HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1981/03/11 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, March 11, 1981 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 25, 1981
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map PCS-77-10 for
Hudson Valley Estates ~1, 15 single family
dwellings, 100 block of Las Flores Drive ~-
Extension
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PC -81-9 Conditional use permit to install
2 gasoline pumps at site of existing market
at 60 Broadway - U Tote M Market
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
To: City Planning Commission
From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission
Meeting of March 11, 1981
I. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map PCS-77-10 for Hudson Valle~
............. ~'~a-~ ~], 15 ~l~famil~ dwellings, 100 block of
Las Flores Drive Extension
A. BACKGROUND
l. In November, 1977 the City Council approved a tentative subdivision map
known as Hudson Valley Estates No. 1 for the division of 4.34 acres, located
between Second Avenue and the extension of Las Flores Drive north of "D" Street
in the R-1 zone, into ll lots. In 1978 a parcel map was approved dividing the
property into two parcels. One of the parcels is a 127'x200' lot fronting on
Second Avenue and developed with an existing single family dwelling. The tenta-
tive subdivison map was then revised to cover only the remaining 10 lots (3.38
acres) fronting on the extension of Las Flores Drive.
2. The developer has submitted a new revised tentative map proposing to
subdivide the 3.38 acres into 15 lots, 7 of which will be panhandle lots.
3. On February 5, 1981 the Environmental Review Committee found that the
environmental impact report, EIR-78-1, prepared for the previous project was
adequate and satisfied CEQA review requirements for the project.
B. RECOI~4ENDATION
1. The Environmental Review Committee recommends that the Planning Commission
certify the environmental impact report EIR-78-1 on the proposed project.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that the City Council approve the revised tentative subdivision
map for Hudson Valley Estates No. l, Chula Vista Tract 77-10, subject to the
following conditions:
a. The developer shall be responsible for acquiring and dedicating
right-of-way for Las Flores Drive to 12 feet east of its centerline
(as shown on the tentative map) between the north and south boundary
of the project.
b. The developer shall grant to the City a l0 foot wide drainage easement
between lots, 4, 5, 12 and 13 as shown on the tentative map.
c. The developer shall be responsible for constructing a 10 foot width
of Las Flores Drive immediately west of its centerline from the
southerly subdivision boundary to "D" Street. Installation of these
improvements shall be coordinated with the deferral granted for property
associated with Parcel Map 5711.
Note: There is an improvement certificate on Parcel Map 712g covering
a portion of the l0 foot wide strip west of the centerline.
d. The developer shall be responsible for constructing the storm drain
in Las Flores Drive and offsite drainage facilities from the southern
subdivision boundary northward as shown on the tentative map.
City Ptanning Commission Page 2
Agenda Items for Meeting of March ll, 1981
e. The developer shall be responsible for constructing full street
improvements in Las Flores Drive consisting of, but not limited to,
pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalk, a street light and drainage
facilities. For that portion of Las Flores Drive adjacent to the
subdivision boundary, the developer shall construct Las Flores Drive
Lo 12 feet east of the centerline as shown on the tentative map.
f. The lowest habitable floor of each dwelling shall be at least one
foot above the 100 year water surface elevation.
g. The developer shall construct the temporary cul-de-sac shown on
the tentative map. The developer shall acquire and dedicate right-
of-way adequate to construct said cul-de-sac.
h. The owner shall grant to the City, by grant deeds, one foot control
lots as determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of the
final map.
i. The developer shall file copies of the CC&R's with the County Recorder
concurrent with the final map. Said CC&R's shall provide for the
responsibility for the maintenance of all common areas, roads and
guest parking areas shared under contractural agreement by the property
owner of each common panhandle lot. This may be accomplished by the
formation of a homeowner's association.
j. The panhandle lots are approved in concept, which implies that the
lots may be developed provided that the regulations of the code can
be complied with and that additional grading and/or retaining walls
may be necessary to build on the lot.
k. The driveway locations shall be so spaced as to provide the maximum
number of parking spaces at the curb.
