Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/11/26 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, November 26, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of November 12, 1980 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-81-6 - Request for conditional use permit for sale of gas in conjunction with retail market at 495 Telegraph Canyon Road - Atlantic Richfield Company 2. Consideration of vacation of a portion Colorado Avenue, north of "H" Street 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-81-5 - Request for conditional use permit to operate muffler shop in conjunction with automotive tune-up shop at 355 Broadway in the C-T zone - G. W. Dunster 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-28, Quintard, for construction of 12 unit condominium project at Quintard and First Avenue 5. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) PCA-81-3 - Consideration of amendment to Municipal Code to require relocation assistance for tenants of residential properties being converted to condominium ownership. 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 November 26, 1980 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-81-6 - Re.~st for gondition~l use .~r~it for sale of .............. ~T~'~]o~ti~ '~-~h- retail ma~k~' a t -~'~=~r_~--C~h~on Road----~t-~-~-~-~' ~ichfield Com~ A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant, Atlantic Richfield Company, is requesting permission to convert a full service gas station into a convenience market and self service gas station at the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive in the C-C-D zone. 2. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial change in land usc and is therefore not subject to environmental review under CEQA regulations. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion continuing PCC-B1-6 indefinitely. C. DISCUSSION The applicant has asked that the item be continued indefinitely while they reconsider their proposal. City Planning Co~nission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of November 26, 1980 2. Consideration of a proposed vacation of a portion of Colorado Avenue app~oxi~y 400 feet long extending northerl~--~om "~"' Street A. BACKGROUND 1. Colorado Avenue is a lightly traveled residential street which crosses the parking lot of the San Diego Trolley Station which is currently under construction by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board. 2. Water, gas and sewer facilities are located within the street~ No comments have been received from ~he utility companies yet, but it is assumed that they will request that appropriate easements be reserved for their facilities. It is also assumed that such ease- ments as requested will be reserved. 3. All property Fronting the portion of the street to be vacated belongs to the MTDB. Other property owners who receive access from Colorado Avenue between "H" Street and "G" Street will be notified o~ the public hearing before City Council in advance o~ that public hearing. 4. On February 1~, 1980, the Planning Commission found that the light rail transit projec~ was in conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan. This proposed station and parking lot was shown to be a portioq of the project at that time. An Environmental Impact Report for the project was prepared in April 1978. The "H" Street Station was discussed in that report, which was certified by MTDB on September Ii, 1978. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the vacation of this 400'~ portion of Colorado Avenue, subject to ~he reservation of appropriate easements for utilities. C. ANALYSIS The site of the MTDB Station and parking lot has been cleared along both sides of Colorado Avenue. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board proposes to build a cul-de-sac in the street just north of the parking lot. This cul-de-sac will allow vehicles on Colorado Avenue to turn around conveniently. The proposed work includes construction of this cul-de-sac, reconstruction o~ several driveways, widening a portion of Woodlawn Avenue and construction ef traffic signals at Woodlawn and "H" Street. An island is to be built adjacent to "H" Street to provide for bus operations and transfers. Bus bays will be provided by implementation of a sawtooth design in the island. D. FINDINGS 1. Colorado Avenue is a residential street and is not shown on the General Plan. The area of the MTDB Station is shown on the General Plan as thoroughfare commercial. The proposed transit station is not in conflict with this designation. City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for MeeTing of November 26, 198[) 2. Vacation of the subject portion of Colorado Avenue will allow the provision of alternative public transportation at a highly accessible location. 3. A convenient alternative circulation route will be provided to normally traveling on this portion of Colorado Avenue, Instal'lat:icn of traffic signals at Woodlawn and "H" Street will provide a safe mea~s of access to the remaining portion of Colorado Avenue from I-5. ¢OLOI~IDO AV~.