HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2006/08/09
Wednesday, August 9,2006
MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
City Hall Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
5:00 P.M., COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 101
WORKSHOP TOPIC:
Planning and Building Strategic Plan and Work Program.
Presenter: Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning and Building
ADJOURN TO A REGULAR PLA~ING COMMISSION MEETING:
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
6:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Felber_ Moctezuma_ Vinson_ Bensoussan_ Tripp_
Clayton_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 26, 2006
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda. Each
speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 05-44; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the expansion of existing mini mart and addition of a carwash
to an existing service station located within the Terra Nova
shopping center at 350 East H Street. Lorna Ratone/Camelor
Inc. (Quasi-Judicial)
Staff recommends that public hearing be continued to the September 27, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting.
Planning Commission
- 2 -
August 9, 2006
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 05-24; Six-month review of Conditional Use Permit to
operate a nighttime trucking facility at 120 Press Lane. G.I.
Trucking. (Quasi-Judicial)
Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
3. ORDER OF BUSINESS:
. Appointment of Planning Commission representative to the Growth Management
Oversight Commission for FY 06-07.
. Appointment of Planning Commission representative to the Redevelopment Advisory
Committee.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
To a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 23,
2006.
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
City Hall Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Members Present:
Member Absent:
Felber, Vinson, Bensoussan, Tripp, Clayton
Moctezuma
Staff Members Present:
Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director
Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager
Elisa Cusato, Deputy City Attorney III
Lynette Lopez, Associate Planner
Larry Tran, Development Services Technician
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda. Each
speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Appointment of new Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for FY 0607.
MSC (BensoussanlTripp) (5-0-0-1 )nominating Bryan Felber to serve as Planning Commission
Chair for FY 06-07. Motion carried.
MSC (Felber IBensoussan) (5-0-0-1) nominating Bill Tripp to serve as Vice Chair for FY 06
07. Motion carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 05-24; Six-month review of Conditional Use Permit to operate
a nighttime trucking facility at 120 Press Lane. G.!. Trucking.
(Quasi-Judicial)
Staff recommends that public hearing be continued to the August 9, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
July 26, 2006
MSC (FelberlTripp)(~0-0-1) that the Planning Commission open public hearing and continue it
to August 9, 2006. Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 05-44; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
expansion of existing mini mart and addition of a carwash to an
existing service station located within the Terra Nova shopping center
at 350 East H Street. Lorna Ratone/Camelor Inc. (Quasi-Judicial)
Staff recommends that public hearing be continued to the August 9, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting.
MSC (Felber/Clayton)(~0-0-1) that the Planning Commission open public hearing and continue
to August 9, 2006. Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 06-81; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to construct
and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility at 900
Otay Lakes Road. Cricket Communications. (Quasi-Judicial)
Cmr. Vinson recused himself from the dais due to a conflict of interest.
Background: Larry Tran reported that Cricket Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility consisting of a 60-foot high monopine to be located within the Southwestern
College campus. A 96 sf equipment shelter is proposed to be built as an expansion of the existing
ticket booth located at the south end of the college stadium.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 06-81 approving the
proposed telecommunications facility, based on the findings and subject to conditions contained
therein.
Public Hearing Opened.
Franklin Orozco, 4031 Sorrento Valley Blvd., San Diego, CA, applicant; stated he was available to
answer questions from the Commission.
Public Hearing Closed.
MSC (Tripp/Bensoussan)(4-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 06-81
approving the proposed telecommunications facility, based on the findings and subject to
conditions contained therein. Motion carried with Cmr. Vinson abstaining.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
July 26, 2006
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
DRC 05-37; Consideration of an application for a new 30-foot high
pole sign and canopy fascia design with signage for a service station
located at the northwest corner of "L" Street and Broadway-
Applicant: Conoco Phillips. (Quasi-Judicial)
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
DRC-05-38: Consideration of an application for a new 30 foot high
pole sign and canopy fascia design with signage for a service station
located at the corner of Willow and Bonita Road- Applicant: Conoco
Phillips. (Quasi-Judicial)
Item #5 and #6 were heard concurrently as the same issues are addressed in both projects.
Background: Lynette Lopez reported that Conoco Phillips has commenced a modernizing program
that includes new canopy design and signage at both service station locations on L Street and
Broadway, and Willow and Bonita Road.
On March 7,2006 the DRC continued the project directing the applicant to address and return with a
visual presentation of a site that has already undergone the proposed modernization; minimize the
width and color of the orange banding around the canopy; and reduce the height of the pole sign and
recommended designing a monument sign.
On June 5, 2006 the DRC reheard the project, however the applicant chose not to redesign the pole
sign and simply reduced it to 30 feet and agreed to not add the orangebanding to the canopy. The
DRC still had concerns and denied the application. Section 19.14.583 allows the applicant to file an
appeal of the ORC decision to the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission affirm the June 5, 2006 decision of the
Design Review Committee and deny DRC 0~37 and DRC 05-38.
Commission Comments:
Cmr. Clayton stated that using the rationale behind the use of a pole sign being more visible in order
to be able to compete with other vendors does not apply to the Bonita Road site because it does not
have the extent of competition with other service stations as wwld the Broadway site.
Public Hearing Opened.
Ahmad Ghidari, ANS Engineering, 207 W. Alameda, Ste. 203, Burbank, CA stated that Conoco
Phillips started a re-imaging program a couple of years ago and they have since completed
approximately 250 locations with approximately 100 locations left to be done.
Mr. Ghidari stated that the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Program was obtained and consulted at the
projects' inception and both the zoning and sign ordinance allows pole signs not to exceed 35 feet in
height at these locations. Although the standard pole sign that Conoco Phillips uses is within what is
allowed (35 feet), they are willing to design a sign that is 30 feet high.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
July 26, 2006
Mr. Ghidari stated he was available to answer questions and is open to receive any direction or
recommendation that the Commission is willing to offer.
Cmr. Bensoussan stated that it appears from reading the DRC minutes that the applicant was not
willing to compromise the height of the pole sign and now that he is before the Planning Commission,
he is willing to lower the pole sign.
Mr. Ghadiri clarified that the DRC was not open to discussing anything other than a 6 foot high
monument sign.
Cmr. Felber asked if a 20 foot high pole sign would be acceptable to the applicant and asked what is
the definition of a monument sign.
Mr. Ghadiri responded that a 20 foot high pole sign would be acceptable.
Mr. Hernandez responded that the code defines monuments signs as being 8 feet in height, however,
depending on its design and proportion, and how it integrates into the overall design of the project,
they may be as high as 15 feet.
Public Hearing Closed.
Cmr. Clayton inquired if the existing sign is higher than what the applicant is presently proposing,
would they be allowed to retain the existing sign Slould they decide not to remove it? Cmr. Clayton
further stated that, in her opinion, the community would be better served with a new sign rather than
one that has been weathered with time ald will continue to deteriorate.
Ms. Lopez responded that the existing sign is a legal confoming sign and it is within the applicant's
purview to maintain it as it presently is.
Addressing Cmr. Clayton's comment, Mr. Ghadiri stated that the existing sign could not be kept
because their re-imaging program calls for all pole (ball) signs to be removed.
Cmr. Bensoussan stated that, in her opinion, the Commission should have confidence and stand
behind the DRC's expertise in making their recommendations. Additionally, the orange band around
the canopy is very loud and aggressive. The Commission's highest priority should be the community's
image and not base their decision on what is profitable and what gives the applicant a competitive
edge over their competitors. Cmr. Bensoussan further stated that there are other means by which to
attract business other than signage, Le. landscaping and good building design and color scheme.
Lastly, she is disappointed in the corporate headquarter's decision to do away with the 76 ball sign; in
her opinion, the ball signs are a successful identifier and they are quaint and vintagelooking.
