HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/08/27 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, August 27, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-86-1: Amendments to the Chula Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan, Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Report
2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Consideration of the revocation of
conditional use permit PCC-84-23 authorizing the
establishment of the Cabrillo School of Nursing -
713 Broadway
3. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Variance ZAV-87-1: Requests permission
to share parking arrangements at the southeast corner
of Fourth Avenue and 'C' Street in order to operate
a night club - Sue Li Ip
4. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCA-87-2: Consideration of an amendment
to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to include recreational
vehicle storage yards as an unclassified use subject to
the issuance of a conditional use permit in any zone
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
DIRECTORIS REPORT
COMMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of September 10, 1986 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
To: City Planning Commission
From: George Krempl, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of
August 27, 1986
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Supplemental Draft EIR-86-1: Amendments to the Chula
Vista Bayfront Specific Plan
A. BACKGROUND
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to
assess the impacts of proposed revisions to the adopted Chula Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14
California Administrative Code Section 21000 et seq.).
This document is a supplement to the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan Final
EIR. This supplement discusses the environmental impacts of the proposed
revisions to the Bayfront Specific Plan, and alternatives pursuant to Section
15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15163 provides that a supplement to an
EIR may be prepared if only minor additions or changes would be necessary to
make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed
situation. The proposed revisions include minor land use, engineering, and
design changes to the adopted Specific Plan. The same notice and public
review period is required for a supplement to an EIR as for a Draft EIR. The
major difference between a Draft EIR and a Supplemental EIR is that the
supplemental document need contain only the information necessary to make the
previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
This Supplemental EIR was prepared by the Community Development
Department. This document was issued for public review on July 10, 1986. The
State Clearinghouse review will be completed on August 25, 1986 and the City's
comment period will concluOe with the closing of the public hearing on the
document.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Take any testimony relevant to the EIR and close the public hearing. The
Final EIR and project consideration have been scheduled for a joint Planning
Commission/City Council meeting on September 24, 1986.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 2
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Local Coastal Program amendments focus on the Mi dbayfront, a subarea
within the overall bayfront plan which is the upland area located just west of
1-5 between D and G Streets. The Supplemental EIR analysis compares the
certified bayf~ont plan to the proposed revisions to the plan. The proposed
revisions are in the areas of land use, circulation, and grading and
drainage. In addition, an alternative project, designed to minimize the
environmental impacts of the proposed revisions, is analyzed.
The certified bayfront plan for the Midbayfront subarea entails a mixed
use ~evelopment of +189.7 acres. Six nei§hborhood and community parks are
planned in the Midba~front. Five of these parks are located either adjacent
to marsh areas or San Diego Bay. The sixth park, which has al ready been
developed, is located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way just north of F
Street.
The circulation system outlined in the certified plan includes the
extension of Tidelands Avenue from its terminous at the north edge of the J
Street Marina to form a continuous bayfront parkway. The plan identifies the
need to widen the ~ Street bridge from 6 lanes to between 7-9 lanes. Bay
Boulevard is also planned for widening which would require encroachment on the
railroad right-of-way. Finally, E Street, the major access into the bayfront,
"T"s into Tidelands Avenue, a more minor roadway.
The certified plan includes only a generalized grading plan that would
require the importation of approximately 1 million cubic yards of fill to
ensure that building pads are above the lO0-year flood level and that adequate
grades are provided for drainage. A major detention/desiltation basin is
planned in the Midbayfront to prevent water containing oil, silt, and other
contaminants from flo~ing directly into wetland areas. The schematic drainage
design shows a portion of the Midbayfront drainage being discharged to San
Diego Bay, but a specific discharge methodology is not discussed.
The proposed project consists of modifications to the certified plan
proposed by the applicant, Chula Vista Investment Company. The public open
space between the office park use and Verier Pond was moved to form a
continuous bayside park in the area between Marina Parkway and Verier Marsh as
soils in this area are not suitable for development. This would allow the
residential use to be consoliOated east of Marina Parkway. The park that was
located adjacent to the SDG&E right-of-way just south of Sweetwater Marsh was
moved to the area just north of E Street to provide landscaped open space
within the I-5 on/off-ramp. The specialty retail use designated for a
specific location in the certified plan was incorporated into the office park
use to allow flexibility in the location of the specialty retail use.