~ - City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 26, 1980 Page 3. UBLIC HEARING: PCC-S1-5 - Red, est for conditional use permit to 9~erate A. BACKGRODND 1. The applicant is requesting permission to locate and operate an auto- mobile muFFler shop on a 0.26 acre parcel located at 355 Broadway in the C-1 ZOne. ~. An lniLial Study, IS--81-~5, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the ~>ruject was conducted by the Environmental Review Co~littee on October 30, 1980, which coucluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended the adoption oF a Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Nega~$ve Declaration on IS-81-15 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Dased on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-81-5. subject to the following conditions: a. A sign program sha~l be submitted and approved upon application for a building permit. b. The easement serving the residential area to the east shall be surveyed and recorded and evidence of such presented prior to the issuance of any building permit. c. Landscaping shall be added along the south property line adjacen~ to the parking stalls, subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use: North C-T Restaurants and motel South C-T Beauty and barber shop, locksmith and muffler shop East R-3 Duplex (landlocked) West C-T Motorcycle sales, liquor store and motels. 2. Ex~sting site characteristics. The project site is a 12,000 sq. ft. (lO0' x 120') level parcel located on the east s~de of Broadway between "F" and "G" Streets which is in the process of being redew~oped. A new ~,065 sq. ft. commercial building, replacing an older commercia~ structure, is now under construction on the north side of the property, ~0 Feet back from the Broadway property line. The building will be occupied by an automotive tune-up shop (Tunecraft) which was approved by the Planning Col~n~ss~on in April, 1978 (PCC-78-28). In addition, there is a vacant older corrugated metal building located at the rear of the property. A lO foot City Planning ConmHssion Agenda Items tor Meeting of November 26, 1980 Page 5 wide access easement, serving the landlocked residential parcel to the east, extends through the middle part of the lot. 3. Proposed development. a. Fhe applicant in~ends to remove the corrugated metal building and construct a new 16 Ft. high commercial structure with a floor area of 1,432 sq ~t., using split-Face concrete block to match the building under construction near' the fironl off the lot. The building will be located on the south property line and lO Feet From the east (rear) property line. The applicant was recently granted a variance (ZAV-81-6) reducing the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to ]G Fee[ the variance is subject to certain conditions which, in part, are as follows: I) Orientation of the building away from the residential area; 2) soundprooling the building; 3) the ten foot rear area is to be landscaped and not used For any other purpose; and 4) continued maintenance of the land- scaping and the building. The applicant wishes to locate and operate a muffler shop in the propused structure. The required number off parking spaces for the combined uses is six spaces (2500 sq. ft. e 400). The applicant intends to provide 13 parking spaces, 3 of which are compact spaces and one handicap space. The proposed building will match the building under construction through the use of similar materials, exterior colors and architectural design. No sign program has been submitted. D. ANALYSIS ~. The proposed muffler shop is compatible with the auto tune-up shop previously approved by the Commission. Even though there is an existing muffler shop in close proximity, the proposed use will provide an expanded choice of service in an area which presently offers a variety of automotive uses. 2. The residential uses (2 small, older single family homes) will be protected by the orientation of the building away from the dwellings, the required sound- proofing and a ten foot buffer landscaped area. The rear wall, although 16 feet in height, will function as a zoning wall and the landscaping will be visually more attractive than a wall. 3. The applicant is proposing to incorporate additional sign area into a planned freestanding sign to identify the proposed muffler shop as well as the automotive tune-up shop now under construction. The total sign area will be approximately lO0 sq. ft., which is the maximum allowed for a lot with 100 feet of Frontage. E. FINDINGS ~. ?']Z(zZ t/zP' pvo[.,os~d uoF~ at the pa~d;~u~ar ~ocation i~ necessary or desir- ab/.~ ~o pr~mida a ~r~z,vi,,~ ~r~ faciZity whiah ~l contz~ibutm to the genera~ welZ b,',ing of the ~( [~J~bovhoo({ ,:~ the ~om~niby. The proposed use will be located in an area where other automotive uses are located. Therefore, the use will provide an expanded choice of service. City Planning Comnlission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 26, 1980 Page 6 2. That. su<~ u.~c w:Z! ~o~,, und~;~, th~ ~'/~cumsta~:cs of the particular case, bc d~t~'imcnta~ to ~ha heal,h, safety or gen~na~ welfa~,e of persons residing or wo~k:ng in t~a ~d~ini~y, o~ in,~urious to p~operty o~, improvements in the vic~'nity. The conditions oF approva~ of this reques~ and those attached to the variance w~l~ redNce any poten~ia~ adverse impacts of this use upon the adjoining residen~ia~ uses. 3. ~u. at tl~, l,~,np~n~.d ~ wi/t ~o~M~ZU wLth ~he ~egu/.ations a~ aonditions The pvotvosed s~vuctuve w~11 be soundproofed in order to m~n~m~ze an~ no~se which may emanate from within. 