Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/01/27 Item 7CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT t ~Y. y -- - ~ C ULA VISTA Item Meeting Date: 1/27/09 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AFFIRMING THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S ACTION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-08-020), TO OPERATE A SMALL REPLANET RECYCLING BUY BACK CENTER LOCATED AT 1315 THIl2D AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager/Development Services Directo~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage (4/S Vote: Yes_ No X~ SUMMARY Consideration of PCC-08-020A filed by TOMRA Pacific, Inc. appealing the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation's (CVRC) decision to deny Conditional Use Permit (CUP) PCC-08- 020 to operate a small recycling redemption center located a[ 1315 Third Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recycling redemption center has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and staff has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Resolution denying the application for Conditional Use Permit (PCC-08- 020) based on the finding of facts described in Attachment 2 -City Council Resolution. DISCUSSION Backeround In 2007, the City Council directed staff to investigate the recycling center following a citizen's complaint to the Council about the number of transients who loiter daily around the rePlanet Recycling Redemption Center, owned and operated by TOMRA Pacific, Inc., located at the Sav- A-Lot parking lot at 1315 Third Avenue. During the investigation, staff discovered that there 7-1 Date, Item No.: Meeting Date:l-27-09 Page 2 of 6 had been a recycling operation in the same location for many yeazs beginning with 20/20 Recycling, which obtained a conditional use permit in 1988. According to TOMRA, the rePlanet recycling center was established in 2002 in the same location. Notably, the rePlanet center is a different type of recycling center in terms of size, equipment and operation. CVMC Section 19.58.345 requires a modification to the CUP in effect or a new CUP, neither of which have been approved. The citizen complaint of the recycling center resulted in the opening of a Code Enforcement case. Staff has subsequently been working with the applicant to obtain the required CUP. The recycling center was initially processed administratively because it met Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) requirements. However, during the public noticing period, staff received written objections from residents who reside in the azea. Staff held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the issues and the potential for other location options, but the residents were opposed to the center being located anywhere in the vicinity because of the following concerns: • Offensive odors from trash and urinating and defecating against the wall adjacent to the apartments by transients • Unreasonable noise from glass smashing and crushing and altercations between transients • Trash dumped on the lawn of the apartment property to sort out recyclable items before going to the recycling center • Transients leave their shopping carts along the curb in front of the apartments • Trespassing by transients seazching for recyclable items on residential property • Other security concerns According to the Park Palomar Apartment manager, some residents moved out because of this activity and the police have responded to several calls to the vicinity of the recycling center as well. The Zoning Administrator elevated the project to a public hearing before the CVRC as permitted by the CVMC. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the CVRC on November 13, 2008. At that meeting, the applicant requested a continuance, which the CVRC granted to a date certain December 11, 2008. On December 11, 2008, the CVRC held a public hearing and heazd testimony from citizens and the applicant. After closing the public hearing, the CVRC voted 4-0-3 with three CVRC Boazd Members absent, to deny the recycling redemption center. TOMRA Pacific, Inc. has appealed .the decision of the CVRC to the City Council. Proiect Description The project site is in the north pazking lot for the Sav-a-Lot store located at 1315 Third Avenue and adjacent to Palomaz Street, in southwestern Chula Vista, within the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project azea. The site is level and represents approximately 500 squaze feet of a 2.45- acre lot (See Attachment 2 -Locator, and Attachment 3 -Aerial Photo). The existing land uses on and adjacent to the subject site, as well as the land use designations, aze shown in the table below. 7-2 Date, Item No.: Meeting Datea-27-09 Page 3 of 6 General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Uses Site Commercial Retail (CR) Central Commercial (CC) Sav-a-Lot Central Commercial, Precise Commercial, North Mixed-use Residential (MUR) plan (CCP) 1 SFR, East Residential High (RH) Apaztrnent Residential (R-3) Residential South Commercial Retail (CR) Central Commercial (CC) Retail West Commercial Retail (CR) Central Commercial - Precise Retail Plan CCP) The rePlanet recycling center consists of two roll-off mobile containers behind a small building fagade used to collect recyclable items that qualify for California Redemption Value. The center operates by receiving recyclable items from patrons in exchange for a voucher receipt. In turn, patrons can redeem the voucher in the Save-a-Lot store. The facility is open for business daily from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and operated by an on-site, rePlanet uniformed staff. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.345 states that recycling centers may be permitted with a conditional use permit in commercial or industrial zones, and within a convenience zone identified by the state of California Department of Resources, under the Califomia Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. A convenience zone is typically ahalf--mile radius azound a supermarket. In this case, the Sav-a-Lot market is within a convenience zone. The City is not mandated by the state to approve such centers. TOMRA Pacific, Inc. Appeal On January 26, 2009 TOMRA Pacific, Inc, submitted an appeal, alleging the following: 1) TOMRA Pacific, Inc.: "The CVRC's findings for denial of the Use Permit are inadequate as they are not supported by evidence in the administrative record." Staffs response: The CVRC's findings for denial aze supported by substantial evidence as outlined in Resolution 2008-007, more specifically: Finding 1-19.14.080(A) states: "That the proposed use at this location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community." The findings of fact in the attached CVRC Resolution state that the recycling center is undesirable in the azea because many residents have raised concerns about transients who loiter azound the center bringing and leaving shopping carts, trespassing, rummaging through trash receptacles, and stealing recyclable items from private property. Residents have called the Police Department several times to the azea and the police reports indicate that these incidences were in the azea of the recycling center. 7-3 Date, Item No.: Meeting Date:l-27-09 Page 4 of 6 Staff received petitions from residents residing in the azea who oppose the center. Staff held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the issues and the potential for other location options, but the residents were opposed to the center being located anywhere in the vicinity because of the following concerns: • Offensive odors from trash and urinating and defecating against the wall adjacent to the apartments by transients • Unreasonable noise from glass smashing and crushing and altercations between transients • Trash dumped on the lawn of the apartment property to sort out recyclable items before going to the recycling center • Transients leave their shopping carts along the curb in front of the apartments • Trespassing by transients seazching for recyclable items on residential property • Other security concerns According to the Pazk Palomaz Apartment manager, some residents moved out because of this activity and, as discussed above, the police have responded to several calls to the vicinity of the recycling center as well. Finding 2 -19.14.080(B) states: "That such use will, under the circumstances of the particulaz case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfaze of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity." The CVRC found the recycling center to be a detriment to the surrounding community. The residents in the azea have continual concerns for the negative activities associated azound the recycling center including offensive odors from trash and transients urinating and defecating against the wall adjacent to the apartments; unreasonable noise from glass smashing and crushing; and loud altercations among transients; trash dumped on residential property; transients leaving shopping carts along the curb in front of the adjacent apartments; transients trespassing on residential property in seazch of recyclable items; and other security concerns. Finding 3 -19.14.080(C) states: "That the proposed use will comply with the regulations specified in the code for such use." Although the use complies with all City zoning and building regulations, this is a discretionary action, and as pazt of the discretionary review, aspects of siting the recycling center must be considered including potential impacts to the health, safety and well being of persons living and working in the vicinity. The center has attracted transients to its location frequently resulting in the undesirable activities identified in Findings 1 and 2. Finding 4 - 19.14.080(C) states: "That denial of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City and the Urban Core Specific Plan." Although the recycling center conforms to the City of Chula Vista General Plan land use designation and development standazds for such uses as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, it 7-4 Date, Item No.• ~' Meeting Date:l-27-09 Page 5 of 6 conflicts with General Plan Land Use and Transportations Element (LUT) Objective 35, "Revitalize and protect existing stable residential neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area from adverse land use impacts" and LUT Policy 35.4 "Focus on historic preservation; safety and security; and code enforcement efforts within older neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area." The center impacts Objective 35 because the residents aze subjected to various actions and activities, stated in Finding 2, by transients who frequent the recycling center and the surrounding azea. The recycling center, at its location, also impacts Policy 35.4 because there have been many calls for service by residents for Chula Vista Police response to investigate disturbances, and has impacted Code Enforcement efforts to bring the Project into compliance. 2) TOMRA Pacific, Inc.: "TOMRA's Recycling Center easily satisfies all of the fmdings under City Municipal Code section 19.14.080 necessary for the CVRC to grant the Use Permit." Staffs response: TOMRA did not provide any evidence contrary to the CVRC's fmdings. However, at the public hearing several members of the public came and spoke in support of the recycling center, stating that the center is an asset to the neighborhood because it provides a convenient location for their recycling needs. However, neighbors immediately adjacent to the center also provided testimony to the CVRC to the contrary that indicated the center was not desirable as discussed under Findings 1 and 2 above. 