The proposed circulation revisions consist of:
- Minor redesign of the 1-5 on/off-ramp at E Street
- Realignment of Marina Parkway and Tidelands Avenue
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 3
- Reconfiguration of Bay Boulevard south of E Street to avoid
encroachment on the railroad right-of-way
- -Maintaining the E Street bridge at its existing width
- Minor narrowing of Marina Parkway and the F Street right-of-way
The proposed project revisions would retain the detention/desiltation
basin. The principal revision regarding drainage and grading is the addition
of an above-ground drainage swale that would discharge to San Diego Bay. This
alternative grading/drainage plan would require the importation of
approximately 400,000 cubic yards of fill.
The land uses and circulation under the project alternative are identical
to the proposed project. The major difference is in the area of grading and
drainage. Instead of a drainage swale to collect runoff along the perimeter
of the developed area, a 5:1 vegetated slope would be provided to direct
runoff from developed areas into underground storm drainage systems in the
parking lots and streets. This alternative would require importation of
approximately 700,000 cubic yards of fill to provide adequate drainage.
D. ANALYSIS
The Summary Table from the Supplemental EIR is attached. This table
provides a summary of the potential impacts and the mitigation measures
necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
E. COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
To date, no letters commenting on the Supplemental EIR have been
received. The State Clearinghouse review period will not end until August 25,
1986, so letters are expected.
The Resource Conservation Committee met on August 18, 1986. The Committee
recommended that the Planning Commission accept the adequacy of the EIR. In
addition, the Committee recommended that the Planning Commission accept the
amendment to the Local Coastal Program with the alternative that would
eliminate the above-ground swale and put the drainage underground.
WPC 3069P
°
~ o ~
o) d
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the revocation of Conditional Use
Permit PCC-84-23 authorizing the establishment of the
Cabrillo School of Nursing, 713 Broadway (continued)
A. BACKGROUND
On June 27, 1984, the Zoning Administrator granted Conditional Use Permit
PCC-84-23 which authorized the establishment of the Cabrillo School of
Nursing at 713 Broadway. Approval of the permitwas based on information
proviOed by the applicant indicating that the majority of students would
be using public transportation, and the permit is conditioned upon a limit
of 30 students at any one time because of limited on-site parking.
In subsequent visits to the site, City staff observed in excess of 60
students at the facility, with the parking lot full and excess student
parking occurring along both Broadway and "J" Street and extending into
adjoining resiOential areas. The applicantwas apprised of the apparent
violation by letter on May 29, 1986, and a request was made then and again
by letter on July 2, 1986, to take corrective steps and notify the
department of compliance. The applicant did not respond and the matter
was set for publqc hearing before the Commission on July 23, 1986, to
consider revocation of the permit.
Prior to the revocation hearing, the applicant contacted the Department
with information that the issue was largely resolved. Since no public
testimony was offered in opposition to the school at the meeting of July
23, the Commission continued the revocation hearing to the meeting of
August 27, 198~, in oraer to allo~ the applicant to pursue a formal
request to increase student enrollment.
The school recently filed an application to modify their conditional use
permit to increase the student limit from 30 to 50 to be considered by the
Zoning Administrator on August 21, 1986. In response to the public notice
of this r~quest, the Department received tv~o letters of protest indicating
that excess student parking is a continuing problem. These parties were
contacted and indicated that they had not attended the July 23 Commission
hearing because they believedthe revocation was inevitable.
The applicant was contacted regarding this new information, and they have
requested a continuance of both the modification request and revocation
hearing in order to determine if these problems can be resolved. Under
the circumstances, staff concurs that it would be appropriate to grant a
continuance to September 2~, 1986. The modification request has also been
continued to September 17, 1986.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to continue consideration of the revocation of Conditional
Use Permit PCC-84-23 to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24,
1986.
WPC 3068P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-1; request to vary from the standard
City parkin~ requirements in order to operate a night
club at 15 Fourth Avenue (continued) - Su Li Ip
A. BACKGROUND ~
This proposal involves a request to establish a shared parking arrangement
at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "C" Street, and to thereby
vary from the standard City parking requirements in order to operate a
night club in an existing building at 15 Fourth Avenue in the C-C-D zone.