1. The common access serving two lots shall be improved to its maximum
width upon the development of one or both lots.
m. Development of the panhandle lots shall be subject to the provisions
of Section 19.22.150 of the Zoning Ordinance.
n. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to participate in a 1913
Act district to insure the installation of utilities and street improve-
ments. In addition, an overall grading plan involving adjacent
properties must be approved by the City Engineer.
C. DISCUSSION
I. Site characteristics.
The project site is located on a segment of the east facing slopes of a
shallow canyon which runs northerly from "E" Street toward the Sweetwater valley
between Second and Minot Avenues. The average natural slope of the property is
Page 3
City Planning Co~mlission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March II, 1981
approxi,~tely 18 percent with some slopes reaching 40 percent. The northeasterly
portion of the site lies within the Sweetwater River flood plain. The property
has a differential in elevation of approximately 50 feet.
2. Proposed revision.
a. As indicated earlier, the developer proposes to increase the number
of lots from l0 to 15. In order to accomplish this increase, the developer
intends to create 7 panhandle lots with 8 lots fronting on the extension of Las
Flores Drive. The lots fronting on the street will have lot sizes ranging from
slightly over 7,000 sq. ft. to approximately 7,600 sq. ft. The panhandle lots
will range from a minimum of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of almost
14,000 sq. ft. The net area of the panhandle lots (exclusive of access drives
and guest parking) will average approximately 11,000 sq. ft.
b. Extensive grading is proposed, resulting in the exportation of
approximately 27,000 cubic yards of soil. The grading of the panhandle lots will
consist primarily of rough grading with additional grading anticipated upon the
development of the lot. Most of the excess dirt will be used to raise the street
elevation of Las Flores Drive north of the proposed subdivision.
D. ANALYSIS
1. The proposed subdivision will have a density of 4.4 DU/acre, well within
the General Plan range of 4-12 DU/acre. The proposed grading has changed from
the origina! plans. All of the lots and the street will be raised above the 100
year flood level. The new grading plan will involve the grading of the adjacent
properties to the north and east, to which end the developer has been working with
those owners in preparing an overall grading plan. The developer is also working
toward the formation of a 1913 Act district for the installation of utilities and
street improvements. Because of the subdivision design, the grading plan and 1913
Act must be approved before the final map can be approved.
2. The developer has submitted conceptual plans showing how the panhandle
lots can be developed to meeting the requirements of the code governing such
lots. The plans involve the extensive use of retaining walls and the use of
split level floor plans. The code requirements for the development of panhandle
lots reads as follows:
Pa ge 4
R-E-RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE
19.22.150 I)anhandle Io1:,, flag lots. (Jr h}fs 7. Guest parking shall be provided as
served I)y an easement follows: one lot, one space; two lots,
Re(lLrirenlents and coJIditimls, three spaces: three lots, five spaces;
A J)anhazldJc lots. I]ag h)ls or Jots served by an four lots, six spaces.
casenlt, nt propo',cd w/Ibm a subdivision shall The individual driveways to the
meet Ibc ,'~ilcri;~ toni:lined in this section, garage shall not be construed as meeting
II Nt} It}t lll;IV I1U cie;lied ~r (Icvclopcd under the guest parking reqt irement.
this provl,.Ion ~A}II{II CotLht otherwise be 8. Accessory structures shall not be located
served by a public strect tlnlcss approved by closer than ten feet to any dwelling
IIl~.' dircclor of planliing lind the city located on adjacent property.
engim, cr 9. The following setbacks shall be observed:
('. All d,:vclolmiCnt pclmittcd nndcr this a. I:ront Yard. Fifteen feet from any
prov~smn 'dlall be subject to the rcgulatiozls access drive and guest parking areas;
and rc(pdrements of this title except as b. Azly garage facing an access drive
otJlcrwise rc!.'nla ct in this section, shall be a miuimunl of twenty-two
D. I'he division o! any property nnder this feet {'loin the drive.
provision ~,hall tlc sulqcct to thc regulations c. Side Yard. Not less than that required
of thc St:itc Map Act and Subdivision by the underlying zone;
Ordinanceol tllec~ts,, d. Rear Yard. Not less than that
E. Not more than four lots served by a private required by tile underlying zone
road or easement shall he allowed tinder this upon initial construction.
