Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/02/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Thursday, February 13, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of January 8 and January 22, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-86-19: Requests permission to establish a facility for minor repair of motorcycles at 459 Broadway - Cycle Parts of Chula Vista 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M: Request to appeal denial by the San Diego County Zoning Administrator of a Minor Use Permit for a convenience center at 3023 Main Street (Montgomery)- Phillips Reynolds Engineering 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Major Use Permit PCC-86-22M: Request to build a 72-unit senior citizen apartment complex at 328-336 Palomar Street (Montgomery) - Joe Bordi 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-5: Consideration of Amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code by revising Sections 19.14.582 and 19.70 to expand the authority of the Design Review Committee to include the 1985 Montgomery annexation area 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendments to the certified Local Coastal Program on the Bayfront Specific Plan DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of February 19, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 1986 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-86-19; request to operate motorcycle repair facility at 459 Broadway - Cycl~ Parts of Chula Vista A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to legitimize and thus continue to operate a facility for the minor repair of motorcycles at 459 Broadway in the C-T zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-86-5, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on January 23, 1986. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-25. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-86-19, to operate a motorcycle repair facility at 459 Broadway subject to the following conditions: a. All service and repair work shall occur inside the garage. b. No road testing of vehicles shall be allowed on the alley to the east of the garage. c. The applicant shall meet all the requirements of the Building and Fire Departments based on the change of use to an H-4 occupancy prior to the issuances of a certificate of occupancy. If these requirements cannot be met, this conditional use permit shall be void. 3. Approval of the Conditional Use Permits is recommended for a period of one year. Failure to comply wi th any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North C-T Electronics store South C-T Tire store East C-T Multiple family West C-T Auto parts and service Existin~ Site Characteristics The project site consists of a 15,960 sq. ft. lot containing one existing retail commercial building. The existing building contains several retail commercial uses, including the Cycle Parts retail parts store. Adjacent land uses consist of a retail tire store across a 15 ft. wide alley to the south, retail commercial uses to the north and west, and a 3-unit apartment directly to the east. Proposed Use The proposal consists of the continued operation of a motorcycle repair garage at the southeast corner of the building (the applicant was recently cited for operating the repair garage without a permit and in violation of building and fire codes). The repair work is described as minor and includes tire changes, lube and oil changes, tune-ups and an occasional engine overhaul. Access to the 1,O00 sq. ft. garage is via a garage door opening on to the alley on the south side of the building. The hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturday. D. ANALYSIS The property is zoned C-T Thoroughfare Commercial, which is the least restrictive commercial zone wi thin the City and which permits motorcycle repair upon the approval of a conditional use permit. The primary issue to be addressed in this case is the potential for adverse noise impact on adjacent areas resulting from the repair work. The shop operates with the garage door open and the main sources of noise come from an air wrench, two air lifts and an air compressor. The most sensitive noise receptors are the apartment units located directly to the east and adjacent to the repair shop. In order to evaluate the potential for adverse noise impacts, the applicant has submitted an analysis of the actual noise levels generated by the existing operation {see Summary of Findings attached hereto). It was found that the noise generated from the repair shop does not cause a measurable increase in the ambient sound levels reaching the apartments-which is controlled primarily by traffic noise from Broadway and noise coming from the Goodyear tire service area--and that the facility meets the standards of the City's noise ordinance in relation to both residential and commercial exposure. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 3 One remaining concern regarding noise is the impact of road testing vehicles along the alley through the residential area to the east of the shop. A complaint regarding the intensity of the noise from this road testing activity was received from a homeowner located on the north side of the alley some 150 ft. to the east of the facility (see attached letter). As a result, a condition of approval has been recommended which would require that all road testing along the alley occur to the west of the shop toward Broadway. The Building and Fire Departments have submitted comments about the garage and terms of fire safety and a condition of approval has also been added to address these concerns. For the reasons noted above, it is appropriate to recommend approval of the proposal based upon the following findings. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. A motorcycle service garage will complement the existing motorcycle parts store and thereby represent a convenience for those members of the community utilizing this service. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The orientation of the garage, inside repair activities, and conditions of approval should ensure that the facility will not adversely impact adjacent areas. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. Compliance with all applicable codes and conditions will be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the use. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any goverrmmnt agency. The General Plan contemplates this type of use at this location. WPC 2511P/OO15Z negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Cycle Parts of Chula Vista PROJECT LOCATION: 459 Broadway PROJECT APPLICANT: Bennett Manning 459 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-86-25 DATE: January 23, 1986 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a 15,960 sq. ft. lot containing one existing retail commercial building. The existing building contains a various mixed retail uses. Due to the urbanized character of the lot, there are no plant or animal species present that would be affected by project implementation. Adjacent land uses consist of a retail tire store across a 15' wide alley to the south, retail commercial uses to the north and west, and multiple- family residential uses to the east. B. Project Description The project consists of the operation of a motorcycle repair garage at the southeast corner of the existing commercial structure at 459 Broadway. Access to the 988 sq. ft. garage will be via a garage door adjacent to the alley, on the south side of the building. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The property is zoned C-T (Commercial Thoroughfare), which will permit the proposed motorcycle repair shop, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Noise The applicant has submitted a noise analysis (prepared by General Acoustics, 12/85) which discusses noise impacts in the project area and potential impacts that would result from project approval. The analysis concludes that although the ambient noise level at the site is about 62 dBA the noise impacts on adjacent residential areas from the motorcycle repair operation will be within the maximum noise thresholds (45 and 55 dBA) outlined within the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Chapter 19.68). No significant adverse noise impact is anticipated, therefore no mitigation will be required. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section - 2 - E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The motorcycle repair shop will not result in the degradation of adjacent land uses. 2. The proposed land use is limited to the 988 sq. ft. garage and no expansion capabilities exist, therefore there will be no disadvantage of long-term environmental goals while short-term goals are achieved. 3. The repair shop is limited in size and therefore is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative impacts. 4. No significant noise or traffic impacts are anticipated which would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Gene Grady, Building and Housing D~partment Carol Gore, Fire Marshal 'Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Harvey E. Reynolds 2. Documents Chapter 19.68 (Chula vista Municipal Code) Acoustical Analysis, General Acoustics (December 27, 1985) The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRON~N~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 2474P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department environmental review section EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) ,, G S~REi ' VISTA ELEMENT, ST REST FAST I~OOD RETAIL REST. SHOPS P~KING ~ SERVIC~ I TRAILER PARK I I I I FURN I I ~O~ SI BANK C~WASH ~ SERV S~ , /PC0-86-9 · 1~,,459 8ROADWAY ~ Cycle Parts of Chula Vista 50069.EIR December 27, 1985 Page 1 1.1 Project The proposed project is for a conditional use permit to continue operation of a motor cycle repair service. The se=vice area is a portion of a larger building, as indicated on the enclosed blueprints, which faces directly onto the adjoining alley. The primary activ- ity in the repair area consists of tire changes, lube and oil changes, tune ups, and occasionally, engine overhaul. The hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. The overhead door which provides access to the shop from the alley remains open during opera- tion. 1.2 Noise Sources 1.2.1 Traffic Traffic from Broadway is the primary noise source significant to this project. t.2.1.a One hour average time integrated Sound Level measurements on the site indicate that Broadway Street traffic noise creates an existing ambient Sound Level at the garage of 62 decibels. Traffic noise at the nearest residence (measurement position 1) is 60.1 decibels. 