f";i5o I
Q
,...; ~.4 [J)
ttl e)
,.; e'
H e,
o I"
..... ~.4
-+-J t-->
-
ttl <~
Z
<X:
.....4
.....4
W
E-<
[J)
If)
ill
CD
I
(
1
I
I'i I Iii
i! . 1111 ;1
IIMll iill II
; I
\;
I:j
Ii,
Ii,
hi
ad
i
. I
'I 1
ii, I
II" I
9"!!
illi! "
I 111141
iU
\
III :
I; ;
i'lil
,1,1
:11',
'III;
!'iii
ill I!
.1. Ii
! !ii~1I
:I!III
911 I!
I
,j i
I ii, ;
1!:11 I
!11t I,
,ili!
I .
11"
nil I
....' ,I "I 1'1111 ,I I
1111111111111111111111 II 11111 ,',hhll
III'UI It... Ih...::... .,U If ..It ".ho..l
. .
1111111111 11111111,:1: 1111111 h!!!!1
. . .
If "1111 ,".. II ..... IHIIII 1.1I11t
" I
,I, 1 I I'
1IIIIIh,IIII hlllll:: :11111111 .1111 ;',111
,
.....1... ull ....Inh, d.llu" ...h "1.11
t;
"
Ie
"
.
"i . .
~ ~ i
.
. ! ' '
I Ii
a
I Ii I
.
i I:: ~
tI ....:
! . ~ " .
Ii II ! hi ~I
, I
,. I
IIi. I
1!:III,
ill '
IIIJI
I
1
1'1 I
I diU!
; Itl.. i
.
I
I I,
.~I!
,""" '1
I il
I .
" ~
I
i
d 1'1 :
.1 III,h i I
II m iii !!~i 1
~Jy$0~~
,...,
I
b
I
I
I
I
I
i
\
,
i~ :
I~i !
,," I
. i I
j;j f
!!i l
r'
I
i
I
I
!
,
8:J~;1I ... I rrn 11 -
.....J~hr --=~1 ~.~ ~.9 i
oild I ;~!! I .- ~:~ !~
~tn I ~i II I ~~~ m
$
! !
'I
I.
e I
11
'!
II
(
I
i
I
i
,
I
)
.- ,,-.1'. I
B I
, I
il Ii .1 ji !
"
(I 0' 'I ~~ .1 4
i" I .,
'! -JI II
II 'In"
a a ;;
<$>
)
'i
I
I
~ n~i---
I ~::
f;; I
~ 'r-
. ,
S t \.:
'" ,.
!
"
i!
----------
H_______ .
----------
----:.,)0;'1.-
~~~'t,;
~
'V\"f.,ri.)
S'~
i
~OU i
,
.
,..-..:....::;::::.~
."...-..,.,-..
f ~ I
i ~ ~
I "
, ' . ii'
I
III
"I
..;1.. '
~--,~-
I'
I
I
j.
,
F-
.
,
i
OI:lVA31flOB AVa
u_
I
.
1
,
I ~i
,
,
,
i
!
;
I
!
!
,I !ii'
.. ,
!(~
~a
N
0
!
"
i!
I
I
I
j
<aY~
t:
'"
I/. ~ g .......
m ~ . . . I
< <-
. . .
! ~ ~ 1 ~~ 1;; 9' f <r:
I",,, I!, I
I ,.
. II 'I'
,!i!!. ;!:~ I
iiij I,
I .1 Ii lin\ 1'1 I
! ,.
" f ;!!I II I fill'll , II
I I ; hi !
.
p- ..
IIIIfllllll
11111 i
;'~lv;'..'-:';;,\;~';:'; ~
,..-......., "
'..""..-: :.
_-, ,J
. "
--' "
."'... ..,_, I.
__I t:.
fffi1@] . ..
(:;.:-;:~:~~-:;;::::::
"-~>"":"<';''.:'~
.l~~}~;~:::~
E
~
!ii
.
z
o
t
~
'"
.
Ii
~!
".
~\
~!
N
~
o
-,
z,
o.
t'
i;J1
<!
"
I II
)~
..._m !ii
~
-
.
.
S
a
cd'"
w.I.'
....J!II'
6~!d
J-
<V>
jo'
.~
~.'
fi;;
~~~
~~-
..~~
L
1, i'
. ~ .'
,
!- '
....,
;oj .
i,;1
I .Jj!
I :1,1
m~~ iii1 ~
,
i
,-v';.:,
".
)! ~.,
\... ,r',1.~
)) '.
{~~:\.~, ~,
>. ..,~~..
(. .I) I
<'- L},...:\"" \...
z
o
~
>
~
"'
~!
tn.
~5
ii I
mil;" , ,
IIi ,
. ,
Ion: , ,
;
1i1i , , ,
.
III
,
.
1
,
,
I
"'S
II.
I ~ ~
~~
01;;
!:;1"
1 ~e
! ~~
8
" ~ .
~ . i
ii 1_ i
Ii; j
C\1
I
<r:
.........
.........
~
"
f !
; I
I. ~
1-
"' .
ja p
AI
i;.i i
1
II" i
. ! 'jk A~
~1LiI" I
:~.
"I'
,$
~
,
I
III !
~I
, LJ
in.
.UI
>
,
hi
,iI
iQ
! "
t
~
00
N
~
~3
''''
ii!1
Si
~
"
!HI ~
w-
~
N
m
00
-~ ; ...
~
"
"
..
'" ~
~
~
,. I ~!
~ -e .~
LJIOLJI ~i
,. I
(
) tz
.<-~(
.0-....
:..~
~,OI
tI.:O
..
~-s' b
~ .
. .
"
,
z
o
~
>
~
"'
,f4..1"<:, .....:.:.;.
! ", /'1;""
. \, ''''~..
') ~"T ~. ~t','h _~ .~
( ,j\o')~' .:;t,r~~?;I"i'(~-
,J 1 ~'\ (., V \~~?, )
r' I";".~:~ ',:\ h'" 'i .)
( ."
..
,~ ".
,J
"0
h
~i
~e 5
~~
"'
1
~~
-<.
"'~
N
"
ff"
"
"
)
~/',~ t,';-':'~ \
'; .',-1 \..;,' ''''~-~''~''''t-
. :t.;,,~:','.'(.,./\',.
"
J
I,
"
1
:{:-'
I
f ~,....;, ,
I' ~.,r,
~ "-'
),\ ':;,.
("(7/7
(J"
2. ,I"':.,f
J..? ';~1'
'.
" ~. I
( :\~y
;..~ :..~' '1 .":
~~ ~: I ~~a
0" ~~ !ii EBw I
~:t13 ~'" g .."'~ '
U. f~~ e m
\
z
o
;::
-<
>
~
"'
",.
