Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2009-103RESOLUTION N0.2009-103 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA UPHOLDING THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S ACTION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-08-020) I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the pazcel, which is the subject matter of this resolution, is represented in Exhibit 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 B. Project Permittee WHEREAS, on March 27, 2008 a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-08-020) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by TOMRA Pacific, Inc. (Permittee); and C. Project Description; Environmental Determination WHEREAS, The Permittee requests permission 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 California Redemption Value (CRV) at the north pazking 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 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. Thus no further environmental review is necessary; and D. Other Boards and Commissions Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Assistant Director of Redevelopment and Housing set a hearing time and place for consideration of the Project by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) 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 hearing; 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. Said hearing was opened and continued as requested by the Permittee; and Resolution Na. 2009-103 Page 2 WHEREAS, the CVRC held the continued noticed public heazing application on December 11, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 27 and said heazing was thereafter closed, and the CVRC voted 4-0-3 with thr Members absent, to deny said Conditional Use Permit whose decision was Permittee; and E. City Council Record on Applications to consider said 6 Fourth Avenue, ee CVRC Board appealed by the WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public heazing 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 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, the City Council continued the appeal public hearing, at the request of the Pennittee, to the March 3, 2009 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council held the continued public hearing to consider said appeal on March 3, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue and at the request of staff and with the Permitee's concurrence, the City Council continued the appeal public heazing to the Mazch 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council held the continued public hearing to consider said appeal on Mazch 17, 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 City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 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 at its location because many residents adjacent to, and within the vicinity of the recycling center have raised concems about the 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 area, and the police found that these incidences are associated with the recycling center. The community in close proximity to the Project has consistently expressed concerns regarding the use for several years. Relocating the Project elsewhere on the premises will not change the perception, problems and concerns of and to the community. The problems aze severe and impacts aze broad on neazby Lauderbach Pazk because the homeless frequent the recycling center, which is in the vicinity of the park. Neighborhood opposition will not change regardless of where the Project is located on the site. Resolution No. 2009-103 Page 3 The Project overtime has proven to be a nuisance to the neighborhood evidence by the numerous complaints to City Council, city staff and the Police Department. The Council needs to protect the property rights of the residents. Due to the numerous complaints and the objectionable conditions associated with the Project there is no opportunity to innocuously achieve an operation of its scale at the current location without having impacts to the neighborhood. The Council finds Sav-A-Lot can meet state requirements by other means without having an externally located recycling center. Businesses must take into consideration nuisances, and undesirable and inappropriate activities caused by their operations on the surrounding residents. Although the Permittee has made some efforts to improve their operations, the problem persists, and the residents continue to be concerned with neighborhood safety and decline. Based on this, the Project will 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 and workers in the area because of the continual negative activities associated with the recycling center for the following reasons: offensive odors from trash and transients urinating and defecating against the wall adjacent to the apartments located in the Project's vicinity; 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 on the shopping center's premises, neazby businesses and commercial uses, thereby impacting the health, safety and general welfaze for the community. 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 Municipal Code section 19.58.345(B) for recycling center use. Although the use complies with City zoning and building regulations, this is a discretionary action pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.14.080, and as part of the discretionazy review, certain aspects and findings associated with the Project aze required to be considered including potential impacts to the health, safety and well being of persons living and working in the vicinity. As stated in Findings 1 and 2 above, the Project has been found to be a detriment to the surrounding community. 4. That denial of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. Resolution No. 2009-103 Page 4 The Project would not implement the General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUT) Objective 35 which states, "Revitalize and protect existing stable residential neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area from adverse land use impacts" and LUT Policy 35.4 which states "Focus on historic preservation; safety and security; and code enforcement efforts within older neighborhoods in the Southwest Planning Area." The Project would not implement 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 would also not implement Policy 35.4 because there have been many calls for service to the Chula Vista Police by residents to investigate disturbances, and has impacted Code Enforcement efforts to bring the Project into compliance. In regazds to the vision stated in the General Plan (2005) and Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan (2004) for the redevelopment efforts of this azea and the changes towazd the betterment of the neighborhood the City Council finds that the Project is counter-productive in that it does not have a positive effect in the azea, and will have a negative effect on long-term redevelopment objectives for the area as the neighborhood is trying to improve with new development. The Project does not fit into the redevelopment azea's broader vision because the problems associated with the Project's current location aze too severe. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it hereby upholds the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation's action denying Conditional Use Permit (PCC-08-020). Presented by Deputy Services Approved as to form by Resolution No. 2009-103 Page 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 17th day of March 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Bensoussan, Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Cheryl Cox a or ATTEST: /~ ~ ~ / rOhh..di Donna R. Norris, CMC, Crty Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Donna R. Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2009-103 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 17th day of Mazch 2009. Executed this 17th day of March 2009. ~~~ ~~~ Donna R. Noms, CMC, City Clerk Resolution No. 2009-103 Page 6 EXHIBIT 1 CHULA V15TA PLANN]NG AND BUILDWG DEPARTMENT LOCATOR °~°66R1i1O1~ P~wr TonraPecific,lnc. MISCELLAMEOUS vac.r<~ '1315 Third Ave P^~ject5i:mrr~ary. Proposing a Rerydi~e bey tack center. .~or~ss s"•A'` Ft"e NUid2EL• L'Vsbe .~i~esUamlars~P000802C.~i GG.O?.08