1.2.2 Motorcycle Air Lifts There are two air lifts which operate once or twice an hour. The air lifts are used to raise the motorcycles whenever work is to be done. 1.2.3 Pneumatic Wrench The pneumatic airwrench is used to remove and tighten bolts and is operated frequently from 5 to 10 times per hour. Cycle Parts of Chula Vista 50069.EIR December 27, 1985 Page 2 The air compressor loads approximately 3 to 4 times a day, depending on demand from the pneumatic wrench and air lifts. 1.3 Noise Levels 1.3.1 Traff±c The measured hourly average, A-weighted Sound Level (Leq) in the alley and at the nearest residence is controlled primarily by Broadway traffic noise which ranges from 55.9 to 63.1 decibels. 1.3.2 Air Lifts The one hour average A-weighted Sound Level caused by the sporadic 'air lift activity throughout the hour at the nearest resi- dential property line in the alley is 43 decibels. 1.3.3 Pneumatic Wrench The average A-weighted Sound Level while the air wrench is in operation (short impulses) is 41 decibels at the nearest residential property line. 1.3.4 Air Compressor The air compressor operates from 45 seconds to 1 minute during loading and generates approximately 40 decibels, one hour average Sound Level at the nearest residential property line. 1.4 Noise Impacts 1.4.1 The exterior hourly noise level caused by the intermittent sounds of the air wrench, the two air lifts, and the compressor do not cause a measurable increase in the ambient Sound Level, which is controlled primarily by Broadway Street traffic. At the residence location (measurement position 1), the ambient Sound Level is controlled by traffic and noise coming from the Goodyear service area. Cycle Parts of Chula Vista 50069.EIR December 27, 1985 Page 3 1.4.2 The motorcycle repair business will not violate the provisions of Chula Vista Munici- pal Ordinance 2101, Section 19.68.030 for residential exposure greater than 45 deci- bels, one hour average A-weighted Sound Level (Leq for one hour). 1.4.3 The business will also not exceed existing and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code concerning commercial exposure limits (65 decibels Leq for one hour). 1.5 Mitigation noise mitigation is necessary for this 1.5.1 No project since it does not significantly affect the nearby residential or commercial zone ambient Sound Levels pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 1.5.2 The overhead door can be closed to achieve 9 decibels of noise reduction, however, this mitigation would hamper the business by severely limiting ingress and egress and would not significantly affect the noise environment which is predominately traffic noise. R E C E I V E D FEB 31986 PLANNIN8 DDA ~T ",~ ~T CHULA VISTA, C,,:.l, ,, ~,,, CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boar~s/Commissions, Committees and Counci] within the past twelve months? YesNo ~_ If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, | ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional p~ necessary.)~.;//~/~. ~/~ ,~?/~ ~ /~ Signature of,ap~caht/da~'e__ ~- /' WPC 0701P ~x ~K~.. ~X K~ y - - ~ c~a~P A-110 /~y~zz//~ .... Print or type~name of applicant February 7, 1986 To: The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: George Krempl, Director of Planning~¢ Subject: Action by the Montgomery Planning Committee on County Zoning Admini- strator Appeal for Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M The attached report includes an analysis and staff recommendation involving an appeal from the action of the County Zoning Administrator on a project located in the Montgomery Planning Area. After hearing testimony from residents in the area voicing their support that the subject retail establishment would be of benefit to the residents residing in the area, and subject to specific conditions recommended by the Montgomery Planning Committee, the project was recommended for approval by a 4-2 vote which would, in effect, overturn the decision of the County Zoning Administrator. The specific conditions recommended for approval by the Montgomery Planning Committee are: 1. The project be referred to the Design Review Committee for final site plan and architectural approval. 2. Specific restrictions on video games to be located within any of the com- mercial establishments. 3. That consideration be given to moving the gas pump location further to the east on site. 4. That the setback variance from 15 feet to zero feet be approved. 