50;
o.
tn~
M
"
!
It.
,
I
t f
, ,
.<-.tt
r
i
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DlSa..osURE STA'Thm.ENT
You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial inlereSts, payments, or campaign
::ontrit>utions, on all mailers which will require dis<:retlonary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
)11 other official bodics. The following information must be dis<:losed:
1. Ust the namcs of all pcrsons having a financial intercsl in the property which is Ihe subject of the application or the
contracl, e.g., owner, applicanl, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Donna J. Schneider
Kenneth J.Schneider
2. If any person' Identified pursuant 10 (1) above is a corporation or partnersbip, list the names of all individuals owning
more Ihan 10% of Ibe sbarcs in the corporation or owning any partAersbip intercst in tbe parlnersblp.
N/A
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list tbe names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustcc or benenciary or trustor of tbe trusl.
Nt A
4. Have you bad more Iban S250 wortb of busincss transacted with any member of thc City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council witbin tbe pasl twelve montbs? Yes_ No-*,- If yes, please indicatc person(s):
S. Please identify eacb and every person, intluding any agents, employees, consultants, or independenl contractors who
you bave assigned to represenl you before the City in tbis mailer.
Matt Brown. Pacific R~11 Mnn;lA ~Arvices
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember In the
current or preceding election period? Ycs_ NOL- If yes, state wbich Councilmember(s):
Date:
9- 27-<{5'
· . · (NOTE: Attach additJoDBI pap .. Dccc:ssary) · . .
;fi...MT&~~
Signature of contraetor/applicaDt
Matt Brown
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
. Pman;., defil.u as: -All>' i1ldilljduQ~ finn, co-ptJ1f1&C'Ship, joiN venaut, lWOCidliCHI, wci4l dub, frQlmllJ1 orgt:UlWuioll, CorporaJiOlI, esuuc. awr. receiver; I)'ftdicdU,
tIW tJluI d1I)' other cocutl)', cily mid COWIl1)'. cirY ,"wudpality, dUlrict, MoUlt:' political subdivisiOlI, (N IJIty OIMr fI'Oup 01' cOInbUuuion acting ill 4 uniL "
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
MEMORANDUM
Chair Tuchscher, Members of the Planning Commission
Steve Griffin, AICP, Principal Planner M
Martin Miller, Associate Planner /
June 7, 1996 ~
SUPS-96-04: Minor modification of condition of approval
To ensure continued compliance with adopted Federal ANSI standards related to emissions of
electro-magnetic/radio frequency fields, it is recommended that Condition No.4 be modified as
follows:
4.
~i;;~i;;~~~~~;1~~i~~=~1;11111111~1I~~!~~~~!
months after the issuance of its occupancy permit, Applicant shall submit a project
implementation report which provides cumulative field measurements of electromagnetic
and radio frequency (EMF/RF) power densities of all antennas installed at subject site.
The report shall quantify the EMF/RF emissions and compare the results with eHHelltly
aeeeptea ANSI standards. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the
Director of Planning for consistency with the project proposal report and tfte lIeeeptea
ANSI standards. If on review, the City finds that the Project does not meet ANSI
standards, the City may revoke or modify this Special Use Permit. Review of said report
may require the execution of a third party agreement in order to have the report properly
reviewed by an expert(s) in the field of electromagnetic fields/radio frequency.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 10, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Griffin, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Request for Planning Commission direction on Telegraph Canyon Shell carwash
(PCC-94-47)
Please see attached for recent correspondence related to the operation of the carwash located at
Telegraph Canyon Shell, 501 Telegraph Canyon Road. On October 26, 1994, the Planning
Commission approved Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-49 to install and operate the carwash
(please see attached Resolution PCC-94-47), and it has been in operation for the last several
months.
The issue for which we are seeking Commission direction is discussed in detail in the attached
letter to Rod Bisharat dated March 8, 1996; namely, that it has come to our attention that the
blow dryer is being offered as an option rather than a standard feature of the carwash. This is
contrary to our understanding of the application and our interpretation of the statements made
by the proponents at the Commission hearings on the project with respect to both site drainage
and vehicle stacking. We believe these statements were critical in the review and eventual
approval of the permit (please see attached minutes).
As a result, we had asked Mr. Bisharat to either use the blow dryer on every vehicle or return
to the Commission for clarification of their position on the issue. Mr. Bisharat has responded
in the attached letter dated April 4, 1996, that there is not a sufficient problem to justify a
change to the present operation, and also pointing out some problems with the City's
maintenance of adjoining streets. Mr. Bisharat did not indicate in his letter an intention to
review the issue with the Planning Commission.
The issue of carwash drying capability as it relates to an accumulation of water both on and off
site has been a significant issue on every carwash application since problems developed at the
Bonita Road Shell whereby water was ( and is) being carried off site onto public streets. In this
case, the dryer was also promoted as an important feature as it would relate to accelerating and
facilitating the wash-dry process in order to avoid stacking and circulation conflicts on this very
"tight" site.
In order to resolve this issue, I have invited Mr. Bisharat to the meeting in order to respond to
any questions or concerns from the Commission on this issue. Staffs position is that the dryer
should be used on every wash particularly considering that we do not have the time or resources
to monitor site conditions on an on-going basis to determine when or if a problem develops.
Mr. Bisharat's position is that if a problem develops, he will correct it.
It appears to me the Commission has the following options:
1. The Commission could determine that the issue was not significant to their deliberations
and/or that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect the City's interests, such as
the condition in Resolution PCC-94-47 which requires the repair of water damage to
public streets, and/or Mr. Bisharat's statement that he will not allow a significant
problem to develop.
2. The Commission could determine that the issue was significant to their deliberations and
request Mr. Bisharat to use the blow dryer on every vehicle, or to return with an
alternate solution such as a third party monitoring program or some other proposal that
would protect the City's interest to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission.
As noted above, I have invited Mr. Bisharat to attend the meeting, and I have provided him with
a copy of this memo and all attachments.