provision unless this restriction is waived lO. A minimum five-foot-high fence shall be
by the director of planning or city council, provided on each side of the private
F. The responsibility for the maintenance and drive behind the front setback and on
cost of maintenance of all common areas, those property lines abutting adjoining
roads or easements and guest parking areas properties. This requirement may be
shall be shared under contractual agreement modified or waived by the director of
by the property owner of each lot; this planning if it is found that said fence is
shall be accomplished through tile formation not necessary for the protection of the
of a homeowner's association, adjoining properties.
G. Development criteria: 11. If tile property is graded to create a
1. Road and easemeut widths shall be as building pad for each lot, the minimum
follows: otle lot, fifteen feet; two or level area Ino slope over five percent)of
more lots, twenty feet. These widths each pad.s~a be not less than eighty
may be increased il' it is determined by percent of the minimum lot size of the
the director of plamling that a ~idewalk underlying zone, but in no case shall the
is required, minimum area be less than five thousand
2. All driveways, guest parking areas an'd square feet. Development proposed on
roadways sball be paved with a minimum existing natural topography, having an
of five inches of portland concrete average natural slope of ten percent or
cemcut, greater, and with less than ten percent
3. Each lot shall contain an area not less of the site to be graded, shall be subject
than the minimum lot size of tlle under- to the approval of the director of
lying zone exclusive of all private roads, planning, who shall consider whether
common areas and guest parking areas, such development will adversely affect
4. All onsite utilities shall be tinder- adjacent properties or development.
grounded. 12. Guest parking areas shall be adequately
5. Each dwelhng shall be connected to a screened from onsite and adjacent
gravity sewer unless otherwise approved residential properties.
by tbecitycngincer. H. No garage conversions shall be perrnitted.
0 An onsite fire hydrant may be required 1. Development shall be subject to site plan
by thc fire department when such is and architectural approval of tile director
deemed necessary, of planning.
(Ord. 1808 ~ 2 (part), 1979.)
Page 5
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 11, 1951
[. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Sections 66473.5 and 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
tentative subdivision map, Hudson Valley Estates Unit No. 1, Chula Vista
Tract 77-10, is recommended for approval based on the following findings:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposed development conforms to all standards established by the
City for such project.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improve-
ments--streets, sewer, etc.--which have been designed to avoid any
serious health problems.
3. Approval of the project will not adversely affect the public service
needs of residents of the city or available fiscal and environmental
resources.
4. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use Element - The General Plan designates this site for Medium
Density Residential development (4-12 dwelling units per gross acre).
The proposed project density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre is
consistent with this designation.
b. Circulation Element - The development will extend Las Flores Drive
in conformance with General Plan standards.
c. Housing Element - The project should provide decent housing in a
well-ordered residential neighborhood.
d. Conservation, Open Space, and Parks & Recreation Elements - None
of the areas proposed for conservation or open space on the various
plan diagrams of the General Plan are affected by the subject proposal.
The developer will be assessed fees in lieu of park land dedication.
e. Noise Element - The project will not be subjected to unusual noise
levels.
f. Seismic Safety and Safety Elements - The development is not adjacent
to any known fault systems. Extension of public improvements, right
of way widths, and turn-arounds meet or exceed safety element standards.
Although a portion of the property is within the Sweetwater Valley
100 year flood plain, the preliminary grading plan indicates the lots
will be elevated above said flood level.
g. Scenic Highways Element - The site does not abut a Scenic Highway or
gateway.
h. Bicycle Routes - No bicycle routes are proposed on or adjacent to this site.
i. Public Buildings Element - Public buildings are neither proposed nor
required on the site.