3) TOMRA Pacific, Inc.: "The CVRC's denial of the Use Permit was arbitrary and capricious and therefore a violation of TOMRA's constitutional rights, under inter alia, substantive due process rights." Staff s response: Staff provided due process by analyzing the CUP application in accordance with Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance); including staff review of the project, and holding a neighborhood meeting where the applicant and public were provided an opportunity to present their position on the issues and discuss solutions to identified impacts. Following the public meeting, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the CVRC on November 13, 2008. At that hearing, the applicant requested a continuance, which the CVRC granted to a date certain December 11, 2008. At the December 11, 2008 hearing,the applicant was given the opportunity and did present their position. Members of the public were also given an opportunity and did speak at the hearing. In addition, the applicant is exercising due process by appealing the project to the City Council. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no member has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is the subject of this action. 7-5 Date, Item No.: Meeting Date:l-27-09 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION Staff is recommending denial because the findings can be made that the project would be a detriment to the health and welfaze to the surrounding residential neighborhood, as outlined in the attached City Council Resolution. Attachments: 1. Locator Map 2. TOMRA Pacific, Inc Appeal Form 3. CVRC Resolution Adopted on 12/13/08 4. CVRC 12/13/08 Minutes 5. Petitions/Letters from Citizens 7-6 L:1Gabe Fles~ocatorslP0008020.cdr 04.03.08 ~`~~~ DEC 19 2008 r~r CHUL~,4VISTA PLC` ,,~ ~~~ / ~~~ JAN 0 6 2009 Appeal the decision of the: I Administrator ~ oLANNING ^ Design Review Committee ---'- ® Planning Commission (C.v.R.c.) Application Information Name of Appellant: TOMRA PAC1P-te, lac. /~" ~lzy - T is_ RECEi~IED,~~~~~~ . i I d i n,,F D P~~p a r t m e n t ir"~Di~io4L ~ ~ede~opment Processing fITY OFA ~T' LIGATION FORM CITY CLERK'S O~i-l~ Phone No. (951) 520-1700 '~~' Home Address: Business Address: 15o xlug circle, corona, CA 92880 Project AddreSS: 1315 Third Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 91911 Project Description: conditional use Permit No. Pcc-o8-o20 (E~ample: zone change, variance, conditional use permit, design review, etc.) Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are appealing. Attach additional sheets, if necessary. TOMRA atloeals the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation's ("CVRC") denial of TOMRA's application for Conditional Use Permit No. PCC-08-020 ("Use Permit"), to ooerate a small beverage container recycling and redemption center ("Recjccllag Center"), in the parking lot area of the Sav-a-Lot shopping center located at 1315 Third Avenue in the Citv of Chula Vista based upon the following ¢rounds: (17 the CVRC"s findings for denial of the Use Permit ,are inadequate as they are not supported by evidence in the administrative record; (2) TONIItA's ]3ec5c1inA Center easily satisfies all of the findings under Citv Municipal Code section •19.14.080 necessary for the CVRC to grant the Use Permit; and (3) the CVRC's denial of the Use Permit was arbitrary and capricieus and therefore a violation of TOTIIL9's constitutional ri hts, inter olio substantive due rocess ri hts. 5ub'ect to further investi ation TOMRA resew s he ig o aise additional grounds for appea othe~ those set forth above. o Signature f Appellan _ _ _ - - - Date- ----- ----------- DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: ^ Planning Commission ^ City Council on Planning Commission Secretary City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue ~ Chula Vista ~ 4dlifprnia ~ 97910 ~ (679) 691-5107 CVRC RESOLUTION N0. 2008-007 RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC- 08-020), TO OPERATE A SMALL REPLANET RECYCLING BUY BACK CENTER LOCATED AT 1315 THIF2D AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WZ~REAS, the parcel, which is the subject matter of this resolution, i represented in Attachment 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is located at 1315 Third Avenue, Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, on Mazch 27, 2008, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-08-020) was filed with the City of Chula Vista on behalf of Tomaz Pacific, Incorporated (Applicant) to operate a recycling buy back center consisting of two 8' x 20' roll-off containers and a small building facade used to collect recyclable items that qualify for CRV (California Redemption Value) at the north parking lot of the Save-a-Lot store, located at 1315 Third Avenue (Project); and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and based on this review the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, toge~her with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least tea (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application at the time and place as advertised, namely November I3, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and said hearing was thereafter closed; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: The Project and Conditional Use Permit (PCC-08-020) aze denied based on the following finding of facts in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.080: That the proposed use at this location is not necessary or desirable to pro~ride a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. 7-9 ATTA/+LJ~AGAIT ~ CVRC Resolution 2008-007 Pale 2 The Project is undesirable in the area because many residents adjacent to, and within the vicinity of the recycling center have raised concerns about the transients who loiter azound the center bringing and leaving shopping carts, trespassing, n,m,,,a~ ng hough trash receptacles, and stealing recyclable items from private property. Resideau have called the Police Department several times to the azea because the evidence indicates that these incidences are associated with the recycling center. The applicant searched for other potential locations in other commercial and industrial areas away from residential areas, but storeowners and landlords would not consider siting the recycling center on their property. Based on this, the Project would negatively contribute to the general well being of the community. 