Cmr. Tripp stated he is encouraged to hears a willingness on the part of the applicant to compromise
and redesign the project.
Cmr. Felber stated that, in his opinion, these days people pick one station over the other mostly based
on gas prices. Additionally, he has no problem going with a pole sign or monument sign higher than
the 6 foot high monument sign that the DRC recommended, and concurs with Cmr. Bensoussan's
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
July 26, 2006
comment about utilizing attractive landscape elements to attract business. Cmr. Felber asked for
clarification from staff as to what the options are in terms of a decision for tonight.
Mr. Hernandez responded that the Commission has three options; they are:
. To affirm the decision of the DRC to deny the projects. If the applicant wishes, he can then
reapply and return with a redesigned project and sign program to the DRC;
. To continue the project, directing the applicant to work with staff and return to the Planning
Commission with a revised design; and
. Direct the applicant to go back to the DRC with a revised design, asking the DRC to render an
opinion on the revised design and come back to the Planning Commission for a final decision.
Cmr. Bensoussan stated that she favors directing the applicant to return to the DRC since they have
the expertise in helping design a solution to the issues of concern.
MSC (Trippl ) that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to allow the
applicant to work with staff in redesigning the project, addressing the issues that were raised.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
MSC (TrippNinson) that the Planning continue the public hearing directing the applicant to
return before the DRC with a revised project design.
Discussion on the motion:
Cmr. Vinson stated that although the Commission wants to see the project redesigned, there isn't
consensus on whether it should be a monument sign or a lower pole sign, as well as the design on the
canopy, therefore, he would recommend that the Commission uphold the DRC's decision and deny the
project allowing the applicant the opportunity to reapply.
Amended motion (Tripp/Bensoussan) (5-0-0-1) that the Planning Commission uphold the
decision of the Design Review Committee to deny DRC 05-37. Motion carried.
Amended motion (Tripp/Bensoussan) (5-0-0-1) that the Planning Commission uphold the
decision of the Design Review Committee to deny DRC 05-38. Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Assistant Director Hare:
. Welcomed newly-appointed Commissioners Clayton and Vinson, and stated that Cmr.
Moctezuma would be joining them at the rext regular meeting on August 9.
. Reported that staff is working on putting together a protocol/training workshop and tour for the
new members and anyone else interested in attending.
. Informed the Commission that staff will be agendizing under Special Order of Business the
appointment of a Planning Commission representative to serve on the Growth Management
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
July 26, 2006
Oversight Commission for FY 06-07 and a representative to serve on the Redevelopment
Advisory Committee (RAC).
. Informed the Commission that Jim Sandoval presented the P&B Strategic Plan and Work
Program to the City Council on July 25th and will be presenting it to the Planning Commission
on August 9,2006.
. Informed the Commission that there will be a City Council workshop on August 3rd to discuss
the next phase of the General Plan Implementation which involves placing interim zoning and
beginning the update of the Zoning Ordinance
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Cmr. Bensoussan inquired about the role of the Planning Commission with respect to the review of the
Urban Core Specific Plan EIR and Plan.
Mr. Hare stated that both documents will be before the Planning Commission in September for their
recommendation to the CVRC on its certification.
Cmr. Felber recommended that in the future staff be more specific in informing the Planning
Commission as to whether certain documents (i.e. the P&B Strategic Plan) is for informational
purposes or if they need to provide input or recommendation on the document.
Cmr. Felber inquired if there is anything that allows the city to regulate the color of buildings throughout
the City.
Luis Hernandez responded that projects going through the entitlement process go through the Design
Review Committee who approves the color-scheme, however, after the project is completed, the
building may be repainted at a later date at the discretion of the owner without oversight from the City.
ADJOURNMENT: To a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 9, 2006.
Submitted by:
Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 8/9/06
ITEM TITLE:
Report: PCC-05-024 Six month review of Conditional Use Permit to operate
a nighttime trucking facility at 120 Press Lane-G.I. Trucking
Condition 12 of the Resolution PCC-05-024 of the subject Conditional Use Permit requires the
preparation of a report on the nighttime trucking operation ofthe distribution facility at 120 Press
Lane. The applicant has prepared and staff has reviewed monthly reports of truck activity levels for
the last five month. Staff has not received complaints from surrounding residents about the night or
daytime trucking operation.
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and it
has been determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in the previously adopted
Negative Declaration IS-05-01O. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is
necessary .
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-05-024-A
accepting this report and deem Condition 1-2 of Resolution PCC-05-024 complete and satisfied.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On December 14, 2005 the Planning Commission approved PCC 05-024 to modify a previously
imposed condition requiring south facing doors be closed during nighttime hours (6 pm to 6 am).
The modification allows a 24-hour operation. No increase in truck traffic was anticipated due to the
proposed CUP modification. Expanded access to the south dock bays would allow the facility to
operate in a more efficient manner by reducing existing trailer movement. Access to the project site
was proposed to also remain via the existing truck route on streets within the industrial area,
resulting in no traffic impacts anticipated.
Due to concern from residents living in single family dwellings to the south, the Commission
imposed a conditions limiting the amount of nighttime truck activity level as well as requiring a
report to come back to the Commission within 6 months with a review of truck activity and any
impacts to the surrounding area (See Condition 11 and 12 of Attachment 4)
Staff Analvsis
1. Performance and Operation of Truck Terminal:
Issue: Whether or not delivery operation during nighttime hours has created any
negative impact on surrounding businesses or residents.
Page 2 , Item:
Meeting Date: 8/9/06
Analysis: To date, no complaints have been received by any residents of the surrounding
area. As no complaints have been received, staff has not had the need to conduct
physical inspections or prepare any investigation reports.
2. Maximum Truck DeliverieslHour:
Issue: Has the applicant complied with restriction on maximum amount of truck trips
allowed per hour between the hours of 10 pm to 7 am weekdays and 10 pm to 8 am on
weekends?
Analysis: On December 14, 2005, while the Planning Commission removed the
restriction on use of south facing roll up doors allowing 24-hour operation, they imposed
a new condition (See Condition 11, Attachment 4) restricting nighttime truck activity
levels to a maximum of twenty truck trips per hour. A truck trip was defined as one
arrival or one departure. The Planning Commission concurred with noise study that had
been prepared which indicated exceeding this level of truck activity could affect the
amount of noise generated on site which could create nuisance noise to the surrounding
area. In order to monitor this restriction during the six month trial period, Condition 12 of
Resolution PCC-05-024 required the applicant to provide staff with a monthly
monitoring report of truck activity for Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays between the
hours of: 10 pm-II pm; 3 am to 4 am; and 6 am to 7 am. This background information
was to be provided in the form of summary truck activity.
Staff has reviewed these monthly activity reports for months of January-May 2006. The
highest level of truck activity level was reported for May 2006. This activity report
indicated there were a total of eight truck trips between the hours of 6-7 am on a
Thursday. However, the majority of hours reported for each of the 5 months showed a
truck activity level as low as 0-3 tripslhour. Thus, the trucking facility operated within
the prescribed 20 trips per hour limit established by the Planning Commission.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence presented by the applicant and the fact that City staff has not received
complaints about the daytime or nighttime trucking operation at the subject site location, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission deem condition 12 complete and satisfied.
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 8/9/06
Attachments
1. Locator Map/Site Map
2. Draft PC Resolution accepting six month report
3. Monthly truck activity level reports prepared by the applicant
4. Resolution PCC 05-24
5. PC Agenda Statement for meeting of December 14,2005
6. PC Minutes of public hearing on December 14,2005
7. Ownership Disclosure Statement
J:\Planning.Case File~-05 (FY 04-05)\PCC\Public HearingJ>CC-05-024\StaffRepom\PC\PCC-05-024 Staff Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
VICINITY MAP & SITE MAP
A.#C\vhme-iA-t"- .1-
~
\-\f:>-~~~\..
oDe
\'N ~~\{ t-\"O
s'fJ~t::
.