LOCATOR
PCS- 77-10
I0O BLOCK
® ~ ®
City Planninq Cor~r~ission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 11, 198l Page 6
2. P~BLIC HEARING: PCC-81-9 - Conditional use permit to install two gasoline
pumps at ~ite of existing market at 60 Broadway - U Totem'
Market
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant, U-Totem Markets, is requesting permission to install two
self service gasoline pumps at their existing market located at 60 Broadway in
the 6-T zone.
2. An initial Study, IS-81-29, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on February 26,
1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental
effects and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-81-29 and find that this project
will have no significant environmental impact.
2. Adopt a motion to deny the request.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use:
North C-T Cleaners
South C-T Motel
last C-T Auto body shop and auto parts store
West C-T Automotive garage
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site is a level 14,470 sq. ft. parcel (108.4' x 133.5') located
at the northwest corner of Broadway and Chula Vista Street. The site is presently
developed with a 2800 sq. ft. commercial building (built in two phases in 1972 and
1975), located along the westerly property line and occupied by a convenience
market and leather goods store. Parking for 16 cars is provided in front of the
building with access from both streets. Landscaping is provided along each street
frontage as well as along the northerly property line.
3. Proposed project.
The applicant proposes to install a single pump island with two gasoline pumps
in the area of the parking located nearest Broadway. The pump island will be
covered by a 14 foot high canopy measuring 24 feet by 24 feet. In order to replace
the parking spaces and facilitate the onsite circulation pattern created by the gas
pumps, the applicant intends to relocate the driveway on Broadway by moving it
approximately l0 feet to the south and removing the landscape planter along the
northerly property line. These changes will enable the applicant to provide six
spaces along the northerly line and to place a planter along Broadway near the
north property line. One parking space in front of the store will be lost, resulting
in a total of 15 parking spaces, which satisfies the city's parking requirement for
the use.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March ll, 1981 Page 7
4. Architecture and signs.
The applicant also proposes to remodel the front elevation of the building
by putting a tile mansard on the building to match the pump island canopy. A
4' x 4' price sign is proposed on the canopy support column. The existing pole
sign at the corner will not be changed.
D. ANALYSIS
1. The applicant has submitted a letter describing his reasons for requesting
the addition of the gas pumps to the market operation. (A copy of the letter is
enclosed in the packets.) The letter states that the recent conversion of the
ARCO station at Broadway and "E" Street into a market and self-service station
places his market at a competitive disadvantage because he is not allowed to sell
gasoline and cannot offer "total convenience." He further states that a decline in
sales has occurred at other U-Totem locations under similar circumstances until
they were permitted to add gasoline sales to their operation.
2. A tough case.
This case is somewhat difficult as there are some arguments pointing toward
approval and others pointing toward denial. In general, staff believes that a
conditional use permit application should be approved unless it is quite clear
that the required findings cannot be made. In this case, the finding that the
proposed use is necessary or desirable to provide a service to the neighborhood
or community is quite a subjective judgment. Extensive market analysis could
perhaps answer the question but no such analysis has been prepared by the applicant.
Arguments on either side are ~resented below for the Planning Commission's consider-
ation.
3. Arguments for and against.
a. Arguments for approval of the application are:
l) The site can accommodate two gasoline pumps with slight to
moderate disruption of the onsite circulation system.
2) The nearest gasoline dispensing facility to the north is .8 mile
away.
3) It seems appropriate to allow the applicant to compete with the
recently approved ARCO mini-martat Broadway and "E".
4) The closure of a number of service stations in recent n~nths is
probably responsible, at least in part, for the waiting lines at
many stations. An additional gas dispensing facility at this
location may somewhat improve service.
b. Arguments for denial of the application:
l) Gasoline is available at three stations located less than one-half
mile south of the subject property (Broadway and "E").
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for ~eeting of March ll, 1981 Page 8
2) Although prudent drivers can make the onsite circulation system
work, there will be an increase in conflicts between vehicles
and an increased potential for accidents, especially at night.
3) Approval of the subject application could lead to similar appli-
cations by a variety of businesses, such as dry cleaners, auto
parts stores, and other types of commercial uses whose sites are
not designed to accommodate gasoline service.