2. That such use will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfaze of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The Project will be a detriment to the residents in the azea because of the continual negative activities associated with the recycling center including offensive odors from trash and transients urinating and defecating against the wall adjacent to the apartrnents; unreasonable noise from glass .smashing and crushing; fighting and yelling among transients; trash dumped on residential property; transients leaving shopping carts along the curb in front of the adjacent apartments; transients trespassing on residential property is search of recyclable items; and security concerns. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations specified in the code for such use. The Project and its location, complies v~ith the applicable regulations and standazds specified in the Municipal Code for recycling center use. Although the use complies with till City zoning and building regulations, this is a discretionary action, and as part of the discretionary review, aspects of the Project must be considered including potential impact's to the health, safety and well being of persons living and working in the vicinity. As stated in Findings 1 and 2, the Project is a detriment to the surrounding community therefore, the Project should be denied. 4. That denial of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City and the Urban Core Specific Plan. Although the Project conforms to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Project conflicts with General Plan Land Use and Transportations Element (LUT) Objective 35, "Revitalize and protect existing stable residential neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area from adverse land use impacts" and LUT Policy 35.4 "Focus on historic preservation; safety and security; and code enforcement efforts within older neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area" The Project impacts Objective 35 because the residents aze subjected to various actions and activities, stated in Finding 2, by transients who frequent the recycling center and the surrounding area. The Project impacts Policy 35.4 because there have been many calls for service for Chula Vista Police response by residents to investigate disturbances in the Project vicinity. The Project also impacts Policy 35.4 because Code Enforcement efforts within older neighborhoods within the Southwest Planning Area are being impacted by continuing attempts to bring the Project into compliance. 7-10 CVRC Resolurion 2008-007 Page 3 Presented by G. / /.~ Eric Crockett /0. Redevelopment and Rousing Assistant Director ~ PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, this 11th day of December, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Directors: Directors: Directors: Directors: None Desrochers, Reyes, Sa1as, and Lewis None Munoz, Paul. Rooney ATTEST: ric C. Crockett, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUN'T'Y OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA C G`~~UaLaoA~~~/`S ~' ~ v°ao9 ~ c° CVRC $ o g c O6/1S~0 2 oQ O5 O ~ t~~ °4cb~a°° ~P ~~NT CORQO I, Eric C. Crockett, Secretary of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporaion of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Resolution No. 2008-007 was d•,ily passed, approved, and adopted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of the Chula V-ista Redevelopment Corporation held on the 11th day of December 2008. Executed this 11th day of December 2008. ~C Eric C. Crockett, Secretary 7-11 Approved as to form by DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) December 11, 2008 6:00 P..M. The Regulaz Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Desrochers, Reyes, Salas and Chair Lewis ABSENT: Directors: Munoz, Paul, and Rooney ALSO PRESENT: Interim Executive Director/Interim City Manager Tulloch, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett, Planning and Building Director Halbert, Development Planning Manager Ladiana, Senior Planner Walker, Senior Planner Tapia, Associate Planner Zumwalt, Environmental Services Program Manager France, Principal Project Coordinator Lee, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the Regulaz Meeting of November 13, 2008. ACTION: Director Desrochers moved approval of the Consent Calendaz. Director Reyes seconded the motion and it carried unanimously with Directors Munoz, Paul and Rooney absent. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. INTRODUCTION 2. GARY HALBERT, NEW PLANNING & BUILDING DIRECTOR Interim Executive Director Tulloch introduced new Planning & Building Director Halbert and spoke briefly on his work experience and background. Page 1 of 5 CVRC -Minutes -December 11, 2008 7-1 Z nTTnh~J~ACNIT ./ DRAFT PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Lewis announced that Item 5 was legally noticed as a public hearing, but inadvertently listed on the agenda as an action item. TOMRA PACffIC, INC. REPLANET RECYCLING CENTER (PCC-08-020) Public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit for a small recycling buy-back center in the Sav-a-Lot parking lot located at 1315 Third Avenue in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. This item was continued from the meeting of November 13, 2008. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Development Planning Manager Ladiana introduced the item, and Senior Planner VJaiker presented the staff report and responded to questions. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. The following people were present wishing to speak: Maurico Chamat, Chula Vista resident representing Villa Tempra Homeowners Association, comprised of 36 residential units, spoke in opposition to the proposed CUP and presented a petition in opposition signed by 39 people. Theresa Accero, Chula Vista resident spoke in opposition to the proposed CUP. Colleen, Chula Vista resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed CUP and presented petitions signed by 56 people. Frank T{amerro, representing Tomra Pacific, Inc. Replanet Recycling Center spoke in support of the proposed CUP and presented a brief video taken at the site featuring several Chula Vista residents speaking in support of the Center. Clando Brownlee, resident of National City, representing UNYRG - a youth recycling fundraising organization spoke in support of the proposed CUP. Enrique Santabalbine, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of the proposed CUP and was one of the local residents featured in the video. Jose Felix Gazcag, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of the proposed CUP. Maria Garcia, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of the proposed CUP. Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. Page 2 of 5 CVRC -Minutes -December 11, 2008 7-13 DRAFT ACTION: Director Salas moved to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2008-007, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-007, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-08-020), TO OPERATE A SMALL REPLANET RECYCLING BUY BACK CENTER LOCATED AT 1315 THIl2D AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Director Reyes seconded the motion and it carved unanimously with Directors Munoz, Paul and Rooney absent. 4. MOSSY NISSAN Public hearing to consider a request for approval of a Design Review application to permit new commercial construction of a 31,796 sq. ft. Mossy Nissan auto sales and service building located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Main Street and Auto Pazk Avenue. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the heating was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Development Planning Manager Ladiana introduced the item, and Associate Planner Zumwalt presented the staff report and responded to questions. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing. Darrold Davis of CCBG Architects Inc, azchitect for the applicant, responded to questions of the Board. There being no others present wishing to speak; Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. ACTION: Director Desrochers moved to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2008-008 heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-008, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC-08-019), TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 31,796 SQ. FT. AUTO DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND AUTO PARK AVENUE AND AN AUTO STORAGE LOT LOCATED ON AUTO PARK PLACE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Director Salas seconded the motion and it carried unanimously with Directors Munoz, Paul and Rooney absent. Page 3 of 5 CVRC -Minutes -December 11, 2008 7-14 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS Chair Lewis, once again stated that Item 5 was a legally noticed public hearing that had inadvertently been listed on the agenda as an action item. 5. VASQUEZ IlVDUSTRIAL BUILDING (DRC-0702_M) Proposed modifications to the exterior elevations of the previously approved multi-tenant industrial building. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Development Planning Manager Ladiana introduced the item, and Senior Planner Tapia presented the staff report and responded to questions. The following people were present wishing to speak: Theresa Accero, Chula Vista resident representing the Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association, spoke in support of the project. The azchitect representing the Vasquez family responded to the Boazd's questions regazding the process the Vasquez family had gone through and the amount of time and costs incurred. Chair Lewis appointed a subcommittee of Directors Desrochers and Reyes to work with staff and the Vasquez family and their azchitect to get the project done, and to bring a report back after the first of the yeaz. Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. ACTION: Director Desrochers moved to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2008-009 heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION N0. 2008-009, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC-0702M) REQUESTING EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 24,585-SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 144 27~ STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Director Salas seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, with Directors Munoz, Paul and Rooney absent. Page 4 of 5 CVRC -Minutes -December 11, 2008 7-15 DRAFT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS Interim Chief Executive Officer Tulloch reported that the City Council had selected Jim Sandoval as the new City Manager, so this would be his last meeting with the CVRC. He then stated that he had had the opportunity to observe the Boazd members in several capacities since coming to Chula Vista and that he had been continually impressed with the depth and breath of their experience and dedication to Chula Vista and its development. He then wished them well and thanked them for everything they do for the City and expressed his hope that they would be given even more opportunity to do the kinds of things that they want to do for Chula Vista. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS Chair Lewis wished everyone a happy holiday season. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS Director Salas stated that he had spoken with the Director of the City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency regazding tax increment funding for low and mod housing, and the possibility to extend from the 20 years out to 40 years. There may be hope of extending the tax increments to create a funding stream to be used for low mod housing. Director Desrochers proposed a workshop be held in the next month or so on the Bayfront to include the CVRC, City staff, and the Port District. Interim Chief Executive Officer Tulloch stated that a number of things were being done to keep moving forwazd on a bayfront development, and he will pass this interest on to City Manager Sandoval. Director Desrochers inquired of Redevelopment and Housing Assistant Director Crockett, as to the effects of the budget cuts on his department, noting that he would hate to see the City combine Redevelopment & Housing with General Fund so as not to weaken the department. Interim Chief Executive Officer Tulloch provided a brief overview of the estimated City budget shortfalls, noting that people were asking about the loan between the RDA and the General Fund and whether there was a way that the RDA could somehow repay part of it back. Director Salas offered assistance from the CVRC Directors to assist staff in whatever way needed. ADJOURNMENT At 7:53 p.m., Chair Lewis adjourned the meeting to the Regulaz Meeting of January 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. and noted that the December 25, 2008 meeting had been cancelled. Eric Crockett, Secretary Page 5 of 5 CVRC -Minutes -December 11, 2008 7-16 /-- Redevelopme~ Corporation City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2008 Nts~ymber 10, 2008 ..<. Chula Vista, CA 91910 ~~` CpTy ~ CII~A ~g§pA ~ Il~PY RE: Opposition To Project Toms Pacific Recytlip~ C~aSgr (Case PCC-~.02d~ Hearing date of 11/13/2008 @6:OOpm We would h`ke to express our strong opposition to the above mentioned npyciing center adjacent to the Save-a Lot-Store, which is located across from our property, Villa Temgra, located approximately ai Third Avenue and Palomar Street (see phgdQS~. Villa Tempra is a homeowners association consisting of 3b individual town homes founded in 1986. We currently participate in the city's recycling effort as we have two 6- foot white containers deployed in our property (see pictures) and have been highly successful in the effort. We believe that should bethe prefen-ed method of participation for residential properties. To have a collection center located near a community residential complex like Villa Temps encourages the freelance collectors to violate our property rights and trespass omo our grounds in search of recyclables, as we have experienced in the past and continue to experience. Indeed we installed entrance gates last yeaz to prevent these people from entering our property, which at times was at 2 am. In addition to the violation of our security, we also feel threatened by the fact that these individuals rummage thru our garbage, which may incinde discarded sensitive docaments. Since the white containers already have the sorted recyclabies, it is very easy for these people to access them and remove the cans, bottles, and other recyclables, which they can easily turn into cash by simply walldng across the street. These easy pickings provide great incentive for these individuals to trespass onto our property. We expect the city's support in protecting our property. The second reason we oppose the recycling center has to do with the reason given for the project that being that the surrounding supermarkets (of which there are 6 nearby) and other stores which are required to comply wiflt the Recycling Center Act (AB2020), have decided they don't want to inconvenience themselves with having to create an intake and storage area inside their stores. Thus this center will allow them to comply with the law, but they don't realize they are doing so by creating problems for the residential properties in the area. A recycling center of this magnitude goes beyond the reasonable size of what otherwise would be a small area inside each establishment. We expect the city's support in protecting our property. Yours trnty, lj ~14fanrici¢ CJiamat, President on behalf of Recycling Center Surrounding Area Palomaz St. and 3 ve. -Villa Temps HOA 7-17 Lr.. Recycling Center Surrounding Area Palomar~St and 3rd Ave. - Villa "Eempra. HOA f} 7-18 /: Park Palomar A j;J4 24 2~~8 July 22, 2008 244 Palomar Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 619.426.8060 J;i. pl.,gNNING City Zoning Administrator of Chula Vista C/o Michael W. Walker, ProjectPlanner Planning and Building Department, Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Case Number PCC-08-020 a, 1315 Third Avenue Mr; Zoning Administrator I manage• a large apartment property adjacent to the recycling center cwrently being ~~ operated. My business and my residents have been negatively impacted by the recent 'relocation of the recycling center in the north pazking lot of the Save-a-Lot store. -Since the move to the east side of this lot, my residents have had to endwe a great deal of discomforts. There are offensive odors that waft over from the trash and due to customers of the center that urinate and defecate against the wall adjacent to the apattrnents. In addition, there is unreasonable noise from the glass smashing and crashing as well as the fighting and yelling that occurs between the customers of the center. The customers of the center also use my property as a stopping point to dump their trash all over the grass to sort it out prior to bringing it to the center. They leave their shopping carts on my cwb appeal areas in front because they aze not allowed to bring them on the property of the center. I have lost residents because of the close proximity of the center to my apartments and will continue to unless this is resolved. I have implored the property management of the Save-a lot, in the spirit of being a good neighbor, to relocate the center to the west most side of their north lot where there is room, but they refuse. Please remove this burden from my senior citizen residents and the unreasonable interference it has with my ability to conduct business. 7-19 i~ .qty u, zoos Page. 7-20 General Manager - ~ -- _ 7/23/2008 r To: Cc: Subject: re-planet conditional use Dear Mr..Walker, I am at your request Submitting my written complaint about the re-planet recycling center located @ 1315 third ave c.v ca.91911 . my name is Colleen Daley and 1 live at 286 Patamar st.