Attachments
Letter from Rod Bisharat to Steve Griffin dated April 4, 1996
Letter from Steve Griffin to Rod Bisharat dated March 8, 1996
Resolution No. PCC-94-47
Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 1994
Safety Commission Minutes of July 14, 1994
Locator
Site Plan
\~;~Alr ,TELEGRAPH CANYON SHEll Far ~19) 6984039 I01c,(619) 698~822 10 PATTY NE~NS al' CI1'I OF CHULA'"STA
"J, :iY2 20:01 421-"'~15 . VI
. TELE CANYON SHELL
-_.._.,.....---.----------.~ -_...~-,--
Page 2 012 Thursday, April II, 1996 10:10:32 AM
PAGE 01
..._,-------
:.J l~.HE L"_ '1-::
: 1,_r:,1:~_-~-463i.1
Hpr (14.96
10:02 ND.OOI p.Ol
---...-..-'1
Mr Stc,vC Gnfl1n
City (If ('hula \11<;1,.'1.
lIC) fOUf1h A"c
Chu\(\ VI~la, (.. jJ\\l1o
\-;~Il'
\
\
.'....Jd. \
W~~\
Apnl4 J<J')(,
RE Tc1cgraph C'anvQ1\ Shell
('(11 WaSh Blower
Dear Mr (;nftin
MI' apolog,,' fN ,,,~,"g ,0 loog 10 reply 10 your Ma,eh 8t" lelle' I "an'ed 10 bave more ,.me analy,.ing
111\ C,H walh opo,a"on bef",e I ,epI\ed baC~. My understaoding is that. n_ber ohM Cily'. planmos
depl Wa\ nol happy Iha,lbe ca, wash blowe, wllS not gh'en free to every car thaI went throllgh Ihe wash.
Smee I ,n,'w 10\ ,Qmpl,,"I<< would not p,esun1e '0 \ell n\O ho" 10 price my p,oduets. 1 con only ..,ume
,haith,'''' " ","",rHed lhat a undried car w.1I adve,sely aff<<' the cny streetS with e.CCO' waler r.O olf.
Af\" h.I"". Oo\,'''eolh' car wa,h operation ove' tbe past mon,b. 1 see no el'idence or any waler f,o... Ihe
"ash 'C<1"'"S In' 10\ frQrn those eustomet. thot choo,e not 10 have ,he.. car "b1owed 4t10<1" Fuobcnnore.
1 ha". reahed no other complaint. on the way 1 run 11\)' w.sh The blower. .. i. wa' and other upgrades
afC aVB1h~r.I.~ H' \hc clL"tomcr upon theiJ request.
You or am one from the CIty are invIted '0 come by and watch my operation The few ca.. lhal choose
Hollo halc Ihm, 0'" dried do no' present asufficicnt waler ro" otfproblem, \ftller. eve' wa..omething
to t'< "'H(C10ed 3oo.l.n the future, I would certainly adJusl ml' ",eth04 of oper81ion to provide Ihe besl
t.cfviC<:~ fOI \11\ (I)!-Iorncrs
! ,pprCCJ"te Ihe ClI'" concern ,n m,inUllning $\Ife and well maintained ,uoeU for 11\0 healtb an4 welfare
of ,he co,,,,nU>1'" I 100 a... concerned. as my Iivehl\oo4 depends on ,.\lsfied cUSlome" having a ..rc
and SCC\1r,: atJ1\o<;pheT~ 1t is wllb this in mind, that 1 would h){e to point out tbat tbetr are severC
pothok, ,," H,,""'" ,1""'\ .10ng "ith deteriorating a.phalt 'h",e ",ken picture' a"d have verbally
"ro.gh' ,,,;s I\~ ,he c,IV atten,ion I would hope that the CIty would he more concerned .bout ",",..ng
probk-nl"", thon <;pe<:u\ate on wort')' about SQme pOS'5iblc potential prob)em tbal ctoes not exist
Vcn 1'ruh Y OlD S
Rod B~sh;J,r;51
Tc1cgraph (\m\'on Snell
l"d~pc'"d(:t'l1 Ol'Cralor
~~f?
=~~
~~~~
......~.................
........-.:;... --
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 8, 1996
Rod Bisharat
Telegraph Canyon Shell
501 Telgraph Canyon Road
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-47
Dear Rod:
As we discussed last week, it has come to our attention that the blow dryer is being offered as
an option rather than a standard feature of your new carwash. It was our assumption, and I'm
quite sure the assumption of the Safety Commission and also the Planning Commission that the
dryer was going to be a standard part of the operation (please see attached excerpts from the
minutes of both Commissions regarding statements made with respect to the significance of the
dryer in relation to issues of both drainage and vehicle stacking). I think it is safe to say that
the application may very well have not been approved if it was known that drip dry rather than
blow dry would be the standard.
You agree that although it may not have been stated exactly that way, the intention to use the
dryer on every vehicle was clearly the impression that was left with the Commissioners. You
have also stated, however, that using the dryer as an option is essential to your "free wash"
marketing program, that most of your customers opt to purchase the optional blow dry anyway,
and the operation of the carwash to date has not caused a water problem either on or off the site.
To my mind the best solution is for you to incorporate the dryer as a standard feature of every
carwash; it has always been the City's position to attempt to avoid potential problems rather than
trying to correct them after the fact. As an alternative, however, you could choose to prepare
a letter to the Planning Commission's attention requesting a clarification of their position with
respect to the dryer issue as it related to their deliberations and decision on the permit. This
could be placed on the Commission's agenda for discussion at no cost to you and without the
need for a public hearing.
If the Commission decides that the issue was not significant to their decision,or that there are
other safeguards in place that will protect the City's interest, then you can continue to operate
as you are now. If they decide that the issue was and is significant, they could request that the
dryer always be used, or that an alternate propoSll be brought back for formal consideration.
They could also perhaps authorize the Zoning Administrator to work with you on a mutually
276 FOURTH AVE"/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/!619) 691-51[:1
Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-47
2
acceptable solution that may include some sort of a monitoring program to ensure that water-
drainage does not become a problem. I don't consider this to be the preferable alternative, and
it should be noted in this regard that the City generally does not have the resources to conduct
extensive monitoring programs using City staff.
Please let me know as soon as possible how you wish to proceed.
Steve Griffin
Principal Planner
cc: Bob Leiter
Ken Lee
c:\wp51 \lupe\telecyn.shl
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
9. REPORT on Shell Gas Station Improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road & Halecrest Drive (This iter
heard before "em 8)
Chair Thomas announced that he had been advised by the City Attorney to abstain from the item. ...
appointed Commissioner Smith to chair the item and left the dais.
Steve Griffin, Principal Planner, presented staff's repon.
Commissioner Smith stated the entry way was a concern due to stacking of cars and felt the entire we,
driveway should be designated/painted with "No Pan.:ing." Another concern was water drainage on th-
surrounding streets creating breakdown of the streets. He suggested a ~condary drainage system at the ex
of the car wash as well as botts dots that would assist to shake off any additional water.