4. ?'bal. II,'~ ..l~.:rtl. Ln..7 ~J' tbiz c'ondit'lo~,~Z use will not adver~rx~y affect The proposer] use i~ located in an area designated on ~he General Plan for Thoroughfare Commercial which recognizes automotive uses. negative eclaration ..... PROJECT NAME: Meineke Muffler PROJECT LOCATION: 355 Broadway PROJECT APPi, ICANT: G. W. Dunster P.O Box 11218 San Diego, CA 92111 CA~;E NO. IS-81-15 DATE: October 30, 1980 A. ~roject Setting The project involves a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel located at 355-357 Broadway. The site is currently developed with one existing structure, a welding shop, and one structure presently under construction, an auto tune-up center. Commercial uses are located to the north and south and a two family dwelling is to the east. The project is located on a major street (Broadway) designed to accommodate a concentration of commercial thoroughfare uses. Access to the two-family dwelling to the east is obtained across the parking lot of the subject property. There is limited vegetation in the vicinity and no geologic hazards are known to exist within at least a 1/4 mile radius. B. Proiect Descri~tio~{ The applicant proposes to remove the weling shop located at the rear of the property along the east property line. A 1482 sq. ft. masonry and steel building will be constructed adjacent to the south property line to accommodate an automobile muffler sales and service facility. The structure currently under construction along the north property line will remain. In addition, a 6' high masonry zoning wall will be constructed along the east property line, excepting the driveway access to the residence to the east. Six parklnq spaces will be added to the existing seven spaces presently designed for the tune-up faci].ity. Access to the two- family dwelling to the east will not be altered by the proposed project. C. Com2j~ti.[~t_y_ with zoning and plans The site is zoned for automobile related uses and is consistent with the thoroughfare commercial designation of the General Plan. A Conditional Use Permit will be required to permit the proposed land use at this .location. ~ __ cily of chula vista planning departmenl ~ environmental review Iocllon D. Identification of environmental i~n~_~cts_ 1. Soils The Engineering Dept. has indicated the potential for expansive soils in the project vicinity. The applicant should prepare a soil:; rcl, ort and incorporate all recommendations into the proiect or utilize standard building techniques to reduce potential impacts resulting from adverse soil conditions to a level ef insignificance. 2. Noise The pot~ntial for adverse noise impacts on the existing two family dwelling located adjacent to the east property line exists due to the orientation of the proposed service bays. The distance from the dwelling to the service area is approxi- mately 60 ft. and would ha~e relatively unobstructed, line-of-sight since the proposed masonry zoning wall will stop at the access drive to the residential lot. The use of impact wrenches, air compressors, etc. will create noise levels in excess of acceptable standards. The doors of the service areas should be oriented away from the residential dwellings and exterior walls shall be adequately insulated in order to reduce noise impacts to an insignificant level (max. 65 dBA measured at the exterior of the dwellings). E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. A soils report shall be prepared and all recommendations shall be incorporated into the project or standard building techinques design to reduce potential impacts from adverse so~l conditions ~hall be implemented. 2. Art acoustical report prepared by an acoustician shall be prepared prior to Planning Commission consideration of the Conditional Use Permit. The report shall show how the reguired noise level normally imposed on multiple family or attached units, can be achieved in this case, or if the existi~:l ambient noise level ~s greater than 65 dBA, how much }~rotection can be ~fforded, whichever is the least restrictive condition shall be met. ~_'~2~ii!~3~L~f no si~nificant impact 1. Th(, si te is currently developed and is void of any significant wildlife. There are no geologic hazards, although e~[~>ansive soil conditions are known to exist in the vicinity. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan and assoc~atod elements and is not ant cipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. NO impacts are expected to occur which could interact to create any substantial adverse effect on the environment. 4. The project is not anticipated to cause an increase in traffic or related emission, and impacts relating to noise can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The project is not anticipated to create any ol~her situation that could prove hazardous to humans. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Assoc. Planner Duane Bazzel, Asst. Planner Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng. Tom Dyke, Plan Checker Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Applican~ - G. W. Dunster 2. Documents IS-78-59 Tune Craft Chula V~sta Zoninq Ord. (performance standards) ~6 ,lth ,\vonue, c,ty o~ chula vista planning depattmenl gN 6 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for ~eeting of November 26, 1980 Page 7 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision m~ for Chula Vista Tract 80-28, ................ ~-~-~-for ~-6-~-~ion ~-12 unit condominium pro~ect a_t__~uintard and FirSt Avenue A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map known as Quintard, Chula Vista Tract 80-28, for the purpose of developing a 12 unit condominium project on a 1.026 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Ouintard S~reet and First Avenue in the R-3-P-12 zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-80-51, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Con:nittee on March 20, 1980. 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-80-51 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Quintard, Chula Vista Tract 80-28, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall grant a 7.5 foot easement to the City for street tree planting and maintenance along Quintard Street and First Avenue prior to approval of the final map. b. The proposed tandem parking space shall be replaced with a parallel space near the north end of the project. c. One fire hydrant shall be located at the First Avenue driveway. The fire flow shall be 1000 gpm based on 20 psi residual pressure in the street main. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-1 Single family detached dwellings (5 units/acre) South R-2-T Single family attached dwellings (9 units/acre) East R-3-P-12 Condominiums (12 units/acre) West MHP Mobile home park (lO units/acre) 2. Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a vacant 44,713 sq. ft. parcel located at the southeast corner of First Avenue and Quintard Street. The site is generally higher than the adjoining streets and slopes gently from north to south. City Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 1980 Page 8 3. Proposed development. a. On October 2, 1980 the Design Review Committee approved the develop- ment subje(:t to certain conditions regarding architecture and site planning. The project consists of 6 two-story, three bedroom duplexes with two basic floor plans and exterior designs. The architectural design is contemporary with shake shingle roofs, stucco exterior, wood trim and garage doors. Each townhouse unit will have a two car garage with all the required storage (250 cu. ft.) provided therein. [he units will have individual patios ranging from 355 sq. ft. to 426 sq. ft. (100 sq. ft. is required) located at the rear of the units. b. In addition to the 12 two car garages (24 spaces) there are three onsite parking spaces, one of which is a proposed tandem space. The three spaces are required guest spaces under Section 19.62.050(11) of the zoning ordinance. Vehicular access is provided by a 24 foot wide driveway on Quintard Street and a 20 foot wide driveway on First Avenue. The two driveways are separated by a landscaped area in the center of the project, eliminating the ability to drive through the site. c. Tile proposed grading plan will necessitate the construction of a number of retaining walls primarily on the periphery of the project in order to achieve the maximum usable area of the property. The retaining walls will be softened by landscaping. None of the walls will exceed 3~ feet in height. 0. ANALYSIS The proposed development either meets or exceeds the minimum requirements for condominium projects, ttowever, there is a total of 27 onsite parking spaces proposed, with one of the spaces being a tandem space which requires Planning Commission approval. The Design Review Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the tandem space but, as an alternative, indicated that a parallel space located near the north end of the project would also be acceptable. The parallel space can be achieved by adjusting the driveway alignment and land- scaping in one of several areas. Because of the problems associated with tandem parking, it is the Department's opinion that the parallel space should be required. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Sections 66473.5 and 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tenta- tive subdivision map known as Quintard, Chula Vista Tract 80-28, 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 projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements-- street, sewer, e~c--which can accommodate the development. 