.
\
---.--
City of Chu/a Vist~ a--- .
oUnci~ .
.,
.
e
BUilding Construction Co
..
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
Target
CS\
~
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR :~~~I~~1T: G.I. Trucking Co.
C) PROJECT 120 P L
ADDRESS: ress ane
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCC-05-024
AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
MISCELLANEOUS
Request: The project proposal consists of a modification to the existing
Conditional Use Permit to remove the condition restriction that shippil'1g
bay doors, facing south, remain closed from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.,
Related cases: 15-05-010
J: \plan ning\carlos \locators\pcc05024 .cdr 07.05.06
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
A --H--?-.d1WteYl + d..-
,
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-024-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING SIX MONTH
REPORT REVIEWING TRUCK ACTIVITY LEVEL AT 120
PRESS LANE WITHIN THE SWEETWATER INDUSTRIAL
PARK AND DEEMING THE CONDITION SATISFIED
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1973, the City Council approved PCC 73-7 to allow a truck
terminal operation at 120 Press Lane with the condition that the south facing doors could not be open
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m; and
WHERAS, on December 15, 2005 the Planning Commission approved PCC-05-024 to
modify the previously imposed condition requiring south facing doors be closed during nighttime
hours and allow a 24-hour operation; and
WHEREAS, Condition 1.1 of PCC-05-024 requires the applicant to record hourly truck
activity during certain specified hours, for a six-month period and as requested by staff, and to make
the information available to City staff in the form of monthly reports; and
WHEREAS, Condition 1.2 ofPCC-05-024 requires staffto prepare a report to the Planning
Commission reviewing the truck activity and the performance and operation of the facility at
120 Press Lane with the south facing doors operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided staff with monthly activity reports of the level of
truck trips during specified nighttime hours; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed monthly activity reports from the applicant which indicate
nighttime truck activity is below the maximum twenty trips per hour imposed on the project per
Condition 1.1 ofPCC-05-024; and
WHEREAS, staffhas prepared a report to the Planning Commission in the Agenda Statement
dated July 12, 2006, including the attachments, and recommends that the Planning Commission
deem Condition 1.2 satisfied and complete; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed
Project was adequately covered in previously adopted Negative Declaration Is-05-0lD. Thus, no
further environmental review or documentation is necessary.
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised on July 12, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista to receive the recommendation of City staff and
to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said hearing was thereafter closed.
C:\Documents and Settings\jeffs\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK78\Truck Activity at 120 Press Lane.doc
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission ofthe CityofChula Vista
that it accept the report prepared by City staff and deems Condition 1.2 of Resolution PCC-05-024
complete and satisfied.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th
day of August 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Bryan Felber, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
MONTHLY TRUCK
ACTIVITY LEVEL SUMMARY
-;
=
's
;....
0)
~
~
u
o~-
~5\C
.- Q., <:;) .
~ Q) <:;)
=.o:::N;>.
c<: >,.;>.;
r.n ,...-;.... S
I :~ ~ S
~~;=:
N~""r.n
a
~
"
~
>.
oi
-0
...
::I
~
<n
>:
co
~
...
:=
~
>:
co
~
'"
.::1
E-<>.
~;
c= e
g E
'" =
....<n
A-#zac.-h Wt~ +- :3
:s <:> N N N I() ..... '" I() '" N '" '" N N '" <:>
0 ..... ..... .....
E-<
~ ~
::I 0 - - N c<1 to- - N - N \0 - - - N I()
c;- o
\0
~O~.-ON~
-....co
o 0 ("t') f"-o 0 M M-
E-< .....
~ "5
-q-OO-c<10-1f)
ri,
~ON..q-O"""'~
-; .....
-0 <:> .... ..... to- N .....
E-<
~
p.. "5
- 0 0 0 c<1 - '0:1'
- 0
0
-
..s 0 - - -q- - to-
'0 '0
00
00
~23
s
~;:::;
\0 '0
00
00
~~
to- -q-
- N
;:::;::::;
'0->'
o .s c=
o Q "'Cf.
SE-4~
~ E-<
>.:>.:>.:>.>.
CI$ ~ ccf CI$ CI$
"0 "d "0 "'0 '"0
tI] CI] tI] tI] en
Q) Q) Q) IU t1)
::s ::s ::s ::s ::s
f-<E-<E-<E-<f-
N\f)NOI:"-
M~\QM;!:
......-IN("I'j....-or--.
...... N ("I'j..- r---
('f") ('1"') M ,...-40'\
,......... N 0 0 M
N ....... N....... \0
\0 \0 \0 \0
o 0 180
<=>0000
~.c:!NN
-..,V"1 -..,~ G\ ~
~=SS
:>.>.:>.>.
CI$ ~ d CI3
"C "'C "'C "'0
CI] (I) en CI]
1-0 _ 1-0 1-0
:J ~ ::s ::s
_ ..c: ..c:: ..c
E-<f-E-<f-
N....-I.............. 'f1
~ ('f") Q M III
........ MOO "I:f'
000--'1"""4
0001010.
00000
00000
- >.
~~
E-< ~
::
~
88:g83~
OOOOo"t:S
~~S~~B
S;......NN
~:::;:::;~ ~
:>.>.>.>.
ccf CI$ as ccf
"0'"0"0"'0
5 5 3 ~
~ "';S cd as
Cl.)U)~r/)
0;
.... ...... '" ...... '" \0 '" ...... '" '" I:"- ...... ...... <:> ...... '"
0
.....
~ "5 ...... ('oJ...... ('oJ \0 N ...... N N I:"- ...... ...... 0 ...... '"
I:"- 0
J:,
..s 000 0 <:> o 0 0 -0 0 00 0 0<:>
'3 'I"'""! ~ ('i") 0 to <:> <:> "'...... ...., <:> ...... '" '" to
0
.....
~ "5 ...... ...... C'1 0 to 0 0 ('oJ ...... ...., 0...... N N to
'1 0
C'1
..s 0000 <:> 00000 0 0 0 o <:>
>.
.... 0;
~
s -0 <:> ...... ...... <:> '" to <:> <:> ..". 0'1 <:> <:> <:> <:> <:>
S .....
:::I
"J
.a :::s
..... ~
.... p., ....
0 <J :::I 0 0 0 0 <:> N 0 0 ('oJ ..". 0 0 0 0 <:>
C. ~ ...... 0
<U ,
~ >. 0
~
>. "0
....
..... :::I
:E -:0
..... "J ..s 0 ...... ...... 0 '" C'1 0 0 N In 0 0 0 0 <:>
<:.J >:
< ~
-; '0
'"
.... '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 >. '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 >. '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 >.
= :::I 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~
'S ~ 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 '0
~ C:! S C:! '" ~ ~ C:! ~ !" C:! S C:! C:! ....
>. 0 @ :::I
.... .... >: ..... ~ co :::I N 0'\ '-0 C'1 ..". co '" -:0
<U 0 C:! ~ ..... ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ ...... ~
Eo< 0:1 ~ N -- ~ -- -- "J
S '0 ('oJ ('oJ N 0; N N N '" '" '" '" N
'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 ~
< S <J -0
:::I -0 0
U = ..... ..... ..... .....
~en >.
0,<:> .... >. ;>. >. ;>. >. >. >. >. >. >.
~ ~ iU' ~ '" '" ~ '" "' '" "' '"
/jfo :::I '" "' "0 "0 "0 -g "E "E "E "E
<= "0 "0 "0 "0 ~ '" ~
::J .- 0 .... '" '" '" '" ::; ... :::I .a :::I .a
..Q v v <> v := ::: :::I
QM <> :::I :::I :::I ~ t:: ..c: t:: os '" os "'
'" ~ bb E-< E=: E-< en en en en
'" = >.
<> ....