Steve Griffin responded that additional drainage was possible. He understood the City's concern regardin-
water drainage especially since the situation with the Bonita Glen Car Wash. There were drains at the ex
of the car wash. There was a condition that the City required the applicant to enter into which required th
applicant to sign an agreement agreeing to repair any damages caused by water to the streets at their cos
He understood that the drying process for the car wash was more effective than the one on Bonita Glen DrivE
Creg Cox, 3130 Bonha load, Suhe 200, 'onh., CA 91902, represented the owners of the Telegraph Canyo,
Shell Gas Station. He introduced the station owner, a consultant, and a sales representative of the car was
manufacturer. There would be an additional 40 trips per day generated by the car wash. Most of the peopl
using the car wash would be those motonsts already stopping at the station for gas. The level of service fo
the surrounding streets would nOI be negatively impacted. ~.9_~tliJ:Ied the diffe~en~~_o! the proposed a
~.h3!l9 the one on BQnita Glen Drive includi,,! the drying mechanism ~.t'd speed of the car wash. Th
system would be operated by token or receipt. If a motorist receivea a token or receipt and chose not to have
their car washed at that time, there would be a specified period of time when the motorist could return an,
receive their car wash. There were community benefits that would occur with the project. The applicant wa
being required to dedicate an additional seven feet of frontage to the City for future road widening L
Telegraph Canyon Road. When the original drainage culven was Installed, there was not an easement securec
from the property owner, but another condition of the development was that the City would receive th,
easement. The applicant tried to secure a nCKost easement from the Vons Shopping Center owner to have
traffic exit the car wash through the shopping center, but had not been successful.
.od Bisharat, 501 Telegriph Qnyon load, Chula Vista. CA 91910, was the owner of the Telegraph Canyor
Shell station. He commented that if the Commission was concerned with possible stacking, the speed of the
car wash could easily be increased in order to accommodate more cars. He doubted there would be ;-
stacking problem because he only anticipated approximately 80 cars per day over a 12 hour period, dusk If
dawn. Studies showed that most car washes were done in the middie of the day, not on the way to or fron
work. The busiest time for the gas station was during the morning and late afternoon as people were makin[
their commute to and from won.:. The slowest time for people to get gas was the time that most car washe~
occurred.
Greg Cox reiterated that the applicant was entering into an agreement agreeing to fix any damages that migh'
be caused by water. He did not feel that there would be any problems, but the City was protected.
Commissioner Miller asked why the entrance to Ihe car wash was not where the exit was. II would creale les'
of a stacking problem.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
.-..--- -..
_ 0 ~..
,.
!
Mdfk Hdyden, Tdlt & Associdtes, 3665 .uHln .~d, Sdn Dk,o, CA 92123, stated the reason the car wash
traffic (lowed west to east was beCduse a majority of the traffic for the gas station entered from Telegraph
Canyon Road. If the traffic flow had been reversed, a majority of the cars would have to make a U-turn in
the station to enter the car wash. He commented that a car would take out approximately three galions of
water from a car wash. However the blower in the r remove most of the water ^ car tended
to drop any access water III approximately 15 to 20 feet and the exit of the car was was 30 feet. Water
would drain prior to passing the stop sign.
Commissioner Smith asked for comments from Commissioners.
Commissioner liken said it seemed that a primary concern was the stacking of cars. He had viewed the car
wash on Bonita Glen Drive and indicated it was self-monitoring. He asked if a reader would be used for
motomtl with receipts or if an attendant would be there to start the car wash.
Chuck Druhat, 1930 Sdn MdfCOS Boulevard, Sdn Mdrcos, CA, was the sales representative for the car wash
equipment. A token box would be located at the entrance to the car wash. The conveyor had various speeds.
The car walh time frame was 1 1/2 to 2 minutes at the maximum. With ruard to water on thp r..ars. the water
wp-uld beJ,Jown Qff by a 40 horseDower blower. There were seven nozzles used to blow off ail water. ^
mOIOr,q ,,~,ng a credit card at the pump would take their receipt to the cashier to receive either a token or
a code to be used at a later date if desired. If there was a backup of cars, chances were that a motorist would
return at a laler time.
Comml\\loner Smith indicated the Commission's concerns were drainage and stacking. The architects had
addressed the problems. The driveway fronting Halecrest needed to be painted and signed with "NO
BLOCKII'<G/PARKING." He felt the fact that the applicant had entered into an agreement regarding possible
waler damage meant that the applicant recognized that some water would be carried out. He wanted to make
sure the drainage issue was addressed by the Council.
Commissioner Miller agreed with the marking of the driveway on Halecrest.
Commislioner Smith said that if an independent outside traffic consultant performed a study on the project,
the Commission would like a copy of such a report.
10. Oral Communications - None
STAFF REPORTS
11. En2ineerin2 CIP Proiect Schedule - Distributed for Commissioner information.
12. Chula Vista Police Deoar1mrnt Traffic Summar\' 'Of' lulv 1994 . Distributed for Commissioner
Information.
OTHER BUSINESS
13. Prooosed CitYwide Products
UNOFFICIAL MINUTE~
PC Minutes
-3-
October 26, 1994
tenants had the ability in their leases to approve any kind of change to the sitenconfiguration of
circulation, parking, etc. It was not fonnally proposed to the tenants in writing, but based on
Mr. Poplowski's (manager of Canyon Plaza Shopping Center) years of experience with the
tenants, they would not approve the easement and it would be fruitless to pursue it. Mr. Griffin
noted that Mr. Cox, the applicant, and City staff had tried to obtain approval of the easement,
but to no avail.
Commissioner Ray asked why the wall was put up initially. Staff could not recall why the wall
was constructed.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opelled.
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, CV, requested a total of 15 minutes for an organized
rrescntation. Mr. Cox stated the applicant had spoken with Mr. Pop low ski regarding an
easement, including payment for the easement. The easement had been rejected. Mr.
Poplawski had spoken with the lending institution, who had indicated that the way the leases
werc constructed, the tenants had a veto on any modification. At least one of the major tenants
had llldicated to Mr. Pop low ski that they would not okay the easement. The applicant had
discussed the possibility of leasing some parking spaces to which Mr. Pop low ski seemed
agreeable. This would be on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Cox also noted that there was no
wall. but a gradation of about 1 ft. He then introduced Mark Hayden of Tate & Associates, the
architect for the project.
Mark Hayden, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, SD, explained the changes which had
been made to the plans since the last Planning Commission meeting, and showed how the
concerns had been addressed.
Mr Cox returned to the podium, compared the carwash to the carwash on Bonita Road, and
noted that the equipment to be installed in the proposed facility included a blower which allowed
a faster wash, which lessened the staclang problem and also etimtn:n::d th~ problem of water
damage to the streets. He stated that there was a condition placed on the project that would
indicate if there was water damage to the streets, the City would have recourse to come back
against the operator of the facility to seek improvements of the public right-of-way, if that
became a problem. Mr. Cox said the existing level of service would not become adversely
impacted. He then introduced Rod Bisharet, the owner of the Telegraph Canyon Auto Care
Center.