The item was continued from the meeting of August 13, 1986, in order to
allow the applicant to address further modifications to the parking layout
and the Municipal Code requirement which stipulates that dancing can only
occur in conjunction with a bona fide eating place.
The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5 exemption.
B. RECOMME~DATION
Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion
to deny the request as filed, ZAV-87-1, to vary from the standard parking
requirements in order to operate a night club with 4,500 square feet of
seating/assembly dance floor area at 15 Fourth Avenue but approve a
modified variance request which is subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance shall not become effective until a plan is
submitted for the operation of a bona fide eating place in
conjunction with the night club as required by Municipal Code
Section 5.26.100, or until a zoning text amendment deleting this
requirement is approved.
2. A plan shall be submitted for the improvement and restriping
(~ouble striping) of the existing and new parking areas in
conformance with City standards. A zoning wall shall be
constructed around the new parking area or a security patrol
shall be provided by agreement to police this area.
3. Agreements acceptable to the City Attorney shall be submitted by
(a) all uses participating in the shared parking arrangement
agreeing not to change their business hours so as to conflict
with the night club, (b) the property owner agreeing that no new
business with conflicting hours will replace a shared parking
participant, and (c) the night club shall not be open between
the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 p.m.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 2
4. The night club can contain 50 sq. ft. of assembly/dance floor
area or 2.5 permanent seats for each parking space available
from the new parking area, the restriping plan and the submittal
of agreements by all eligible shared parking participants and
the property owner (70 spaces maximum). Note: Remaining
building square footage shall be limited to office, kitchen
and/or storage for the night club.
5. A parking lot lighting plan shall be submitted for staff review
and approval. Such plan shall include review by the Director of
Public Safety to insure adequate security lighting.
6. Handicap parking shall be provided per Title 24, Part 2, Section
2-7102, C.A.C.
7. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Fire Marshal.
8. A construction permit shall be required for work in the public
right-of-way.
9. A street light shall be required subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
10. Building permit requirements shall include sidewalk repairs at
several locations, and sidewalk ramps at the corner and at
alley-type driveway approaches.
ll. A floor plan shall be submitted to be approved by the Zoning
Administrator, fully dimensioned showing the limits of the dance
floor area and how it will be contained, location and number of
tables and seating areas as well as the total number of seats
provideO.
12. The variance approval shall be granted for a period of three
years. The Zoning Aaministrator may grant future extensions in
three-year increments subject to a report filed with the
Planning Commission one month prior to expiration date.
Failure to comply with any condition of approval (or complaints filed)
shall cause this permit to be revie~ed by the City for additional
conditions of revocation.
C. DISCUSSION
Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a small, 2.64 acre commercial center located at
the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "C" Street. The 6,750 sq. ft.
structure in question formerly contained racketball courts and is located
along the southerly property line. Six other structures containing a
variety of retail and service commercial uses are distributed around the
site along with 125 off-street parking spaces.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 3
Proposed request.
The proposal involves a request to establish a shared parking arrangement
whereby the night club would offset its parkin§ requirement with spaces
necessary to serve other uses within the center which have different
business hours. Since the night club is a permitted use in the underlying
C-C-D zone, the sole issue raised by this application is the adequacy of
off-street parking.
The night club as proposed would contain 4,500 sq. ft. of
seating/assembly/ dance floor area, and thus would normally require 90
parking spaces for their exclusive use under the Code standard of one
space for every 50 sq. ft. of floor area. Hours of operation would be
from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week.
D. ANALYSIS
As noted above, the center currently has 125 off-street spaces. This
leaves only four spaces to serve the night club since the Code requires
121 of the current spaces to serve existing uses within the center,
exclusive of the night club. The applicant has now determined that the
seating/assembly/dance floor area could be downsized to 3,700 sq. ft. and
with some permanent seating the total parking need for the night club
would be reduced to 70 spaces.