3. Approval off the project will not adversely affect the public service needs of residents of the city or available fiscal and environmental resources. Cit.y Planning Con~ission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 26, 1980 Page 9 The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Elements as follows: a. The construction of condominiums within the R-3 zone in an area which is essentially developed does not affect the following elements of the General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Seismic Safety, Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways, Bicycle Routes, Public Buildings, Conservation, Parks and Recreation, and Open Space. b. Housing Element - The construction of condominium units will provide additional housing for the residents of the community. Inasmuch as fewer than 50 units are involved, the applicant is not required to address the need to provide 10% of the units at prices affordable by low or moderate income persons. QUI TAP, D,, ST I I I I I BISH~ ~. I I I ~_ QUINTA~D STREET "' CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Ansley Condominiums Project Location: SEC First St. & Quintard Ave. Project Proponent: Wm. T. Ansley 355 K St. #J Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO. IS-80-51 DATE: March 20, 1980 A. ~roject Setting The project site involves 1.026 acres of vacant property located at the southeast corner of Quintard St. and First Ave. There is a general lack of significant vegetation and wildlife. No historical or prehistorical resources are known to be present. There are no geologic hazards known to exist onsite, however, Special Report 123, publiched by the Calif. Div. of Mines & Geology, indicates that an inferred fault is suspected of being located to the northeast of the property. An existing drainage facility runs from east to west along the southerly 10' of the property. B. Project Description The applicant proposes the construction of six two story duplex structures containing twelve three bedroom condominium~units. Each unit contains a two car garage. Three guest parking spaces are also 'provided onsite. Access to onsite parking is provided from both Quintard St. and First Ave. C. Compatibility with zoning ~nd plans The project site is zoned R-3-P-12. The proposed plan is in conformance with zoninq but deviates somewhat from precise plan guidelines setforth by the Planning Commission. (See PCZ-76-K(2)) These aspects are of a planning nature rather than an environmental concern and may be modified during precise plan review. The plan is consistent with the General Plan and recommended mitigation will ensure conformance with associated elements. D. Identification of environmental effects Geology The inferred Sweetwater Fault suspected of traversing property to the northeast and possibly extending onto property directly east of the project site, has been identified by photographic evidence in the Calif. Div. of Mines & Geology Special Report 123. No evidence substantiating surface faulting was discovered during a geologic reconnaissance of the property to the northeast of this site and during grading operations on property east of the site. The fault is thought to be. inactive and probably non2existant. Soils The Engineering Dept. has indicated that expansive soils may be present on this site. A soils report shall be submitted by a qualified soils engineer and recommendations contained therein shall be incorporated into the project. Noise A_noise analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed dwellings would be subject to any unacceptable noise levels from vehicle traffic. The analysis indicated that noise generated from traffic on Quintard street would reach an Leg of 5~1. dB for the units fronting on Quintard St. Noise generated from traffic on First Ave. would reach an Leq of 54.7 dB for the units which front on First Ave. Conventional construction will reduce interior noise levels by 15+ dB and will generally be adequate in noise exposure zones up to ~eq of 65 dB. Considering the estimated Leq level, the siting of structures, and the fencing of private open space, no substantial impact is anticipated to occur due to noise generated by vehicular traffic. Schools The local elementary school is currently operating over capacity. New students from the proposed project will further ~ncrease current enrollment. Evidence of the developers compliance with public facility policies will be required to be submitted and' will ensure adequate classroom space for new students. Parks The project will generate the need for additional park facilities with the park district. The applicant will be required to pay park fees for acquisition and development of future parks prior to building permits. E. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid significant impact~ 1. Developers must conform with the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified soils engineer and recommendations contained therein shall be incorporated into the project to ensure stable construction. F. Findings of ~i~nificant impact % 1. The project site is void of any significant'vegetation or wildlife. The inferred Sweetwater Fault, shown on the Calif. Div. of Mines & Geology, Special Report 123, has not been (' substantiated through physical evidence and is suspected of being inactive or non-existent. 