4) Service stations and gasoline dispensing facilities tend to be
negative aesthetic creations because of the need to have
relatively large paved areas, small buildings, special signing
and functional pump islands. Free-standing canopies high enough
to provide clearance for campers generally do not relate well to
the main building and become out-of-scale elements in an already
bleak aesthetic scene.
4. Conclusion
The Chula Vista zoning ordinance, like those of most other cities, treats
service stations with special care. They are not allowed in any zone without a
conditional use permit. This is because of their high traffic turnover, special
curb cut needs, signing needs and the fact that service stations are outdoor uses
while the zoning ordinance requires most other uses in the commercial zones to be
located entirely within an enclosed building. Because of these characteristics,
a service station is not appropriate in all locations.
The conditional use permit procedure allows the Commission in each case to
determine the appropriateness of the use based on the facts applicable to each
case. Appropriateness should address aesthetics, circulation, safety, and need.
The applicant has addressed, to some degree, aesthetics, circulation and safety;
however, need has been addressed only in tePms of benefit for the market in the form
of recouping lost business and perhaps supplementing income by virtue of gasoline
sales. While staff can sympathize with the applicant, there has been no demon-
stration that the dispensing of gasoline at this site is necessary or desirable
to provide a service which will contribute to the general well being of the neigh-
borhood or community as required by Section 19.14.080(A) of the zoning ordinance.
For that reason and because of the increased chance for accidents caused by cars
backing out of parking spaces and colliding with cars parked at the pump island,
staff recommends that the application be denied.
E. FINDINGS
1. That the p~opo~ad uo~ at the particuZa~ Zocation is necessa~ or desirable
t~ p~,~llbh~ a :~ervic~ ov facility which wil~ aont~ibute to the general wel~ being
~]' t}l~' neighborhood or the con~nunity.
Three service stations are located just .4 mile to the south at the corner
of Broadway and "E". In the absence of any showing to the contrary, those
stations appear to adequately serve the neighborhood and community.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March ll, 1981 Page 9
2. ~al :u~lt lu~ wi~Z not, un~n t}~a c~i~yummtanccs of th~ pa~,ti~u~a~ ca~e.
t,~)~,ki~t~! i~ I}u, i~ic.{nit!t, o~ [n,}u~iou~r Io p~,opor£y o~ i.~now~m~nt:~ in tb~ ~i~inity.
The gasoline ~mps are proposed to be located in front of the store in
line with vehicles backing out of parking stalls adjacent to the store.
While the plan complies with city standards for back-up and maneuvering
room, the location of gas pumps opposite frequently used parking spaces
is not a desirable situation from a safety standpoint.
COND I T ION~JD
negative eclaration .
PROJECT NAME: U Tote M & Self Service Gas Pump
PROJECT LOCATION: 60 Broadway
PROJECT APPLICANT: U Tote M Markets
9317 Shadow Hill
Santee, CA 92114
CASE NO. IS-81-29 DATE: February 26, 1981
A. Project Setting
The existinq site is the location of a 14 ft. high, 3800 sq. ft.
(40'x95') retail structure with 16 parking spaces on a 14,473 sq.
ft. parcel. The structure is located adjacent to the westerly
property line and is oriented toward Broadway. The site has vehicle
access drives to Broadway and Chula Vista St. There are landscaped
planters adjacent to the public sidewalks.
To the north of the project site is a laundry, to the west an auto
repair shop, to the south is Chula Vista St. and a motel, and to the
east is Broadway.
B. Project Description
The applicant proposes to remove an existinq planter adjacent to
the northerly property line and restripe the existing parking lot
in orde~ to add two new gasoline pumps and a 14' high 14'x14' canopy
within the eixsting parking lot. The parking total will be reduced
from 16 spaces to 15 spaces. The driveway oriented to Broadway
will be realigned to accommodate the revised circulation pattern.