Rod Bisharet, 6345 Lake Athabaska, SD, stated that the carwash would improve the volume
of his business and would make them more competitive in their prices. Several attempts had
been made to obtain the easement. Over 350 customers had signed a petition in favor of the
carwash; no one had expressed disapproval.
Mr. Cox returned to the podium and introduced Richard Zanzoni, the real estate representative
for Shell Oil Company, Southern California District, who was available for questions. Mr. Cox
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-94-47
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47 FOR THE
ADDITION OF A SELF-SERVE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE
STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was fIled with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on June 2, 1994 by Mark Hayden for Shell Oil
Company; and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a conditional use permit to construct
a self-service car wash for the existing service station located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road
in the C-C-D zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study
(IS-94-27) of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project
and based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon the Coordinator has concluded that
there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-94-27; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director 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 within an area greater than 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at
least 21 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
October 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was tl1ereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby fmd, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
I. Adoption of Negative Declaration. That the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-27.
II. CUP Findings. That the Commission makes 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 fmding 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 proposed car wash will provide a convenient service to residents in the area as well
as motorists by providing an accessible facility along a major thoroughfare.
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 proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect on- or off-site circulation and
has been found to comply with City noise standards.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The project will be required to comply with all applicable codes, conditions, and
regulations prior to the issuance of development permits, and on a continuing basis
thereafter.
The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development.
D. That the granting of this conditional use pennit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The approval of this permit as conditioned is consistent with City policies and the
General Plan.
III. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions.
The Planning Commission hereby grants conditional use permit PCC-94-47 subject
to the following conditions whereby:
A. Carwash hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to sunset.
B. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby after a six-
month period, the Zoning Administrator may require that the applicant employ
a City-approved Traffic Engineer to monitor and assess traffic conditions at the
site. If said monitoring reveals that the site operations are creating traffic
congestion affecting either Halecrest Drive or Telegraph Canyon Road, the
Zoning Administrator has the ability to require further mitigation, which may
include, but need not be limited to, limiting the hours of operation of the
carwash.
E. The project will be subject to all requirements and conditions of approval of the
Design Review Committee (DRC-94-49).
F.
An Industrial Waste permit shall be obtained with the connection of any floor
drains of the car wash to the sewer system.
, .
G. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to repair any water
damage to public improvements resulting from the operation of the car wash.
H. A soils study shall be submitted to the Environmental Review Coordinator for
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
IV. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant.
A. This permit 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 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 can not, in the
normal operation of the use permitted., be expected to economically recover.
B. 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 condition of
approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional
conditions or revocation.
V. A copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of October 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Ray, Fuller, Martin, Moot, Salas and Tarantino
None
Commissioner Tuchscher (excused)
,~J:.~T
Attest:
'l::1--uipl p ~ JA .
Nancy Ri ey, Sec tary 0
(m:\home\planning\patty\pc.c9447.ra)
L
.u
PC Minutes
-2-
October 26, 1994
ITEM 1:
PUBUC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47; REQUEST
TO ADD A SELF:SERVICE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE
STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - Shell Oil
Company
Principal Planner Griffm noted that this item had been originally presented to the Planning
Comnrission on September 14, and public testimony had been taken. The project was continued
in order to address concerns which had been raised by staff, Commission members, and the
public regarding traffic and circulation. Mr. Griffm stated the concerns which had been raised
and showed how those issues had been addressed. With the measures taken on the site, and the
endorsement of the Safety Commission and the City Traffic Engineer, staff recommended that
the project be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the planning Comnrission resolution.
Commissioner' Moot, regarding the issue of an easement to be used for .egress, asked if the
shopping center owner had indicated that the major tenants would not agree to the easement and
asked if they had given an explanation as to their disagreement. Mr. Grlffm said the major
(
,"!.
,
PC Minutes
-3-
October 26, 1994
tenants had the ability in their leases to approve any kind of change to the site--configuration of
circulation, parking, etc. It was not formally proposed to the tenants in writing, but based on
Mr. Poplowski's (manager of Canyon Plaza Shopping Center) years of experience with the
tenants; they would not approve the easement and it would be fruitless to pursue it. Mr. Griffm
noted that Mr. Cox, the applicant, and City staff had tried to obtain approval of the easement,
but to no avail.
Commissioner Ray asked why the wall was put up initially. Staff could not recall why the wall
was constructed.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, CV, requested a total of 15 minutes for an organized
presentation. Mr. Cox stated the applicant had spoken with Mr. Poplowski regarding an
easement, including payment for the easement. The easement had been rejected. Mr.
Poplowski had spoken with the lending institution, who had indicated that the way the leases
were constructed, the tenants had a veto on any modification. At least one of the major tenants
had indicated to Mr. Poplowski that they would not okay the easement. The applicant had
discussed the possibility of leasing some parking spaces to which Mr. Poplowski seemed
agreeable. This would be on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Cox also noted that there was no
wall, but a gradation of about 1 ft. He then introduced Mark Hayden of Tate & Associates, the
architect for the project.
Mark Hayden, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, SD, explained the changes which had
been made to the plans since the last Planning Commission meeting, and showed how the
concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Cox returned to the podium, compared the carwash to the carwash on Bonita Road, and
noted that the equipment to be installed in the proposed facility included a blower which allowed
a faster wash, which lessened the stacking problem and also eliminated the problem of water
damage to the streets. He stated that there was a condition placed on the project that would
indicate if there was water damage to the streets, the City would have recourse to come back
against the operator of the facility to seek improvements of the public right-of-way, if that
became a problem. Mr. Cox said the existing level of service would not become adversely
impacted. He then introduced Rod Bisharet, the owner of the Telegraph Canyon Auto Care
Center.
Rod Bisharet, 6345 Lake Athabaska, SD, stated that the carwash would improve the volume
of his business and would make them more competitive in their prices. Several attempts had
been made to obtain the easement. Over 350 customers had signed a petition in favor of the
carwash; no one had expressed disapproval.
Mr. Cox returned to the podhm and introduced Richard Zanzoni, the real estate representative
for Shell Oil Company, Southern California District, who was available for questions. Mr. Cox
(
i
PC Minutes
-4-
October 26, 1994
noted the benefit to the community of having an additional carwash, and the additional
landscaping. He stated there were requirements as conditions of approval to dedicate an
additional 7' of the entire frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road for future road widening, and that
an easement be provided to the City of Chula Vista for the drainage channel.