2. The proposed plan is in conformance with the.Land Use Element in the General Plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. All potential impacts can be mitigated and none are anticipated to interact to create any substantial adverse effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause any substantial increase in ambient noise levels and no significant source of hazardous emissions will result. G. Consultation City of Chula Vista D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Bill Ullrich, Assoc. Eng. Ted Monsel, Fire Marshal Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. & Hsg. Merritt Hodson, Env. Control Commissioner John Nash, Applicants designer Documents IS-78-13 Chula Vista Condominiums Calif. Div. of Mines & Geology, Special Report 123 PCZ-76-K(2) The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findinqs of no sicTnificant impact are on file and available for public rcview at th~ Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. ENVIRONbH,.NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 3 (rev. 5/77) City Planning Commission Page l0 Agenda Items for Meeting of November 26, 1980 5. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCA-81-3 - Consideration of amendment to the M~uni~pa.1 Code to r~quire relocation assistance for tenant~ of residential properties beinq converted to condominium ownershi~ A. BACKGROUND l. On October 14, 1980 the City Council expressed concern over the financial hardship which confronts the rental tenants of residential developments which are converted to condominium ownership. Council, therefore, recently instructed the City Planning Department to prepare an amendment to the condominium regulations which would require the owners of the said developments to provide relocation assistance to their tenants. 2. The proposed relocation assistance amendment is embodied in the attached Exhibit A and evaluated in the analysis section of this report. 3. The proposed amendment is categorically exempt from CEQA regulati6ns. 4. This item was continued from the meeting of November 12, 1980 to allow additional time for the Commission and interested parties to review a revision to the wording of the proposed amendment. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council enact the proposed amend- ment to the Municipal Code into the ordinance. C. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed regulation would require owners of developments converted to condominium ownership to pay certain tenants an amount equivalent to two months rent or $500, whichever is greater, in relocation assistance. This payment would partially defray moving and other costs associated with relocation. In order to qualify for payment, the tenant would have to live in the apartment at the time of filing the tentative map and still live there at the time of expiration of the 60 day right of first refusal to purchase. Obviously, he must also have decided not to purchase a unit. The regulation also requires the owner to inform a pros- pective tenant of the possibility of conversion after the owner has filed a tenta- tive n~p. 2. The basis for the relocation assistance is founded in social considerations rather than in physical land use planning principles, so that t~e Planning Depart- ment has no particular expertise in this matter. An argument against the proposal is that the amount of the fee will probably be added to the sale price of the unit. An argument for the proposal is that it would at least partially reimburse a tenant for costs associated with an involuntary move. All things considered, the Depart- ment feels that the arguments in favor of the relocation payment outweigh those against it. Exhibit A Amendment to Section 15.56.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Chapter 15.56 CONVERSION OF DWELLING UNITS TO INDEPENDENT OWNERSHIP 15.56.040 Notice of intent to convert--Sixty-day right of first refusal to purchase--Provision of relocation assistance to residential tenants. A. The owners of multiple-family dwellings or dwelling group developments shall provide their tenants one hundred twenty days' notice of their intent to terminate tenancies for the purpose of converting their developments to condominium ownership, and shall grant the tenants a sixty-day right of first refusal to purchase their dwelling units as condominium estates. Neither the one hundred twenty days' notice nor the sixty-day right of first refusal shall commence to run prior to the owner's establishment of a firm price for the involved condominium units. B. ~h~ owners of multi-family dwellings or dwelling group developments cnvered by the provis!ons of this section sha!l provide to a tenant who occupies a unit at the t~me of filing the tentatlve map and who still occupies a unit at the time of expiration of the period of first refusal to purchase, a sum of money equivalent to two months rent or $500~ whichever is greater. For the purpose of this ~ubsectio% a tenant is defined as the head of household of a tenanc~ who elects not to purchase a condomi~'~n-~ and "r~'~nt" is ~efined as the rent as of the time of expiration of the period of first refusal. C. Any owner of multiple famil~ dwellings or dwelling group developments who has filed a tentative map w~th the city for the purpose of converting such ~ental units into condominiums shall thereafter notify prospective tenants Of this fact a~d of the possible conversion of the development to condominiums. Such notification shall include a statement that the 'new tenant is not ~l"iglble under this section for the relocation payment required heretnabove.