C. ~ompatibilit¥ with zoninq and plans
The [~roposed land use will require obtaining approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
D. Identification of environmental effects
1. Soils
The Engineerinq Dept. indicates that there is the potential
presence of expansive soils on the site. To ensure a stable
foundation, a soils report shall be prepared with recommendations
to be incorporated into the project.
2. Air Quality
The potential for significant emissions which could degrade the
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
ambient air quality exists unless proper safeguards are in-
corporated. The applicant should install all required
£acilitics in accordance with the APCD (Air Pollution Control
District) regulations prior to operation.
3. Risk of Upset
The risk of an accident is always present whenever substances
as flammable and combustible as gasoline are dispensed. If
required Building and Fire Codes are adhered to the risk
will be reduced to a safe and acceptable level.
4. Aesthetics
The applicant proposes to remove an existing planting area
along the northerly property line in order to relocate parking
spaces. This existing planter presently contains three mature
trees (Melakuca leucadendra) and a number of small shrubs
(Raphiolepis indica). Adjacent to the planter area is the
large exposed blank wall of the building on the adjacent lot.
If the present landscaping is removed there will be no means of
softening this visually dominant wall. The disposition of the
mature plant material will be subject to approval of the City's
Landscape Architect.
The applicant also proposes widening the driveway on Broadway.
In the process, an existing street palm tree would be removed.
Verification from the Public Works Dept. and the City's
Landscape Architect will be necessary to determine where the
existinq tree should be relocated.
E. Mitiqation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. The disposition of the landscaping adjacent ot the northerly
property line and the street tree proposed for removal along
Broadway are subject to approval of the City's Landscape
Architect and the Public Works Dept.
The following are standard code requirements which will mitigate
potential impacts:
a. A soils report shall be prepared and submitted
concurrent with Building Permits applications. Recommendations
contained in said report shall be incorporated into the
project.
b. Approval shall be obtained from the Air Pollution
Control Board for the proposed gasoline pump island prior
to Building Permit approval.
F. FindinQs of insignificant impact
1. The project site is completely developed, although significant
'- (3) ~
landscape areas are subject to major changes. Review by the
City's Landscape Architect and Public Works Dept. shall assure
aesthetic compatibility upon project implementation.
2. The proposed self-serve gas pump operation is compatible
with the General Plan and will not achieve short term gains to
th~ di~;~dvanta~ie of long term environmental goals.
3. Potential impacts can be mitigated and none are anticipated
to interact and cause a substantial cumulative effect on the
environment.
4. The project will not create any source of significant
noise or odors nor will any hazards to human beings result.
G. Consultation
City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Assoc. Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer
Shabda Roy, Assoc. Engineer
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Tom Dyke, Bldg. Inspector
Duane Bazzel, Assist. Planner
Applicants agent Howard J. Shuss
Documents
PCC-81-9 U Tote M Conditional Use Permit
The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the
findings of no si(tnificant impact are on file and available for
public hearing at the Chula Vista Planning Dept. 276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010 ' '
ENVIRON~'.tENTAL REVIEW COOPdDINATOR
~- city of chula vista planning department ~--~
environmental review Section
"[' . t. t:t- L -, .',., OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION
(;:' FAIRMONTFOODSOOMPANY
'r
~ ~ 9317 SHADOW HILL / P.O, BOX R / SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92114
t_~ ~,~ PHONE 714 / 449-1980
,IANUAI{Y 22, 3981
CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
RE: JUSTIFICATION OF GAS INSTALLATION AT U TOTEN #14.
TO WttON IT MAY CONCERN,
I BELIEVE WE CAN GIVE YOU JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NEED OF GAS AT THE U TOTEM
LOCATED AT 60 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA. WE PRESENTLY SELL JUST GROCERY
RELATED I1'FMS AND IIAVE BEEN A VALUABLE MEMBER OF YOUR BUSINESS CONNUNITY
SINCE NOVEMBER OF 1972.