Commissioner Tarantino asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Mr. Hayden stated
it would be from dawn to dusk.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned whether trucks would be able to accommodate pick-up
trucks. Mr. Hayden answered that it would take something as large as a Suburban.
Mr. Cox stated that the carwash would be operated by conveyor belt. The car would be driven
to an entrance and hooked to the conveyor. The driver would stay in the car.
Mr. Hayden said there would be no vacuuming. The carwash would stack the cars in the
carwash approximately 3' from each other; because of the blowers, there would be no reason
to towel dry the cars; the Botts dots would vibrate the car enough to shake any excess water off
the cars.
Commissioner Salas congratulated Mr. Bisharet for doing his homework and trying to meet the
City's requirements.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Martin felt the applicant had done a good job; he did not feel stacking was going
to be a big problem.
MS (Martin/Moot) to adopt resolution PCC-94-47 approving the project, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions therein.
Principal Planner Griffm stated that the Code would not allow the carwash to operate before
7:00 a.m. He asked that the resolution be adjusted to show the times of operation to begin at
7:00 a.m. to dusk.
Commissioner Ray noted that the staff report allowed for an independent review of site
conditions after six months of operation to determine if further measures were required, such
as restricting hours, sales, etc. He asked what the City would impose, if the other measures
were required. Mr. Griffm replied that one of the options would be to close off one of the
drives if an access point became a particular problem; or restricting the hours of the carwash
to non-peak hours of the service station in the a.m. and p.m. peak travel times.
Commissioner Ray asked if it was at the discretion of the City what the restrictions would be.
Mr. Griffm said that if staff and Mr. Bisharet could not mutually agree on a solution, it would
probably be back before the Commission to impose that as a condition on the permit.
r
r
PC Minutes
-5-
October 26, 1994
Mr. Cox stated that although the carwash would initially probably be free with a fill-up, there
would ultimately be a charge implemented for the use of the carwash, discounted based upon
the amount of gas purchased. The easiest solution to lessen stacking problems would be to
increase the charge for the carwash.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commi~\oner Tuchscher excused) to approve.
.....'
\
Excerot from Plannim! Commission Minutes of 9/14/94
ITEM 2:
PUBUC HEARING: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT PCC-9447; REQUEST
TO ADD A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH TO TIIE EXISTING SERVICE
STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - Shell Oil
Company
Principal Planner Griffm presented the staff report and stated that the Design Review Committee
had considered and approved the project design on August 29, contingent upon the Planning
Commission approving the conditional use permit. The Commission would have ultimate
authority unless appealed. The primary elements looked at by staff were noise and circulation.
A study was done in-house and it was found that the ambient noise levels from the 1-805 freeway
and Telegraph Canyon Road and separation from the residential areas to the northwest were to
the degree that noise would not be a significant impact and would conform to City standards.
There was a concern regarding ingress and egress from the carwash tunnel, stacking for entry
into the carwash from the gas dispensing islands or from Halecrest Drive, blocking traffic
exiting and resulting in stacking occurring on Halecrest. Staff had proposed as a condition of
approval that the applicant obtain an easement from the adjoining shopping center to create a
direct exit drive onto the shopping center service lane. The City Attorney had stated that that
sort of condition was inappropriate. Alternatives were to recommend approval without the
condition, recommend denial or continue the project and work on some alternate solutions or
allow the applicant further time to work with the shopping center in obtaining an easement. The
applicant states they had approached the owner of the shopping center and they were not
interested in granting an easement. The applicant wished, however, to receive comments from
the Commission. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take
testimony, offer comments, keep the public hearing open, and continue it to October 12, 1994.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Gary O. Wilson, 490 Hale Street, CV, stated he lived directly across from the station. He had
seen nothing in the proposal about whether the water would be recycled. He commented that
he had seen the intersection of Halecrest and Hale Street flooded; the drain had not handled the
run-off in the past. He questioned why no traffic impact analysis had been done. He stated that
there were tnlCk trips Willig trocks, UPS trocks, the colleges, schools, the Olympic Village, foot
traffic, an increase of joggers, and future traffic from the Daley Rock Quarry. He wanted to
know why that was not in the report. There were problems getting across the street even with
the lights. Emergency vehicles had had to ask people to clear the road in order to get through.
He had seen Telegraph Canyon Road traffic backed up cast and west to 1-805. He did not think
the carwash was needed.
Jackie McQuaid Lancaster, 339 East "J" Street, CV, spt"Jllring also for Judy Wilson, pointed
out the three entrances and exits and stated that neither Halecrest Drive nor Hale Street
mentioned in the traffic impact report. The credit union and shopping center created much
traffic and there was rarely a place to park in the shopping center. She lived on East "J" Street
and passed the proposed carwash almost every day. There were three major concerns-the
"
,
PC Minutes
-11-
September 14, 1994
easement the station owner was not able to get from the shopping center, on-site traffic
circulation, and off-site circulation accessing the carwash. Not enough attention had been paid
to the other services of the station, including the car repair service. Ms.' .A"".aster also noted
there was no mention of the impact on Halecrest, and that the bingo bus passengers park on
Halecrest or Hale.
Principal Planner Griffm stated that on October 12, staff could elaborate on the traffic impacts.
The Safety Commission had an interest in the item and staff would try to get their
recommendation.
Mark Hayden, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffm Road, SD, on behalf of the applicant, said he
was agreeable to the continuance and would welcome further input. He stated they did not have
any control of the off-site drainage. The drainage from on-site to off-site is reduced. Traffic
impact was based on SANDAG standards.
Rod Bisharet, 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd., CV, the applicant, stated that the water was
recycled up to 85%. Some of the water evaporated. The water coming off-site would be
recycled. He had tried to get an easement from the shopping center but had not been able to.
There were seven cars being stored on the facility, but they could be moved if necessary.
Principal Planner Griffm noted that detailed questions and answers could take place on October
10. The applicant, however, would like a general reaction from the Commission.
Commissioner Salas stated she was familiar with the gas station. She agreed with the residents
that she found it difficult at times to get in and out of the station even without a carwash.
Commissioner Moot asked if paying $200 per month for gas precluded him from voting.
Attorney Basil assured him it did not.
Commissioner Moot asked why the owner of the shopping center opposed the easement. He
asked that the Planni.,g Department write to ask him to give his reasons for disallowing the
easement.
Commissioner Ray was concerned about the traffic and internal traffic patterns, the right hand
turn coming out of the carwash and the exit area to the right. He would like to see how that
worked. He stated that in terms of the number of parking spaces, it is determined by the type
of business and square footage. Commissioner Ray asked how many employees parked at the
facility .
Mr. Bisharet answered that there were three spaces. They park onsite or next door.
Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see that addressed.