(accross the street from the Palomar st. entrance to save-alot . I have lived here 5 going on 6 years and I have witnessed the kind of people this business attracts. since the first year the re-planet was operating at this address. there are 13 to 20 homeless people who frequent this location on a daily basis .These homeless people steal grocery carts from Target,rite-aid ,cvs pharmacy,wallmart,walgreens are just some of the carts 1 have seen in the Save-alot parking lot and up and down the sidewalk.The homeless people leave there trash in these carts so no-one will take the carts from them . The cart collectors wont take any trash out of the carts due to needles found in them and other drug paraphernalia. in the meantime carts are sometimes scarce. These homeless people steal from yard to yard. I saw a homeless owned pick-up truck out side the re-planet one night about 10 pm .1 called the police but they didn't find anyone at the truck and left. The next day when I woke up and looked out the window I saw police at the re-lanet had been broken into. Union bank has been broken into. the Mailbox located on the sidewalk between save-all an rte-aid has been broken into. I had to get a goose to protect my yard, as a deterrent to homeless sleeping in my yard -but they still got in until I had to put up livestock fencing to keep my,~eese in and the homeless out. 1 went to a city council meeting on 6=07 and asked for the removal of the re-planet but nothing was ever done about it. I went as far as calling Michael Turko at KUSI news and he did a story on the re-planet. Again nothing . I believe that the re-planet needs to be re-located not renewed !!!!!!!!!! I believe we should move the re-planet to the police dept. parking lot so the police have a grip on the re-planet and the drug abusing and alcoholic, trash collecting ,thieves who will steal your recyclables . I have chased them away from my recyclables can. Doesn't that mean they are stealing from the city? or the state? lease reconsid rene the re- planets lease to operate .Please reconsider t e re-planets condiona use Save a copy of this a-mail to my Sent messages folder R ~ /yira~k S ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ d JUN Z ~~S S I ~-~0.~C/l~ http://mail-sg3.msntv.m . om/ap mail/w may ... Page 1/1 ~~1g~1Q~1~1°.~'~' i eu~ Gt,~'ke~s ,~,~~i .~ . ~~~ ~~ .~ J~ 2~ ~~~~u~- July 15, 2008 Michael W. Walker, Project Planner City of Chula Vista Planning and Building/Public Services 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 . JULL 1 2008 PLANNING 12E: Opposition To Project RePlanet Recycling Center (Case PCC-08-020) We would 1~1ce to express our strong opposition to the establishment of the above mentioned recycling center adjacent to the Save-a-Lot-Store, which is located across from our property, Villa Tempra, located approximately at Third Avenue and Palomar Street. Villa Tempra is a homeowners association consisting of 36 individual town homes founded in 1986. We ciarently participate in the city's recycling effort as we have 2 foot white containers deployed in our property and have been hugely successful in the effort We believe that should be the preferred method of participation for residential properties. To have a collection center located near a community residential complex like Villa Temps encourages the freelance collectors to violate our property rights and trespass onto our grounds in search of recyclables, as we have experienced in the past Indeed we installed entrance gates last year to prevem these people from entering our property, which at times was at 2 am. We expect the city's support in protecting our property. Yours truly, The residents ~~~ ~' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~, Temps HOA (1 0 ill em OA, Chula Vista, CA, 91911) ' --- U 1r.~, C ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ,~ 7-23 3elp me get the RePlanet~ relocated. If you would like to see the Replanet relocated please sign this petition. I will submit this petition to the City Counsel meeting in December. The RePlanet is located on the SaveALot parking lot. Site address: 1315 Third Ave}~u~f,Chula Vista CA 9-17911. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # r~:n ~ ~/» YY n.~Y~! . I ~ I 1 ' ~ _ ~ ~ 1 _ [~ ~ I ~ 1 .~ .: ' ; ' ~_~ ` ' i ~. ~. C L ~._ G .. ! ~ f-_~L~..J~ 1 I . _ ^G ~ ~: _ ~ ~ ~i~~ ~ ~ ~i''l~i~l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I r.~lll/ ~ 7l~~.,~~~~ i ' _ , ' i ~y ~ 1 I ' iii ~ -~ - '~~ iu [ 1~ '- _. Si usted quiere ver RePlanet cambiado de Lugar, por favor firme esta petici6n. ~Estas firmas van a ser presentadas en la Junta Consejera de la Ciudad en Diciembre. RePlanet es localizada en el estacionamiento de Save-A-Lot. Direcci6n: 1315 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911. NOMBRE DIRECC16N TELEFONO ( n~ -~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ CCA~G ~~ P ~" ~ ~,(~ If you would like to see the RePlanet relocated ~~' please sign this petition. I will submit this petition ~' to the City Counsel meeting in December. The ~~ RePlanet is located on the SaveALot parking lot. ~~ 1~1 VYl 0 ~-.\ nl Yl ~ ~ ~ ~~ n rl110 ~_ ~~ _. . ,. ' rL ~. ~i~~ rnrl~ a~f one 1 j ~1 lv t1 I:, ~ , ~ a~ ~ ~ Ct~u-c ~ ,y Y , t ~5 S~~s . ~-zs Help me get the RePlanet relocated. If you would like to seethe Replanet relocated please sign this petition. I will submit this petition to the City Counsel meeting in December. The RePlanet is located on the SaveALot pa g lot. S'te a dress: 315 T 'r venue, Chula Vista, CA 91911. :.