.... 0:1
~ en 0:1
~ . E
~ N ..Q
<;; 0'\ <U
rTJ N c..
Estes Express Lines
292 - San Diego, CA Terminal Activity Report
March 2006 Summary
March Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Activity Summary
10-11 PM I 3-4 AM I 6-7 AM I
In I Out I Total I In I Out I Total I In I Out I Total I
Tuesday ######## 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
Tuesday ######## 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3
Tuesday ######## 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 3
Tuesday ######## 0 1 1 3 3 6 2 1 3
Total Tuesday 2 3 5 6 6 12 6 5 11
Thursday ######## 4 3 7 0 1 1 2 2 4
Thursday ######## 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Thursday ######## 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Thursday ######## 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
Thursday ######## 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
Total Thursday 5 5 10 2 3 5 4 5 9'
Saturday ######## 1 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 1
Saturday ######## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saturday ######## 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saturday ######## 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Total Saturday 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1
Estes Express Lines
292 - San Diego, CA Terminal Activity Report
April 2006 Summary
April Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Activity Summary
10-11 PM I 3-4 AM I 6-7 AM I
In I Out I Total I In I Out I Total I In I Out I Total I
Tuesday ######## 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1
Tuesday ######## 3 2 5 I I 2 I 4 5
Tuesday ######## 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 3
Tuesday ######## 3 3 6 0 0 0 2 2 4
Total Tuesday 8 7 15 2 2 4 5 8 13
Thursday ######## 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 I 2
Thursday ######## 1 I 2 0 0 0 2 2 4
Thursday ######## 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 4
Thursday ######## 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4
Total Thursday 7 8 15 5 6 11 7 7 14
Saturday ######## 0 0 0 3 2 5 2 0 2
Saturday ######## 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3
Saturday' ######## 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0
Saturday ######## 0 0 0 I 1 2 I 1 2
Saturday ######## 0 0 0 3 2 5 1 0 1
Total Saturday 0 0 0 9 8 17 7 1 8
292 - San Diego, CA Ter.minal Activity Report
May 2006 Summary
May Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Activity Summary
10-11 PM 3-4 AM 6-7 AM
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Tuesday 05/02/06 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 4
Tuesday 05/09/06 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 2 5
Tuesday 05/16/06 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 4
Tuesday OS/23/06 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 4
Tuesday 05/30/06 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
Total Tuesday 4 0 4 2 0 2 11 10 21
Thursday 05/04/06 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 4
Thursday 05/11/06 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 2 8
Thursday 05/18/06 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 2 5
Thursday OS/25/06 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 4 6
Total Thursday 6 0 6 4 0 4 13 10 23
Saturday 05/06/06 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
Saturday 05/13/06 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
Saturday OS/20/06 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Saturday OS/27/06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Saturday 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1
,~
:t
"
.
~
,
..
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION PCC-05-024
A th:-~<c}J rne-r\ + '-I
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERlVIIT FOR A TRUCK TERMINAL OPERATION AT 120
PRESS LANE WITHIN THE SWEETWATER INDUSTRIAL
PARK.
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2004, G.!. Trucking, represented by Weston Benshoof
("Applicant"), filed a duly verified application for a modification to an existing Conditional Use
Permit (PCC-05-024) ("Project") requesting deletion of an existing condition which requests the
doors on the south side of the truck terminal located at 120 Press Lane ("Project Site") remain
closed during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-05-
010 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. . Based upon the results of the
Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that there is no substantial
evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared
aN egative Declaration, IS-05-0 1 0; and
WHEREAS, a duly called 'and noticed public hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised on December 14,2005, at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista to receive the recommendation of City
staff and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that the Planning Commission does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration (IS-05-01O) has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista,
and adopts the Negative Declaration (IS-05-01O).
REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERlVIIT FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The facility at this location has been in operation for approximately 30 years, providing
transportation services for local and regional businesses. It is anticipated that removal of the
condition restricting the use of the south facing bay doors during the nighttime hours, will
contribute to the well-being ofthe neighborhood and community by facilitating more efficient
facility operations during the nighttime hours. This, in turn, could potentially result in less
impact to the surrounding area. Under the existing Conditional Use Permit, there are no
restrictions on the number of trucks operating during nighttime hours using the north facing
doors. This modification will impose restrictions on the number of truck operating during
nighttime hours for both the north and south facing doors.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The existing truck terminal is located within the Sweetwater Industrial Park and is just south of
Highway 54. A number of changes have occurred since the granting of the original conditional
use permit including infill of additional industrial businesses to the south between the truck
terminal and the existing mobile home park as well as construction of Highway 54 to the north.
An acoustical study was prepared to determine ifthere are potential noise impacts to residences
further to the southwest. The study concludes there are no impacts that must be mitigated.
While the study does not address nuisance noise, this is regulated by Chapter 19.68 of the
Municipal Code. In addition, a condition of approval has been added which requires that the
CUP to be reviewed after a period of six month to assure there have been no negative impacts
to the residential neighborhood to the south as a result of this modification.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
code for such use. --
The project is subject to all restrictions outlined in the Chula Vista Municipal Code. This
includes Chapter 19.68 which regulates nuisance noise. In addition, the applicant must comply
with conditions of approval of this CUP modification which include restrictions on number of
trucks during nighttime hours and utilization of rubberized bumpers on truck dock levelers.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this modification will not adversely affect the City's General Plan as it does
not include any physical changes to the ongoing operations of the truck terminal. The use is
compatible with the land use designations of the adopted General Plan.
BE IT FUTHER RESOL VED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
hereby'grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-05-024 subject to the following conditions, whereby the
applicant ami/property owner, prior to issuance of building permits shall:
PJge 2
I. Ongoing Conditions:
I. During the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am weekdays and 10 pm to 8 am on weekends,
twenty truck trips per hour is the maximum level of truck activity allowed on the site. A
"truck trip" is defined as any cOrrimercial vehicle that arrives or departs during the hour.
Any request to increase the level of truck activity beyond this point will necessitate an
amendment to this conditional use permit. For a six month trial period following date of
approval of this CUP modification, and as requested by staff on an ongoing basis,
applicant shall record hourly truck activity during the hours of 10 pm to 11 pm, 3 am to 4
am and 6 am to 7 am on each Tuesday, Thursday arid Saturday night of operation or as
required. S~id information shall be made available to the City in the form of monthly
report. Said reports may redact any and all proprietary, sensitive or identifYing information
regarding such truck activity except for the number of trip trips per hour.
2. A report to the Planning Commission shall be prepared by staff six months following the
adopted date of this Resolution and this item shall then be scheduled for the next available
public hearing. As background information for the preparation of said report, the applicant
shall provide staff with a summary of truck activity as noted in condition number 1 above.
The report shall include additional truck activity levels for the dates for which any
complaints have been received. Said reports may redact any and all proprietary, sensitive or
identifying information regarding such truck activity except for the number of truck trips
per hour. The report to the Planning Commission shall outline the performance and
operation of the facility with the allowance for the south facing doors to operate 24/7 and
shall include inspection/investigation reports and findings based on complaints by residents
or businesses located in the surrounding area including any noise or traffic impacts. The
report will also include a staff recommendation regarding the numoer and nature of
complaints which should give rise to the commission's consideration of further
modification or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
3. Truck traffic shall be prohibited along North Glover south of Trousdale Drive.
4. This use permit allows the operation to occur on a 24 hour basis with no restrictions on the
use of roll up doors on the north side of the truck terminal building. The south facing
doors shall remain closed during the hours of 1 0 pm to 7 am weekdays and 10 pm to 8 am
on weekends when a truck bay is not used for loading/unloading purposes. In addition, the
number of trucks during nighttime hours for the entire site is restricted as set forth in
Condition No.1 above
5. As is currently practiced by the applicant, rubberized bumpers shall be maintained on all
truck dock levelers in order to buffer any noise impacts which could be generated by the
impact of the gate of the truck bed hitting the surface of dock.