,
\,
PC Minutes
-12-
September 14, 1994
Commissioner Martin was disappointed in staff's drawings. He requested that larger drawings
be included in future staff reports, because they were too smaIl to read. He also requested better
traffic reports.
Chair Tuchscher asked if staff had used a turning template on the internal circulation.
Principal Planner Griffm assured him that they had, and that it did work.
Chair Tuchscher stated he did not have a problem with traffic offsite. He would not go out of
his way to go to a limited carwash. He would be interested in hearing what the Traffic Engineer
would say. Regarding drainage, Chair Tuchscher asked if the water coming off the cars would
go into the storm drain system.
Mr. Bisharet stated that water outside the carwash when exiting would go into drainage catches
and would go underground into recycled water.
Chair Tuchscher encouraged the applicant to try to work something out with the adjacent
property owner. Internal circulation was his biggest concern on the project.
MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 (Commi<<~oner Tarantino excused) to continue the open public
hearing to October 12, 1994, when it could be addressed with more specificity.
Commissioner Moot stated that the applicant may use the argument that people would use the
shopping center when stopping at the gas station. The shopping center might get some benefit
from the easement.
Mr. Bisharet stated that he would like the Commissioners to visit the facility. He would clear
off the vehicles that were not supposed to be there.
--
..
"
,
\
Safety Commission Minutes
July 14, 1994
Page 11
9. REPORT on Shell Gas Station Improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road & Halecrest Drive CThisltem
heard before Item 8)
Chair Thomas announced that he had been advised by the City Attorney to abstain from the Item. He
appointed Commissioner Smith to chair the item and left the dais.
Steve Griffin,Principal Planner, presented staff's repon.
Commissioner Smith stated the entry way was a concern due to stacking of cars and felt the entire west
driveway should be designated/painted with "No Parking." Another concern was water drainage on the
surrounding streets creating breakdown of the streets. He suggested a secondary drainage system at the exit
of the car wash as well as botts dots that would assist to shake off any additional water.
Steve Griffin responded that additional drainage was possible. He understood the City's concern regarding
water drainage especially since the situation with the Bonita Glen Car Wash. There were drains at the exit
of the car wash. There was a condition that the City required the applicant to enter Into which required the
applicant to sign an agreement agreeing to repair any damages caused by water to the streets at their cost.
He understood that the drying process for the car wash was more effective than the one on Bonita Glen Drive.
Greg Cox, 3130 'onita .oad, Suite 200, 'onitil, G4 91902, represented the owners of the Telegraph Canyon
Shell Gas Station. He introduced the station owner, a consultant, and a sales representative of the car wash
manufacturer. There would be an additional 40 trips per day generated by the car wash. Most of the people
using the car wash would be those motorists already stopping at the station for gas. The level of service for
the surrounding streets would not be negatively impacted. He outlined the differences of the proposed qr
wash an he one on Bonita Glen Drive indudin the d in mechanism and speed of the car wash. The
system would be operated by token or receipt. If a motorist receive a token or receipt and chose not to have
their car washed at that time, there would be a specified period of time when the motorist could retum and
receive their car wash. There were community benefits that would occur with the project. The applicant was
being required to dedicate an additional seven feet of frontage to the City for future road widening of
Telegraph Canyon Road. When the original drainage culvenwas installed, there was not an easemenlSecured
from the property owner, but another condition of the development was that the City would receive the
easement. The applicant tried to secure a n<>-cost easement from the Vons Shopping Center owner to have
traffic exit the car wash through the shopping center, but had not been successful.
.00 'isbarat, 501 Telegraph Canyon .oad, Chula Vlstil, G4 91910, was the owner of the Telegraph Canyon
Shell station. He commented that if the Commission was concerned with possible stacking, the speed of the
car wash could easily be increased in order to accommodate more cars. He doubted there would be a
stacking problem because he only anticipated approximately 80 cars per day over a 12 hour period, dusk to
dawn. Studies showed that most car washes were done in the middle of the day, not on the way to or from
work. The busiest time for the gas station was during the morning and late aftemoon as people were making
their commute to and from work. The slowest time for people to get gas was the time that most car washes
occurred.
Greg Cox reiterated that the applicant was entering into an agreement agreeing to fix any damages that might
be caused by water. He did not feel that there would be any problems, but the City was protected.
Commissioner Miller asked why the entrance to the car wash was not where the exit was. It would create less
of a stacking problem.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
,
,
,
Safety Commission Minutes
July 14, 1994
Page 12
Marlc Hayden, Tait & Associates, 3665 .uffin .oad, San Diego, CA 92123, stated the reason the car wash
traffic flowed west to east was because a majority of the traffic for the gas station entered from Telegraph
Canyon Road. If the traffic flow had been reversed, a majority of the cars would have to make a U-turn in
the station to enter the car wash. He commented that a car would take out approximately three gallons of
water from a car wash. However the blower in the r move most of the water. ^ car tended
to drop any access water in approximately 15 to 20 feet and the exit of the car was was 30 feet. Water
would drain prior to passing the stop sign.
Commissioner Smith asked for comments from Commissioners.
Commissioner Liken said it seemed that a primary concern was the stacking of cars. He had viewed the car
wash on Bonita Glen Drive and indicated it was self-monitoring. He asked if a reader would be used for
motorists with receipts or if an attendant would be there to start the car wash.
Chuck Druhat, 1930 San Marcos .oulevard, San Marcos, CA. was the sales representative for the car wash
equipment. ^ token box would be located at the entrance to the car wash. The conveyor had various speeds.
The car wash time frame was 1 1/2 to 2 minutes at the maximum. With reltard to water on thp r"rs the water
would hp hlown off by a 40 horseoower blower. There were seven nozzles used to blow off all water. ^
motorist using a credit card at the pump would take their receipt to the cashier to receive either a token or
a code to be used at a later date if desired. If there was a backup of cars, chances were that a motorist would
return at a later time.
Commissioner Smith indicated the Commission's concerns were drainage and stacking. The architects had
addressed the problems. The driveway fronting Halecrest needed to be painted and signed with "NO
BlOCKINGIPARKING." He felt the fact that the applicant had entered into an agreement regarding possible
water damage meant that the applicant recognized that some water would be carried out. He wanted to make
sure the drainage issue was addressed by the Council.
Commissioner Miller agreed with the marking of the driveway on Halecrest.
Commissioner Smith said that if an independent outside traffic consultant performed a study on the project,
the Commission would like a copy of such a report.
10. Oral Communications - None
STAFF REPORTS
". En2ineerin2 CIP Proiect Schedule - Distributed for Commissioner information.
12. Chula Vista Police Deoartment Traffic Summarv for lulv 1994 - Distributed for Commissioner
Information.