~ s z Help me get the RePlanet relocated. If you would like to see the Replanet relocated please sign this petition. I will submit this petition to the City Counsel meeting in December. The RePlanet is located on the SaveALot p ,' g lot. to d ss: 1315 Third Avenue, Chula Vi ta, CA 91911. NAME _ ADDRESS PHONE # Help me get the RePlanet relocated. If you would like to see the Replanet relocated please sign this petition. I will submit this petition to the City Counsel meeting in December. The RePlanet is located on the SaveALot parking lot. Site address: 1315 T~hir~~d Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911. NAME ~ ~~~ r1_~-S~},~1(Vti~ PHONE# Help me get the RePlanet relocated. If you would like to see the Replanet relocated please sign this petition. I will submit this petition to the City Counsel meeting in December. The RePlanet is located on the SaveALot parking lot. Site address: 1315 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # RESOLUTION N0.2008- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AFFIRIvIING THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S ACTION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-08-020), TO OPERATE A SMALL REPLANET RECYCLING BUY BACK CENTER LOCATED AT 1315 THIRD AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, the pazcel, which is the subject matter of this resolution, is represented in Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is located at 1315 Third Avenue, Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, on Mazch 27, 2008, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-08-020) was filed with the City of Chula Vista on behalf of TOMRA Pacific, Inc. ("Applicant") to operate a recycling buy back center consisting of two 8' x 20' roll-off containers and a small building fagade used to collect recyclable items that qualify for CRV (California Redemption Value) at the noith pazking lot of the Save-a-Lot store, located at 1315 Thud Avenue ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and based on this review the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation ("CVRC") for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior to the heazing; and WHEREAS, the CVRC held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application at the time and place as advertised, namely November 13, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation. Said hearing was opened and continued as requested by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the CVRC held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application at the time and place as advertised, namely December 11, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and said hearing was thereafter closed, and the CVRC voted 4-0- 3 with three CVRC Board Members absent, to deny said Conditional Use Permit whose decision was appealed by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the appeal; and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and 7-31 CC Resolution 2009- Page 2 WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said appeal .at the time and place as advertised, namely January 27, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: The appeal of Conditional Use Permit (PCC-OS-020) is herby denied based on the following Findings of Fact in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.080: 1. That the proposed use at this location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The Project is undesirable in the azea because many residents adjacent to, and within the vicinity of the recycling center have presented evidence that transients who loiter around the center bring and leave shopping carts, trespass, rummage through trash receptacles, and steal recyclable items from private property. Residents have called the Police Department several times to the azea because the evidence indicates that these incidences are associated with the recycling center. The applicant seazched for other potential locations in other commercial and industrial areas away from residential azeas, but storeowners and landlords would not consider siting the recycling center on their property. Based on this, the Project would negatively contribute to the general well being of the community. 2. That such use will, 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 Project will be a detriment to the residents in the area because of the continual negative activities associated with the recycling center including offensive odors from trash and transients urinating and defecating against the wall adjacent to the apartments; unreasonable noise from glass smashing and crushing; fighting and yelling among transients; trash dumped on residential property; transients leaving shopping carts along the curb in front of the adjacent apartments; transients trespassing on residential property in seazch of recyclable items; and security concerns. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations specified in the code for such use. The Project and its location, complies with the applicable regulations and standazds specified in the Municipal Code for recycling center use. Although the use complies with all City zoning and building regulations, this is a discretionary action, and as part of the discretionary review, aspects of the Project must be considered including potential 7-32 CC Resolution 2009- Page 3 impacts to the health, safety and well being of persons living and working in the vicinity. As stated in Findings 1 and 2, the Project is a detriment to the surrounding community. 4. That denial of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City and the Urban Core Specific Plan. Although the Project conforms to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Project conflicts with General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUT) Objective 35, "Revitalize and protect existing stable residential neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area from adverse land use impacts" and LUT Policy 35.4 "Focus on historic preservation; safety and security; and code enforcement efforts within older neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area." The Project impacts Objective 35 because the residents aze subjected to various actions and activities, stated in Finding 2, by transients who frequent the recycling center and the surrounding azea. The Project also impacts Policy 35.4 because there have been many calls for service for Chula Vista Police response by residents to investigate disturbances, and has impacted Code Enforcement efforts to bring the Project into compliance. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM Gary Halbert ~2B~a Deputy City Manager/Development CJty Services Director 1: W ttomryUvlichaelSh\RePlanetRerycling\SomrzCC•Reso-1.2.09-DCADnft2.doc 7-33