WE BAS{CAI,1,Y SELL "CONVENIENCE"; THAT IS WHY WE ARE CONSIDERED A CONVENIENCE
MARKET. WITH ARCO OPENING THE AM-PN MINI MARKET, THEY NOW SELL "TOTAL
CONVENIENCE". CUSTOMERS CAN NOW BUY BOTH GROCERY ITEMS AND GAS AT ONE
].,OCATION AND SAVE TIME, AND, AS WE AI,L KNOW, "TINE IS NONEY". IF WE ARE
NOT ALI.OWED TO INSTALL GAS AT THIS LOCATION AND CANNOT OFFER "TOTAL
CONVENIENCE", AS THE ARCO WII.L DO, TIIEN WE WILL EVENTUALLY LOSE ALL OF OUR
ESTABIASHED CtISTONERS. THE SAME SITUATION HAS OCCURED AT SEVERAL OTHER
I.OCAT]ONS. TttERE WAS A NOTICABLE DECLINE IN BOTH STORE SALES AND PROFITS,
WITH TIKE POTENTIAL DANGER OF CLOSING STORES, UNTIL WE WERE GRANTED C.U.P'S
AT THOSE LOCATIONS. (ATTACHED ARE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES).
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT WE CAN HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS ARCO SO
WE CAN REMAIN CONPETITIVE. IF I CAN FURNISH YOU WITH ANY OTHER INFORMA-
TION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME IMNEDIATELY.
THANKING Y0U IN ADVANCE,
GLENN LI FONTI
DISTRI(!T NANAGER,
U 'I'OTE~ MARKETS
cc RON C}IANEY
JOHN CLARK
JAMM1E FRANKS
BEVI;RI,Y FOX
('i'IY Ol CIIIII,A VIS'IA
JANUAI(Y 2~, ]981
EXAMPLES
'STORE #10 606 CROUCIt, OCEANS]DE, CAL1FORNIA - A COMPETITION OPENED WITH
GAS AT THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER. FROM WHAT THE STORE WAS
EXPERIENCING THROUGH SEPTEMBER, IT DECREASED 22% IN SALES
FOR OCTOBER AND AN ADD]TIONAL 11% IN NOVEMBER. THE NET PROFITS
DECL1NED 7% IN OCTOBER AND 9% IN NOVEMBER, DURING THAT SAME
PERIOD. WE APPLIED FOR A C.U.P. AND THE CITY 0F OCEANSIDE
GRANTED IT T0 US.
STORE #37 1291HOLLISTER, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALFIORNIA - A COMPETITION
INSTALLED GAS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS STORE.
WE IMMEDIATELY WERE AFFECTED BOTH IN STORE SALES AND PROFITS.
SALES WERE ON A DECLINE OF APPROXIMATELY 12% AND PROFITS
WERE DOWN ABOUT 19%. WE APPLIED,AND WERE GRANTED,A C.U.P.
AFTER INSTALLATION OF GAS, THE STORE INCREASED AND RESUMED
NORMAL SALES AND PROFIT INCREASES.
STORE #13 1315 N. NUTMEG, ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA - A COMPETITION OPENED
DOWN THE STREET AND ONCE AGAIN THIS STORE'S SALES DECLINED
BY 19% FOR AUGUST. IN SEPTEMBER THE TREND CONTINUED AND
STORE SALES DECLINED A DISASTEROUS 27%. WITH INFLATION AT
APPROXIMATELY 15%, THIS MEANS THE STORE, JUST IN TWO MONTHS,
WAS 42% BELOW OUR AVERAGE EXPERIENCES. THE CITY OF ESCONDID0
I)ECIJNED OUR BID FOR A C.U.P. AND YOU CAN SEE THE RESULTS IN
JUST TW0 MONTHS.
I BEI.~EVE THAT THESE THREE EXAMPLES ARE PROOF ENOUGH THAT WE DEFINITELY ARE
JUSTIFIED IN RECEIVING APPROVAL FOR OUR C.U.P.
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
i~m #CII
OF CHULA VISTA
U -~)TE M STORE N~. 14
60 broadway
chula vista, ca
4'x4' gas price sign
RECEIVED
PLANNING DEPARTUENT
CHULA V!STA, CALIFORNIA