OTHER BUSINESS
13. Prooosed CitYwide Products
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
r
/
(e,
1-" - \~.l."," - - "f:# ." ..~~\.--'t
"" ~ --' -- -~. '.~' ~
......\. J \.....,:- _ . ~ ...-0\ '(".......
'-(1 ,-. ~ \l. \,....
. ~ 1 1.0 '-_~ . .. "- ~~ l,..
w'. .,: '" . J ./ - ~
\'" fJ i- -. ~4t "IL - ~ .. .
'\ Ir.!-:;~ 1-'" -: - 51-, -W- I I: ,~-
Iio1--L - __ - - ~ ! PI'" '--
_ _. '. .. _ _ .' I <lilY' ~...,..- -
-... ...~,__ ' I -
~' ~Hl . -'_~' ~ LllJ ; I' -::
'"'''' ~""U ~..,~.. '_ _.,~ ~ 1 c -
..,.......,.. ~ "' \:::::.:'" J ,,- !1-jtI I' I I ~l-
.. \_ '~ Ifn
~ "" ~ ~_"" ~1.@.~ ~ 5T
c:jr\ ~~... wr ~ ,'~''''~ ' , , " ,..
( '\ ~ ~.. U ~ PROJECT .
\ \~. ...\ti~ ~ --I OOnON,
YA~ \\\~\ .-' --- r
..., \ "\~ ~I 7i' L., C
~ ~ ,( ~.~~PH .
'- ~I " ,-t__po'~~ - 00. .
~ ~ j . ~ .' liT '
, ..
':t;' :: _.......?1 ~ l~ .
- \~ ...- W f~ ~~........:J ,...-.,
\'? .~ c...'\ ~'B.: ~W:::::~
~ --Q'5I ~ ~ ~ \ . ,.,...- >".> ~
_0: \ ~W \'~ \ ~'D
)
(
)
CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.IIO.lICT DI.CII.PTION:
C) A"LICANT:ROD BISIlARAT
AD~II"': 101 T..,.,' euyoa....
ICALI: 'ILl .UM'III:
NORTH 1" - 400'
De additioD or ao Iq. It. to alldDl
IIeI'YIce atatioD 'or a car wasla a edtII'
.IDor .he Improvealeatl.
. .....
- ~ '--
I !
~ II~!
Q: I q!
~ p ",'
"- I. I
o ~ I: ' Ii
w I i'l h
a. .It II
~ Illti
'~il U;!m:!i!i!if: I
z I,!I. 1I11,p"!!"'111
o . 'j .1't"J,,~~!1 I~ ..
;:: "I i t.;!II,,!!II!I'! ' 1/ i
~ tj ',': Iii:',' '!!;:!I'!li~1 -:i; I
u hi . -;0- -hi-Ii ;~rll ~ ~!. -
~ \lilll!~Ir,Ir.!I!i:,I~! ~ i I t- - e.-~"
c ,~,;~ !r~~1 .'i=;:.;,JU < ,iri;oi _I e! ~~i~
...J II !'I "'!"jl~II"""" 0 ~i_ . ,6iii '., .....
< ....: ..:! .! ii.il~.' ... <I I ci! II ;;.....'
[:3 i!l; Im,hll.!.i:ih !:! i~!i" ~ i! tni ~ ~I! It~~;i
...J . (I) Ii. I 81 ~a!!t n lid hM..
I!;U i5 ~II ~II:
lb.. :~ is I ~ 111,5
: ~i IS ; ,Ii!(
&!I!' ~. ;. i :
\ \ \
, , \
, \
........, , .
, \
It., '. '.
, , \
I"~ , ,
'\ \ \
, , ,
~
'\
.
.
~i Q
i ,
.'
-.
~h
. . s'
~iliE
.
i
~
--
..... It:- . 'I I . .. .
~ ~ .'1: . . .
. . .
."i ' . . . .
i . . . . .
}.! . . . . . .'
. I I I I i'
I I I I .
I 3tl1~O .LS3~:>3'VH . I . I I ~
I I . I I
.!- _ ___. _:_. :,q:.__~__'::~ _ __ L '.
--.. ._ n_d_'_' . . ... __. un_ -.-.--. ----. --
.. --.. . I 1-+-'-, 0:."
-
... IP ..
1
~
.,
..
I
.
I
I
--
"N'
._~.
- -
I
I
.
.
,
I .
t'.1
li~1
. ,
~
.
.
.
0 I .
< I
0
a:: I
6 fi Z
I ~ I
. I
Z
<
:I:
a.
<
f3
t ~
h
I
I
,
,
I
!
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
FY 1995/96
NAME OF BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE (B/C/C/):
Planning Commission
MEETING TIME/PLACE:
Conncil Chambers
2nd/4th Wed.-7:00 p.m.
3rd/Wed.Workshop .5:30 p.m.,CR 2/3
NUMBER OF MEMBERS: 7
GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE B/C/C/: Serves as the official planning agency of Chnla Vista and evaluates
major land use proposals in terms of their impact on the City. It condncts pnblic hearings on significant
planning, zoning and land subdivision matters, and recommends action and policy to the City Council. The
General Plan and specific plans are prepared nnder the guidance of the Planning Commission.
IDGHLIGHTS OF ACTIVITIES DURING THE PAST YEAR:
· The Planning Commission's efforts for FY 95-96 were largely concentrated on efforts to evaluate and
act on the various planning processes and development of the first phases of the Otay Ranch (SPA
I) and the proposed annexation of the westerly parcel.
· One major project requiring detailed Planning Commission review involved the proposed 20,000 seat
MCA Amphitheater recommended for approval in the Otay Valley.
. Subdivision activity was limited in 95-96 wherein the Planning Commission acted on three
subdivisions totalling 263 single family homes.
· Several projects were addressed by the Planning Commission that evoked substantial public interest.
These included a proposed RV storage facility planned within close proximity to single family homes
and a modification to the City's Zoning Ordinance to respond to Federal legislation on adult care
limits.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
. Last year the Planning Commission included in its comments and recommendations to the City
Council for Council to direct staff to:
1. Evaluate the City's adopted formula requiring 1.39 acres per 1,000 residents of Community
Purpose Facility land use in all new planned communities as to actual need and absorption.
2. Report on cost and effectiveness of current City policy requiring an expanded mailing list
beyond State mandated requirements. Review should include an analysis as to effectiveness,
cost and benefit of notification of tenants, as well as owners, and expanded radius to include
additional parcels.
These still remain a high priority by the Planning Commission and we would request that Council
take the appropriate steps to include them in the Planning Department's 96-97 work program.
DATE:
SIGNED:
Chairman