6. Between the hours of 1 Opm-7am weekdays and 1 Opm-8am weekends, trucks/tractors shall
not be allowed to sit and idle on the property.
7. The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit shall be applied to the subject
Pagt: .3
property until such time approval is revoked, and the existence of this approval with
conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior to allowing the south
facing doors to remain open during nighttime hours, the Applicant/property owner shall
provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document.
8. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission.
9. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and
against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court
costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or
iridirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this modification to Conditional Use
Permit and (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein,
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of the Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant' s/operator' s
compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all ofthe applicant's operator's
successors and assigns.
10. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal
Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be
reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
11. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or. welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the 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 the Permittee of a substantial revenue
source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be
expected to economically recover.
12. At any point it time, the applicant may choose, through a letter to the Director of Planning
and Building, to inactivate this CUP modification. This letter shall be recorded with the
San Diego County Recorders Office. This will result in the applicant reverting back to the
conditions of approval outlined in Resolution 7051 for CUP 73-77. This will result in the
south facing doors remaining closed during nighttime hours.
P:1gc -+
IV. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, said execution indica~ing that the property owner and applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy
returned to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed and
stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation 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.
!;i(.fJ-Lf cJ. f~ ~. ~/f /~
Signatu-;:JofProperty Own& Date
120 Pres ane
tJ,UCrJf. ",c K.'61z. 6:;~
re of Applicant
lit 10(,
Date
V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if (illY of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits,. deny, revoke, or
further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this pennit may also result
. in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. .
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention ofthe Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that
in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the pennit
shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Page 5
-,
APPROVED BY THE PLANNlNGCOMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
14th day of December 2005, by the following vote, to-wit:
Felber, Madrid, Bensoussan, Hom, Nordstrom, Tripp
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
J :/pl an n i n gJ case ti 1 es/ 05/ pc c/pub I i che:Jfin gJ pcc(}~2 4/reso I uti 0 ns/pcapproved
.~ \j"-- N\ ~/)
Vicki Madrid, Chair ----
--;.
Page 0
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT FOR
DECEMBER 14, 2005
.k~~Wte-Y1+ 5
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/14/05
t
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCC-05-024 consideration of a modification to an existing
Conditional Use Permit to allow for the doors along the south facing ,
elevation of the existing truck terminal to be operational to 24 hours a day-
G.I. Trucking
The Applicant, G.!. Trucking, represented by Weston Benshoof, submitted a request to modify the
conditions of approval of an existing conditional use permit in order to allow the south facing doors
of existing truck terminal located at 120 Press Lane to remain open 24 hours per day. (see Locator
Map, Attachment 1).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the propos~d project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-05-0 1 0, in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Revie'w Coordinator has determined that there is no s'p.bstantial evidence, in light of
the whole environmental record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project many have a
significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared
a Negative Declaration, IS-05-01O (see Attachment 3). During the public review period, three (3)
comments were received from adj acent residents expressing concerns related to potential nighttime
and early morning noise impacts as well as potential traffic impacts. These issues are summarized
below. Publicc01,nment letters and City responses are shown in Attachment 4.
.,
.i
RECOMMENDATION:' T~at the Planning Commission adopt Negative Declaration IS-05-0 10
and Resolution PCC-05-024 approving a modification to Resolution No. 7051 to allow keeping
the south facing doors open 24 hours a day.
DISCUSSION:
1. Project Description
The ongoing project consists of the operation ofa truck tehninal at 120 Press Lane. The main dock
facility consists of an approximately 25,000 square foot warehouse with 24 truck docking bays on
the south side of the building and 24 docking bays on the north side of the building. There is one
roll-up door for every two docking bays; 12 on the south side and 12 on the north side. The facility
handles the transfer of shipped foods for distribution to other terminals and customers. (See .
Attachment 2)
1-1
Page 2 I Item:
Meeting Date: 11/30105
2. Project Background
On November 16, 1973, the City Council approved PCC 73-7 to allow a truck tenninal operation
to be constructed and operated from the project site. This request for a conditional use pennit was
originally denied by the Planning Commission based upon concerns from'residents of the mobile
home park to the south. The City Council approved the project, on appeaL Due to the location of
existing mobiJe home park to the south, a condition was imposed which stated that the south fac.ing
doors could not be open between the hours of 6 pm to 6 am. Subsequent to this time, the area
between the truck terminal and the mobile home p~k been filled in with additional industrial
development. In addition, Freeway 54 just north ofthe site was constructed raising the ambient noise
level.
There has been one code enforcement case back in Qctober 2002 based upon a . complaint. There
was evidence that the south facing doors had been open between the restricted hours of6:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m. The operations manager claimed to be unaware of the restricted hours. InDecember2002
the case was abated and the south facing doors kept c10sedduring the nighttime hours. There have
been no code enforcement complaints since this time.
3. Project Setting:
The property is located at 120 Press Lane and consists of a 4.34 acre site that is improved with a
truck terminal buildiIlg, an attached office building and a separate machine shop. G.!. Trucking is
authorized to operat~ under Conditional Use Permit PCC 73-7. This application seeks only to
remove Condition No.3 that liniits the hours when the south-facing doors may remain open.
. ~ ~
, .
Immediately to the north of the project site is the 54 Freeway. The freeway lies atop a 30-foot berm,
with no sound walls, at a height this roughly the same as the -residential uses to the south of the
freeway and southeast of the G.I. Trucking terminal. To the south is an existing industrial park
containing thee industrial buildings. To the east, there is a multi-unit residential development.
There is an open lot in the II., Zone to the southeast (diagonally across ftom G.!. Trucking at the
corner of Press Lane and Trousdale), that is partially operated by a construction company. TIlls lot is
unimproved, but contains several industrial trailers and stacks of construction supplies. Theback
half of this lot slopes sharply up to a height of approximately 60 feet. Beyond this to the southeast,
approximately 250-300 feet ftomthe G.I. Trucking facility, are twelve lots in the Single-Family
Residential (R -1) Zone. .
1_"
. L.
,
Page 3 r Item:
Meeting Date: 11/30/05
4. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
Site General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
Orientation
Site Li t Industrial II., Truck Temrinal.
North --------- Highway 54
South Light Industrial II., Industrial Park
East Residential R3 Residential
West Light Industrial II., Self-storage; light industrial
5. Staff Analysis
Current Operation:
The truck terminal facility handles the transfer of shipped goods for distribution to other terminals
and customers. GJ. Trucking tractors bring their trailer~ to the site, an~ the trailers are detached and
moved by an on-site "hostler" (a truck and drive that only moves trailers on-site) to one of the empty
shipping bays, where the cargo is unloaded for later distribution to other docked trailers. The cargo
is moved within the building with fork-lifts. If all of the available truck bays are occupied, newly
arriving trailers ,?Te temporarily parked elsewhere on-site, without their tractors. When a docking bay
becomes free, the hos,tler moves a trailer to that position fQrloading and/or unloading. Because of
the current CUP restrictions o:q. south-facing operations, the pays on the north side are almost always
occupied when truck ariive at {he facilitY between 6:00 p.m., and '6:00 a.m.
Because the number of available bays is halved between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m, the
amount of hostling during this time period may be more than double and much of this increased
activity is on the south side of the facility.
Transportation/Traffic
No increase in truck traffic is anticipated due to the proposed CUP modification. As indicated in the
Negative Declaration, the project proposal would not include. expansion of operations at the site
beyond the present daily truck traffic:' Expanded access to the south dock bays would only allow the
facility to operate in a more efficient manner by r~ducing existing trailer movement. ,Access to the
projeCt site is proposed to also remain via the existing truck route on streets within the industrial
area_ No traffic lmpactsare anticipated. ,', . . . " . .