5. That the balance of the property (parcel 3) of the parcel map be developed to an industrial use. In order for the Planning Commission to overrule a recommendation of the Mont- gomery Planning Committee on a conditional use permit, a 5/7 vote is needed. It appears that the Commission will have only four members present at the Febru- ary 13, 1986 meeting. Your options would be to continue the item or reaffirm the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee. Based on the testimony received, and the conditions recommended for approval by the Montgomery Planning Committe, the fact that this is a "minor" use permit, the Planning Department has no objection to the Planning Commission proceeding to act on this matter on the 13th. GK:rms Attachment City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Minor Use Permit PCC-86-20M; request to appeal denial by the San Diego County Zoning Administrator of a Minor Use Permit for a convenience center at 3023 Main Street (Montgomery), Phillips Reynolds Engineering A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is appealing a decision made by the San Diego County Zoning Administrator, denying their application for a convenience grocery store, gasoline sales area, and satellite retail stores on industrial zoned property, together with a reduction in required rear yard setback from 15 feet to zero feet for the proposed commercial building. The property is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Hermosa Avenue and is zoned M-52, a zone which permits limited impact industrial uses. 2. For new projects located wi thin the Montgomery annexation area, staff project analysis is based upon standards set forth in the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance, as incorporated in Chapter 19.70 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Ordinance regulations regarding minor use permit appeals state that the decision of the Planning Commission is final. The appeal may not be brought before the City Council. The recommendations of the Montgomery Planning Committee may only be overridden by a vote of 5 of the 7 members of the Planning Commission. 3. An Initial Study, Log # 85-18-17, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the San Diego County Environmental Planning Division on October 17, 1985. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on Log # 85-18-17. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the applicant request and uphold the decision of the San Diego County Zoning Administrator. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North M-52, RU-29 Mixed uses, primarily commercial and industrial with some residential South M-52, M-54 Vacant East M-52 Industrial (mini warehouses) and mixed uses West M-52 Vacant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 2 Existing Site Characteristics The proposed site is a vacant, level, graded lot containing 1.14 acres. Located on the southeast corner of Main Street and Hermosa Avenue, the subject lot is identified as parcel 2 of tentative parcel map 18379. The site lies in an area of mixed industrial, commercial and some residential uses, located in the southern region of the 1985 Montgomery annexation area and directly north of the Otay River Valley. Proposed Use The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lot for commercial retail uses in an industrial zone, involving a convenience grocery store, gasoline sales area, and satellite stores. The facilities would contain an area of about 12,216 square feet, all on one story, and a total of 61 on-site parking spaces would be provided where 59 are required by County ordinances. A Minor Use Permit is required to allow these types of retail commercial activities to be located in an industrial zone. Similar Establishments Existing service commercial facilities already present in the area include a 7-11 store at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Anita Street (approximately 1/2 mile to the northeast), and a mini-market service station located at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and Main Street (approximately 1/4 mile to the east). D. ANALYSIS The operative County zoning on the property, M-52, is intended to create and preserve areas where manufacturing and industrial uses with low nuisance characteristics may locate. Nonindustrial supportive uses are allowed upon the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. The zoning ordinance currently regulating Montgomery indicates that convenience sales and personal service uses represent businesses that service residential neighborhoods; they are "primarily engaged in the provision of frequently or recurrently needed small personal items or services for residents who live within reasonable walking distance of the establishment." An application for a Minor Use Permit was filed for the proposed use with the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use on September 17, 1985. The application was denied by the County Zoning Administrator on December 13, 1985, stating that the site could not be considered to be convenient to any applicable concentration of residential uses that demand additional commercial services within walking distance, in addition to what is already present in this area. In the staff report to the County Zoning Administrator, it was also stated that if there is a demonstrated need for additional commercial facilities in this area, then a proper method to accomplish this would be to rezone the property to a commercial zone. The staff is not recommending any rezoning consideration, and certainly not before the Montgomery Specific Plan is completed. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 3 After detailed review of the Minor Use Permit request, staff concurs with the decision of the County Zoning Administrator. Convenience sales and personal service uses are already present immediately adjacent to and within reasonable walking distance of residences within the area, so that conversion of an industrial zoned lot to service commercial uses cannot be justified. In addition to land use issues, there are also concerns that the location of the gas pumps in relation to parking for the 7-11 could create traffic conflicts on the site, as well as contributing to traffic congestion at the intersection of Main Street and Hermosa Avenue. Finally, there is no mention in the application of the architectural design of the proposed buildings. This appeal is being heard at a time when the Municipal Code is in the process of being amended to require use permits, multi-family, commercial and industrial uses within Montgomery to undergo the design review process prior to project approval. If approved, staff is of the opinion that this project should also address design issues in order to insure that the project meets the City's design policy objectives. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the 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. Commercial facilities that provide this service are already present within reasonable walking distance of residences within the area, and a demonstrated demand for additional facilities has not been shown. 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 type and intensity of the proposed commercial use is incompatible with the surrounding industrial zone. Increased traffic and pedestrian activity could interfere with the operation of limited impact industrial uses permitted in the M-52 zone. WPC 2470P · CI dNIL¥ OF SAN L IEG Pleas~ s~nd reply to office checked: 334 Via Vera Cruz [] 5201 RuffinRoad, SuiteB [] WALTER C. LADWIG, DIRECTOR [] SanMarcos, CA 92069-2638 San Diego, CA 92123-1666 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B (619) 565-3072 San Diego, CA 92123-1666 (619) 741-4236 (619) 565-3001 October 17, 1985 TO: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RECOMMENDED FINDING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ZAP85-035, Log No. 85-18-17 Best Construction/South Bay FINDING: The Environmental Planning staff has examined the Initial Study below and is recommending that the proposed project will not have significant effect on the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Report need not be prepared pursuant to the San Diego County Procedures for Environmental Impact Review, revised August 1, 1983. INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: The proposed project is a request for a Minor Use Permit to allow the construction of a 7-Eleven store and satellite stores located on Main Street between Hermosa Avenue and Fresno Avenue in the South Bay area. A gasoline sales area is proposed near the 7-Eleven store. Total floor area is 11,808 square feet. THOMAS BROS COORDINATES: 71, E3 FIELD CHECKED: yes ANALYST: J. Brinton South Bay Subregional/Comm. Plan (15) Limited Impact Industrial M52 Use Regulation Limited Impact Industrial ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The nearly level site is located in an area of mixed land uses, with the primary uses being industrial and c~nmercial. The site is bounded on the north by Main Street and on the west by Hermosa Avenue. A large mini-storage facility is on adjacent land to the east. To the south, between the site and Hermosa Avenue is vacant land. The site has been partially graded and cleared of vegetation. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: None. ZAP85-035, Log No. 85-18-17 - 2 - October 17, 1985 MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED BY APPLICANT: None. REASONS TO SUPPORT FINDING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: No sensitive resources will be affected. NOTE: This action becomes final upon approval by the appropriate decision- m--~'~'i-6-g body. Additional copies of this Negative Declaration may be obtained at the Environmental Planning Section, DPLU, 5201Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123. NANC~ Environmental Planning Coordinator NW:JB:jcr cc: Bill Foott, Project Manager Best Construction, 3089 Main qt., Chula Vista, CA 92011 Phillips-Reynolds Engineering,' Inc., 71 North Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA 92010 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: (Public Agency) 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 DP~U, County of San Diego Sacramento, CA 95814 5201 R~ffin Rd,. S.D. CA 92123 or X County Clerk County of San Diego SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. vro3ec~ ii~le ZAP85-035, Loq No. 85-18-17 Bill Foott 565-5424 ~:a~e blearing~ouse Number bon~ac~ Ferson ~e~epnone Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) vro2ec~ Location The project is located on Main Street between Hermosa Avenue and Fresno Avenue in the South Bay area. ~Q3ec~ uesc~]p~iQn . ~ne proposea pro3ec~ is a request for a Minor Use Permit to allow the construction of a 7-Eleven store and satellite stores. This is to advise that the Department of Planning and Land Use, (Leaa Agency or Kesponsib~e Agency~ has approve~ the above described project and has made the following determina- tions regaraing the above described project: 1. The project will, will not, have a significant effect on the environmentT-- -- 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the prows~ons of CEQA. The EIR or ~egative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at. ~3. Mitigation measures were, were not, made a condition of the approval of the proj~. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was, was not, adopted for this project. Date Received for Filing s~gna~ure T~;le DPLU#427 Revised Oanuary 1985 ~ONr¢O~Ft : ~~~~,~ f, oc^'ro. '~ PCC-86-20M CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. H~TNT~ ~ CA~H~ LUIS CACHO DAM ROAD MINI STORAGE ** List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. HERMINIA F. CACHO LUIS CACHO 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. ** DON W. BYRON, PARTNER ** JOHN J. HEBERT, PARTNER 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other Ipolitlcal subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a un t. (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary[!]__~~ i Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P :~--.~. ~--~r..~L-./2~ A-110 Print or type name of applicant Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-86-22M: request to build a 72-unit senior citizen apartment comlex at 328-336 Palomar Street in the Montgomery annexation area - Joe Bordi RECOMMENDATION Based on the attached letter recommend that this item be continued to a new hearing date dependent upon possible rehearing by Montgomery Planning Committee. RECEIVED February 7,1986 Planning Department City of Chula Vista Chula Vista, CA Dear Planning Staff. I am requesting a postponement of a Planning Commission hearing on my seniors project which is scheduled for February 13,1986. Due to the scheduled absence of several members and the need to obtain 5 votes to override the denial by the Montgomery Committee it would be impossible for me to get approval of my project at the Feb. 13 meeting. Additionally, I have requested a re-hearing by the Montgomery Committee so I will not wish to reschedule the Planning Commission until after their re-consideration of my project. Sincerely, City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-5; Consideration of amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to include the 1985 Montgomery annexation area in the design review process. A. BACKGROUND 1. On November 19, 1985, the City Council requested that staff prepare a report outlining the steps for placing the entire Montgomery area within the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District. The purpose for this request was to ensure that some type of design control would be exercised while the County's zoning system remained in effect over the area. 2. On December 17, 1985, the staff report submitted to Council recommended that an amendment to the Municipal Ordinance requiring design review provisions for Montgomery be considered, rather than the Precise Plan Modifying District. Prior to Council consideration of an amended ordinance, the report recommended referral of the matter to the Montgomery Planning Committee for review and comment. The report was accepted by City Council at that time. 3. The proposal to amend the ordinance was presented to the Montgomery Planning Committee on January 2, 1986. Planning Committee members agreed at that time to the design review requirement. 4. The Environmental Review Coordinator has found that the proposed ordinance amendment is a non significant activity under Section 2.4.3.2 of the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code to require multiple-famliy residential projects, major use permit, commercial and industrial projects within the 1985 Montgomery annexation area to undergo review and approval by the Design Review Committee. The amended ordinance text reads as shown in Exhibits A and B attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The Municipal Code empowers the Design Review Committee to review and approve plans submitted in the following instances: when they are for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of residential uses or structures in the R-3 zone, or for multiple-family dwelling uses, commercial or industrial projects or structures within the P Precise Plan Modifying District. The Committee bases its findings and actions on the design manual, the official policy for the City's architectural control program. In addition, land uses subject to the conditional use permit process are typically referred to the Design Review Committee for design review. City Planning Commis_ .on Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1986 Page 2 The proposed amendment would authorize inclusion of the Montgomery annexation area in the design review process. The intent of the ordinance amendment is to ensure that projects generated under the existing County zoning ordinance are well designed, adding a positive note to the appearance of the community and the city as a whole. With the exception of single-family dwellings, the ordinance would require that most residential, major use projects, commercial, and industrial projects in Montgomery to be approved by the Design Review Committee before development could proceed. D. ANALYSIS The primary advantage of the proposed amendment is that design control is insured while work proceeds on the Montgomery Specific Plan. Once the plan is implemented, other tools for controlling design may be utilized, such as rezoning and the establishment of the P modifier. The zoning text amendment is in keeping with Council policy passed in September, stating the existing zoning would not be changed until the Montgomery study was completed. Implementation of