1_~
Page 4 I Item:
Meeting Date: 11/30/05
Noise
Noise concerns by residents of the Chula Vista Mobile Home Park to south, resulted in the City
Council imposing restriction of use of the south facing bay doors during the nighttime hours as the
time they approved the project in 1973. Conditions have changed since that time including the
buildout of the industiial park to the south and east, which has helped to buffer the truck terminal
from mobile home park residents and reduced potential for noise is that direction. In addition, the 54
Freeway has been constructed since the CUP was approved and is a noise generator for the
surrounding area.
The applicant has indicated that a modification of Condition No.3 is needed to conduct more
efficient operations in order to serve customer demands for shipping services. It is their opinion that,
by increasing the operation efficiency, the removal of current restrictions on the south side bay doors
could actually result in a reduction in noise on the south side of the facility as well as the overall
facility during nighttime hours. This could further result in less impact to homes to the southeast of
the site.
The applicants rationale for the proposal is that the expanded access to the south docking bays will
reduce the number of times trailers are moved on the site resulting in more efficient operations and a
reduction ill nighttime noise from the facility. 'Presently, when there are no available docks, the
detached trailers are parked until a docking bay becomes available for loading and/or unloading. No
increase in truck traffic entering the facility is anticipated due the proposed CUP modification and no
physical changes to the facilitY are proposed. Proposed condition of approval number 1 addresses
the acceptable level of truck activity (See Attachment 6)
'..
~; ,
An. Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista deteimined that the proposed project would
not have a significant effect on the environment. As part of the preparation of the Negative
Dec'laration, a noise report was prepared to assess the impact of the project on the surroUIiding
industrial uses and nearby residential neighborhoods. In response to the comments received,
additional nighttime noise measurements were conducted on the project site and off-site near the
single-family residences. The measurements verified the existing nighttime noise level and
determined that the noise standards during the nighttime hours would not be violated as a result of
the proposal.
Nuisance Noise
The project noise analysis indicates that on-site activities are not anticipated to exceed the applicable
City noise standards; however residents adjacent to the proj ect may perceived on-site activities as a
nuisance noise over intermittent periods oftime. Intermittentnoisesthat currently occur as a result of
permitted industrial activities such as metal plates being lowered, vehicl~ back up bells and forklift
operations were also analyzed. The noise study also concluded that these noises would not Violate
the City's noise regulations. According to the noise analysis, these intermittent nuisance noises
would not violate the City's noise regulations. At the same time, Chapter 19.68 also addresses
nuisance noise and violations and penalties that may ensue :from such.
of. _ II
1-'+
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/30/05
A total oftbree letters in opposition to the project have been received by the City. This opposition is
based primarily upon nuisance noise (see Attachment 5). The properties in question are located
southeast of the proj ect site, and are at the northernmost e.dge near top of 60 foot down slope into the
valley which contains the trucking operation. In an effort to further ameliorate the nuisance noise
concerns of the residents in this area, the proj ect has been conditioned to require rubberized material
to be placed on the loading docks to mitigate any clanging noises associated with the gate of the
truck hitting against the surface of the loading dock.
The applicant has provided information as to the general specifications of the type of dock levelers.
used in their system. Rubber bumpers are currently required on these levelers. A condition of
approval requires that said rubber bumpers be kept in good working order at all times in order to
minimize nuisance noise impacts to the surrounding area.
Limitations on expansion:
The applicant has indicated that the intent oftheir request to modify the exi~ting CUP is in order to
operate more efficiently and safely at this location and that this could lead to an overall reduction in
nighttime noise to the facility. Their intent is not to provide for physical expansion to the site.
However, the applicant is concerned about placing a cap on any possible future expansion of
operations. Staff has worked with the applicant on this concern to determine if there is a way to
minimize the concern over openiri.g of the south facing doors at night and, at the same time, not
restrict their daytime operation or expansion. Because the noise study clearly used a worst case
scenario of 20 truck trips per hour, which would generate a db level approaching the maximum
allowed, staff has determined it necessary to condition the project to limit nighttime activity levels
between the hours;of 10 pm and 7 am on weekdays and between 10 pm and 8 am on weekends per
C~C. ~
Although there are 24 truck b~ys (and 12 doors) located on both the north and south sides of the
truck terminal, there are occasions where the most efficient truck transfer will occur if trucks are
located on opposite ends of the terminal. Under the current restriction, this is not possible, which
results in extra amounts of jostling betWeen trailers.
Further, a proposed condition of approval indicates that in 6 months a report will be prepared for the
Planning Commission describing the operations since this modification was approved. If there are
any nuisance complaints based upon noise or traffic further action may be taken. As a part of this
review, the applicant may request 'at that time for an increase in the number of trucks utilizing the
south facing doors during the nighttime: This may trigger the need for additional environmental
reVIew.
Conclusion
Staffbelieves thaI the applicant's proposal is reasonable and recoi:nmends the Planning Commission
......
I-\)
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/30105
adopt the proposed Resolution PCC-05- 24. This Resolution outlines the provisions for the operation
of the truck terminal operation in a manner compatible with surrounding uses.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Applicants statement ofjustification/Letters in support of proposed modification submitted with appl~cation
3. Negative Declaration
4. Response to comments
5. Letters in opposition to proposed modification
6. Draft Resolution
7. Ownership Disclosure Statement
J:\Planning\Case Files\-05 (FY 04-05)\PCC\Public Hearing\PCC-05-024\Staff Reports\PC\PCC-05-024 Staff Report. doc
"
.,
.0
ATTACHMENT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2005
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Felber - I'm toying with a couple of possibilities here; I believe that they
really want to make this work. It sounds like if we're jostling trucks around much
less at night there's probably going to be less overall noise. The nuisance noise
may still be a problem and I think that's what we're really concerned with. The
ambient noise of the general operation is not really going to be a problem and it
may even get a little bit less with moving so many trucks around.
I'm leaning towards going ahead with a six-month test period. It doesn't matter to
me whether or not it comes back as a business item for us to decide whether or
not we need to have another public hearing, or whether or not we just have
another public hearing. One of the things that I would want to do; I guess I'd ask
staff's advice on this and I don't if its something you have to go back and study or
not. But, if the six-month period works out (I'm not saying you would do this,
but), just in case something like this were to happen; this first six-month period
they could be on their best behavior and once the six-months is over, maybe not
be quite as careful because they know that the approval is not necessarily going
to come back to us. So I guess... would there be any issue with us putting
another condition in it, that basically we went through this test period, but that
even after that, even after this test period goes through and everything seems to
be fine; the neighbors are okay with it; the trucking company's okay with it and it
all seems to be working well, that after that if there are say more than five
complaints in a si,x-month period or whatever reasonable number would be, that
the Planning Commission could review it again and try to figure out what's
causing the problem or rescind the additional hours.
John Schmitz - The answer to your question is that the City has the authority to
pull up any Conditional Use Permit anytime there is a concern that it is no longer
meeting the conditions of approval or may have become a problem and is no
longer compatible with surrounding uses.
Gmr. Felber - So if we added a condition along those lines, that if there were
more complaints than a certain number within a certain period, whatever
reasonable number and period might be; I'm thinking off the top of my head, 5
complaints within a six month period, we could add that condition. If there are
more than 5 complaints it could be brought back to the Commission for
reconsideration.
Jill Milland - There is a condition in the permit as written that allows the City to
modify it upon hearing and notice to the parties and so the Commission at its
discretion can do that at any time. If you want to set that type of standard, you
can direct staff to monitor that and come back to you at any time they have
rE~ceived a certain number of complaints. In addition, the neighbors or anyone in
the area who believes that the applicant is not complying with the conditions, has
the ability to come to the Planning staff and present that evidence and staff can
then set it for a hearing with the Commission at that time. So those are some
options that you have to address that concern. Or you could after six months set
it again for a six-month staff report and consider it again at that time.
Cmr. Felber - I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and accept the six
month test period; at the end of six months we review the results of that six
month period and then during the time between now and then maybe if staff
could at least give their recommendation on what would be a reasonable number
of infractions within some reasonable period, whatever they think that might be
that we could consider at that time. And at that time, we would consider whatever
that condition or restriction might be and then impose whatever the will of the
Commission is at that time.
Cmr. Madrid - Cmr. Felber I would support that, although I'd like to add that it
trigger a public hearing at the six month period.
Cmr. Nordstrom - Madame Chair, could we hear from the balance of the
commissioners before we consider the motion.
Several observation; it appears to me that the applicant is certainly going well
above and beyond what would be normal as far as trying to be good neighbors;
that's #1. and I applaud you for it. #2. and according to public testimony, they
have been as of late, good neighbors and so I find that also in your favor. In the
one element that I did ask Mr. Welker about, had he sat down with the
management team from GI Trucking...when it comes to good neighbor policy, my
recommendation is that the management team go knock on some doors. and
invite your neighbors to your facility so that they know what's going on inside
your facility, they have a better idea of what GI Trucking does. As well as the
management team going to their living room to hear what it is they have to live
with because then you truly get a true picture of what it is that they are facing in
your neighborhood. And so, if we as a body allow a six-month test to go on, then
I think that you all at least have come to the table and understand all of the
predicaments.
Cmr. Tripp - Initially I had an issue with the first finding "... that the proposed use
at the location is necessary, desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community..."
Understanding that this is a Limited Industrial Zone and apparently the 24 hour
truck operation, understanding it needs a CUP is on its face not compatible with
an adjacent residential zone or the Limited Industrial Zone designation and its
only by complying with conditions imposed on a CUP that we can find it to be
compatible. I'm encouraged that the freeway is there; I'm encouraged that Mrs.
Welker felt that the management had been responsive to some degree with the
six month trial period sort of speak, that coming back as a public hearing I am
able to support the finding and I'd just like to encourage the neighbors that if you
feel there. is a legitimate noise impact in the area, I don't think a private
consultant cost a lot of money to measure the noise level between 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. Six months from now if you came in with some factual, objective
information that helped your point that the use itself 24 hrs. a day is incompatible,
I'd consider changing my perspective, but other than that I can support it.
Chair Madrid - Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Cmr. Homm - Initially I probably was not going to go the way of the trucking
company, but Ms. Maidman,. you convinced me of how you are of being a good
neighbor. I encourage you to stick with it because if it comes back in six months
and the neighbors are upset, I would definitely not support it at all. I will also
support the motion
Chair Madrid - Motion carries unanimously (6-0)
Commission DiscaJlssion:
Cmr. Felber - I'm toying with a couple of possibilities here; I believe that they
really want to make this work. It sounds like if we're jostling trucks around much
less at night there's probably going to be less overall noise. The nuisance noise
may still be a problem and I think that's what we're really concerned with. The
ambient noise of the general operation is not really going to be a problem and it
may even get a little bit less with moving SQ many trucks around.
I'm leaning towards going ahead with a six-month test period. It doesn't matter to
me whether or not it comes back as a business item for us to decide whether or
not we need to have another public hearing, or whether or not we just have
another public hearing. One of the things that I would want to do; I guess I'd ask
staffs advice on this and I don't if its something you have to go back and ,study or
not. But, if the six-month period works out (I'm not saying you would do this,
but), just in case something like this were to happen; this first six-month period
they could be on their best behavior and once the six-months is over, maybe not
be quite as careful because they know that the approval is not necessarily going
to come back to us. So I guess... would there be any issue with us putting
another condition in it, that basically we went through this test period, but that
even after that, even after this test period goes through and everything seems to
be fine; the neighbors are okay with it; the trucking company's okay with it and it
all seems to be working well, that after that if there are say more than five
complaints in a six-month period or whatever reasonable number would be, that
the Planning Commission could review it again and try to figure out what's
causing the problem or rescind the additional hours.
J.ohn Schmitz - The answer to your question is that the City has the authority to
pull up any Conditional Use Permit anytime there is a concern that it is no longer
meeting the conditions of approval or may have become a problem and is no
longer compatible with surrounding uses.
Gmr. Felber - So if we added a condition along those lines, that if there were
more complaints than a certain number within a certain period, whatever
reasonable number and period might be; I'm thinking off the top of my head, 5
complaints within a six month period, we could add that condition. If there are
more than 5 complaints it could be brought back to the Commission for
reconsideration.
Jill Milland - There is a condition in the permit as written that allows the City to
modify it upon hearing and notice to the parties and so the Commission at its
discretion can do that at any time. If you want to set that type of standard, you
can direct staff to monitor that and come back to you at any time they have
received a certain number of complaints. In addition, the neighbors or anyone in
the area who believes that the applicant is not complying with the conditions, has
the ability to come to the Planning staff and present that evidence and staff can
then set it for a hearing with the Commission at that time. So those are some
options that you have to address that concern. Or you could after six months set
it again for a six-month staff report and consider it again at that time.
Cmr. Felber - I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and accept the six
month test period; at the end of six months we review the results of that six
month period and then during the time between now and then maybe if staff
could at least give their recommendation on what would be a reasonable nUfT1ber
of infractions within some reasonable period, whatever they think that might be
that we could consider at that time. And at that time, we would consider whatever
that condition or restriction might be and then impose whatever the will of the
Commission is at that time.
Cm!". Madrid - Cmr. Felber I would support that, although I'd like to add that it
trigger a public hearing at the six month period.
Gmr. Nordstrom - Madame Chair, could we hear from the balance of the
commissioners before we consider the motion.
Several observation; it appears to me that the applicant is certainly going well
above and beyond what would be normal as far as trying to be good neighbors;
that's #1. and I applaud you for it. #2. and according to public testimony, they
have been a~ of late, good neighbors and so I find that also in your favor. In the
one element that I did ask Mr. Welker about, had he sat down with the
management team from GI Trucking...when it comes to good neighbor policy, my
recommendation is that the management team go knock on some doors and
invite your neighbors to your facility so that they know what's going on inside
your facility, they have a better idea of what GI Trucking does. As well as the
management team going to their living room to hear what it is they have to live
with because then you truly get a true picture of what it is that they are facing in
your neighborhood. And so, if we as a body allow a six-month test to go on, then
I think that you all at least have come to the table and understand all of the
predicaments.
Cmr. Tripp - Initially i had an issue with the firstfinding "...that the proposed use
at the location is necessary, desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the genera! we/I-being of the neighborhood or the community...}J
Understanding that this is a Limited Industrial Zone and apparently the 24 hour
truck operation, understanding it needs a CUP is on its face not compatible with
an adjacent residential zone or the Limited Industrial Zone designation and its
only by complying with conditions imposed on a CUP that we can find it to be
compatible. I'm encouraged that the freeway is there; I'm encouraged that Mrs.
Welker felt that the management had been responsive to some degree with the
six month trial period sort of speak, that coming back as a public hearing I am
able to support the finding and I'd just Jike to encourage the neighbors that if you
feel there. is a legitimate noise impact in the area, J don't think a private
consultant cost a lot or money to measure the noise level betvveen 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. Six months from now if you came in with some factual, objective
information that helped your point that the use itself 24 hrs. a day is incompatible,
I'd consider changing my perspective, but other than that I can support it.
Chair Madr~d - Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Cmr. Homm - InitiaJ/y j probably was not going to go the way of the trucking
company, but Ms. Maidman,. you convinced me of how you are of being a good
neighbor. I encourage you to stick with it because if it comes back in six months
and the neighbors are upset, I would definitely not support it at all. I will also
support the motion
Chair Madrid - Motion carries unanimously (6-0)
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Felber - I'm toying with a couple of possibilities here; I believe that they
really want to make this work. It sounds like if we're jostling trucks around much
less at night there's probably going to be less overall noise. The nuisance noise
may still be a problem and I think that's what we're really concerned with. The
ambient noise of the general operation is not really going to be a problem and it
may even get a little bit less with moving so many trucks around.