the design review requirement will have some effect upon the cost and processing time involved for plans submitted under the amended ordinance, and may subject projects to environmental review. Generally, project processing times will increase approximately 3-5 weeks to allow for the design review process. Present application costs for design review is $390.00. However, an increase is being recommended in the new fee schedule. An additional deposit of $400.00 is required if the project must undergo environmental review as well. Since the design review process is a discretionary action, projects previously exempt would become subject to the provisions of CEQA under certain circumstances. The Environmental Review Coordinator has indicated, however, that many of the projects subject to CEQA may still be categorically exempt. For example, multiple-family dwellings up to 6 units, and office commercial uses having no more than 4 structures, an occupancy load of no more than 30, and up to 3000 sq. ft., are exempt from environmental review. If it is determined that an initial study must be filed, the overall process for design review could be extended approximately 1-2 weeks. Projects with potentially significant environmental impacts would require longer review periods to allow for preparation of an EIR. It is very likely, however, that projects which require an EIR have applied for other discretionary permits such as a conditional use permit or rezone, and would have had to undergo environmental review in any case. Adding the design review process to the multiple family, commercial, and industrial areas of Montgomery will add approximately 1,000 acres to the existing 3,000 acres of land now placed under DRC review. This additional acreage will likely increase both the staff's and DRC members' workload to a peak capacity. A complete analysis of the actual fiscal impact of the proposed ordinance change will have to be determined after implementation. EXHIBIT A - Note: Changes underlined Section "B" Sec. 19.14.582 Design review committee--Duties and responsibilities. A. The design review committee shall review plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of residential uses or structures in the R-3 zone, and multiple-family dwelling uses, commercial or industrial projects on structures governed by the P precise modifying district and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny such plans. B. The design review committee shall also review plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of multiple family dwelling uses, major use permits, commercial, or industrial projects or structures located within the 1985 Montgomery annexation area, and 9overned by Chapter 19.70 of this ordinance. C. The design review committee shall base its findings and action upon the provisions of the design manual of the city. D. The design review committee shall prepare and adopt operational procedures, bylaws and business forms. E. The design review committee shall submit annual reports on its operations to the city planning commission. F. The fee for a hearing before the design review committee is as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the master fee schedule. EXHIBIT B CHAPTER 19.70 ZONING REGULATIONS FOR MONTGOMERY Sec. 19.?0.010 Intent. A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends to maintain the zoning regulations of the County of San Diego in the Montgomery area which became part of the City of Chula Vista on December 31, 1985. This area is specifically described in the annexation maps as filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission and encompasses the area formerly served by the Montgomery Fi re Protection District. This chapter shall only apply to the Montgomery area. B. In the even that conflicts arise as to the provisions of this chapter and any other provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the latter shall take precedence, except as to those items specifically relating to land use regulation. C. The establishment, location, expansion or alteration of multiple family dwelling uses, uses subject to major use permits, commercial or industrial projects or structures shall be subject to design review procedures specified in sections 19.14.581 through 19.14.590. D. In the event that this chapter, any section within this chapter, or any portion of any section in this chapter are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this chapter shall be in full force and effect. WPC 2448P TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: George Krempl, Planning Department ~ DATE: February 7, 1986 RE: Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendments This Public Hearing has been continued to the meeting of February~ 1986 to allow the applicant to )rovide additional information. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendments to the certified Local Coastal Pro§ram on the Bayfront Specific Plan TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~]~ DATE: February 7, 1986 RE: Proposed Amendments to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan Materials concerning Item #5 (Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the certified Local Coastal Plan) of the February 13th Planning Commission Agenda will be hand delivered on Saturday, February 8, 1986.