I'm leaning towards going ahead with a six-month test period. It doesn't matter to
me whether or not it comes back as a business item for us to decide whether or
not we need to have another public hearing, or whether or not we just have
another public hearing. One of the things that I would wanUo do; I guess I'd ask
staff's advice on this and I don't if its something you have to go back and study or
not. But, if the six-month period works out (I'm not saying you would do this,
but), just in case something like this were to happen; this first six-month period
they could be on their best behavior and once the six-months is over, maybe not
be quite as careful because they know that the. approval is not necessarily going
to come back to us. So I guess... would there be any issue with us putting
another condition in it, that basically we went through this test period, but that
even after that, even after this test period goes through and everything seems to
be fine; the neighbors are okay with it; the trucking company's okay with it and it
all seems to be working well, that after that if there are say more than five
complaints in a six-month period or whatever reasonable number would be, that
the Planning Commission could review it again and try to figure out what's
causing the problem or rescind the additional hours.
John Schmitz - The answer to your question is that the City has the authority to
pull up any Conditional Use Permit anytime there is a concern that it is no longer
meeting the conditions of approval or may have become a problem and is no
longer compatible with surrounding uses.
Gmr. Felber - So if we added a condition along those lines, that if there were
more complaints than a certain number within a certain period, whatever
reasonable number and period might be; I'm thinking off the top of my head, 5
complaints within a six month period, we could add that condition. If there are
more than 5 complaints it could be brought back to the Commission for
reconsideration.
Jill Mil/and - There is a condition in the permit as written that allows the City to
modify it upon hearing and notice to the parties and so the Commission at its
discretion can do that at any time. If you want to set that type of standard, you
can direct staff to monitor that and come back to you at any time they have
received a certain number of complaints. In addition, the neighbors or anyone in
the area who believes that the applicant is not complying with the conditions, has
the ability to come to the Pfanning staff and present that evidence and staff can
then set it for a hearing with the Commission at that time. So those are some
options that you have to address that concern. Or you could after six months set
it again for a six-month staff report and consider it again at that time.
Cmr. Felber - I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and accept the six
month test period; at the end of six months we r~view the results of that six
month period and then during the time between now and then maybe if staff
could at least give their recommendation on what would be a reasonable number
of infractions within some reasonable period, whatever they think that might be
that we could consider at that time. And at that time, we would consider whatever
that condition or restriction might be and then impose whatever the will of the
Commission is at that time.
Cmr. Madrid - Cmr. Felber I would support that, although I'd like to add that it
trigger a public hearing at the six month period.
Cmr. Nordstrom - Madame Chair, could we hear from the balance of the
commissioners before we consider the motion.
Several observation; it appears to me that the applicant is certainly going well
above and beyond what would be normal as far as trying to be good neighbors;
that's #1. and I applaud you for it. #2. and according to public testimony, they
have been as of late, good neighbors and so I find that also in your favor. In the
one element that I did ask Mr. Welker about, had he sat down with the
management team from GI Trucking...when it comes to good neighbor policy, my
recommendation is that the management team go knock on some doors and
invite your neighbors to your facility so that they know what's going on inside
your facility, they have a better idea of what GI Trucking does. As well as the
management team going to their living room to hear what it is they have to live
with because then you truly get a true picture of what it is that they are facing in
your neighborhood. And so, if we as a body allow a six-month test to go on, then
I think that you all at least have come to the table and understand all of the
predicaments.
Cmr. Tripp - Initially I had an issue with .the first finding"... that the proposed use
at the location is necessary, desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community..."
Understanding that this is a Limited Industrial Zone and apparently the 24 hour
truck operation, understanding it needs a CUP is on its face not compatible with
an adjacent residential zone or the Limited Industrial Zone designation and its
only by complying with conditions imposed on a CUP that we can find it to be
compatible. I'm encouraged that the freeway is there; I'm encouraged that Mrs.
Welker felt that the management had been responsive to some degree with the
six month trial period sort of speak, that coming back as a public hearing I am
able to support the finding and I'd just like to encourage the neighbors that if you
fee! there is a legitimate noise impact in the area, I don't think a private
consultant cost a lot of money to measure the noise level between 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. Six months from now if you came in with some factual, objective
information that helped your point that the use itself 24 hrs. a day is incompatible,
I'd consider changing my perspective, but other than that I can support it.
Chair Madrid - Okc;lY, we have a motion on the floor.
Cmr. Homm - Initially I probably was not going to go the way of the trucking
company, but Ms. Maidman,. you convinced me of how you are of being a good
neighbor. I encourage you to stick with it because if it comes back in six months
and the neighbors are upset, I would definitely not support it at all. I will also
support the motion
Chair Madrid - Motion carries unanimously (6-0)
ATTACHMENT 7
OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM
,
e
~V~.
-.-
r__ :- .=
CIlY OF
CHUIA VlsrA
p ., ann j n g
& B u i I. din g
Planning .Division
O' e par t m. e n t'-
Development Processing
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon' matters that will. require_discretionary action by the Cou~cil
Planning Commission and all other official bqdies of the City,' a stateri}ent of disclosure of certain ownership o~ fInanQiai .
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chul,a Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed: .
1. List the nameS of all persons having a financial interest in the prope'rty that is the subject of the application or the
contra,::t, e.g., owner, applicaf}t, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. '
C.l. Trucking Comp~ny
2. If any' person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
See Attachment" .
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organiza'tion or trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organi,zation or as trustee or beneficiary or tru~tor of the trust.
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or. independent contractors you have
. assigned to represent you qefore the City in this matter, .
'.
.~ ;"
Linda A. ~ernhardt
Recoil_Engineering
"~ .
Angela Mai4ment
Patrick Lynch
. 5. Has any person* associated :f(th this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chura
Vista as it relate's to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No-L '.
. .
If Yes, ~rieffy describe the' nature of the financial interest the official** may have in.this contract.
6. Have yoo made a contribution of more than $250. within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Councif? No ~ Y~s~ If yes, whi,?h Council member?
275 Fourth ,l>-.vefltJE'
Chula Vista ! California
1-53
91910
(619) 691-5101
,
ATTACHMENT
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in :the business
(corporation/partnership) entity.
Officers
William T. Reid
John H. Wood, Jr.
Henry R. Stevens
Francis Glidwell
Stan LoVell
President
CFO/Secretary/Treasurer
V.P. Operations
V.P. Sales
. V.P. Safety.&Maintenance
Directors
William T. Reid
Henry R. Stevens
Robey Estes, Jr.
Billy Hupp
Steve Hupp
,,1"
~J
.~
..
~'t
j
t ~
~..
.
City Of Chula Vista
Disclosure Statement - Page 2-
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item.of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelye (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes No-L
If Yes, which offitial** and what ,<<as the nature of item provided?
Date:
11- '-(-Dr
~a~~
. Signature of Contractor/Applicant
. Linda A. .Bernhardt
Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant
Person is defined as: any individual, firm. ~o-partnership, joint 'venture, association, social club, fratemal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate; any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. .
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council memb~r, Planning Commissi(?ner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members:
..(
..
,.:,~
:,
t ,"
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista.
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
Page 1 of I
~~\f-
-\0 r- --- <
:\....~..~/. ~----.......--
~~'( \\ \\
G" ~
~
~\~
\ \_--- ~
~~
~
"J'.
~DC \
~
'<.
\1 L i 0
l J~bo
III G d
http://cvmapper/output/umapit_CVMAPPER3 70416127025 .jpg
07/19/2006