In order to partially offset the deficit, the parking area can be
restriped to accommodate 142 rather than the present 125 spaces and an
additional 7 spaces can be created in a presently vacant area on the
southwest portion of the property for a total of 149 spaces. In addition,
the follo~ing uses would be eligible for shared parking because of
non-conflicting business hours: PetCo, 25 spaces (9:30 a.m. to 6:00
p.m.); Wood's Appliance, 5 spaces (6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.); and, Beauty
Salon/Pool Supply, 12 spaces (5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The total would
ti~erefore be 4 existing available spaces, 17 spaces from restriping, 7
spaces from the new parking area, and 42 spaces from shared parking, or 70
spaces total. Other land uses located within the center consist of a bar,
t~o restaurants, and a laundry which all operate in the evening hours.
Consequently, we would support the application to the extent that the
facility be downsized consistent with the additional parking available
through restriping, the new lot and shared parking. This would require
that any business involved in the shared parking arrangement submit an
agreement acceptable to the City Attorney limiting their business hours
not to conflict with those of the night club and, further, that the
property owner submit an agreement that no new business with conflicting
hours would replace any shared parking participant. It would also require
a plan for the improvement and landscaping of the new parking area, and
the construction of a zoning wall or the provision of a security patrol to
buffer adjacent residential property from this new parking area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 4
In that the utilization and efficiency of the parking area represents the
suostance of the request, a recommended condition of approval has been
added which would require renewed striping of the entire lot and staff
review of a parking lot lighting plan.
Section 5.26.100 of the Municipal Code further provides that dancing can
only occur in conjunction with a bona fide eating place as defined by the
State Alcohol Beverage Control Department which requires a fully developed
kitchen. The applicant is apparently not interested in providing a
kitchen ana food service and may pursue an amendment to the Code to delete
ti)is requirement. In any event, a condition of approval states that the
variance would not become effective until a plan for a conforming kitchen
is submitted or a zoning text amendment is approved.
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
The commercial center in question was originally developed without
the necessary off-street parking to accommodate the particular mix of
permitted uses now contemplated for the site.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his
neighbors.
The night club is a permitted use in an existing structure within an
existing commercial center. Other properties in the same zone and
vicinity can generally accommodate permitted uses without the
necessity of shared parking.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
The shared parking arrangement will ensure that available parking for
the use meets the requirements of the Code.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The variance as conditional will help facilitate the establishment of
a use contemplated in the retail commercial designation shown on the
General Plan for this site.
WPC 3025P/O426P
Shopping ,
Center '
Service Restaurant Dept of
Station Motor Vehicles
oject C"
Serv.
I
Park ......
· ' I Offices
MF
MF / Offices I;'
Voc
I
I
I I ~ ~
k.__..t.- I
-- -- KIMBALL
[ [ I
I
.4
I
I
0
0
N
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-8?-2: Consideration of an amendment to the
~unicipal Code to include recreational vehicle storage
as an unclassified use (continued)
A. BACKGROUND
This item _was continued from the meeting of August 13, 1986, in order to
clarify what items would be appropriate for storage in a recreational
vehicle storage yard.
On June ll, 1986, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to initiate a
zoning text amendment to include recreational vehicle (RV) storage as an
unclassified use. The request was initiated privately in order to benefit
a specific site, but the amendment would apply City-wide with the
exception of the Montgomery annexation area which has a specific plan
under study.
An initial study, IS-87-2, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted, and 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-87-2.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve an
amendment to the Municipal Code to include recreational vehicle
storage as an unclassified use as shown in Exhibit A.
C. DISCUSSION
The Zoning Ordinance presently allows storage yards as a permitted use in
the I-L (Limited Industrial) and I (General Industrial) zones. Storage
yards can also be establishe~ in the C-T (Thoroughfare Commercial) zone
subject to a conditional use permit. RV storage facilities are not
treated separately in the Code and thus they fall within this general
storage yard category.
Unclassified uses are considered to possess such unique characteristics
and special form as to make impractical their inclusion in any particular
zone. Consequently, such uses may be considered for location in any zone
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit following an analysis
of the location an~ operation of each individual proposal.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 27, 1986 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
RV storage facilities (storage yaros for motor homes, camping trailers,
boats anO the like) are unique in several respects. They can vary in
size, but normally require large parcels of land. Because of this, and
the fact that they are in essence oversized parking lots, they can have an
imposing visual and aesthetic impact. On the other han~, they require a
comparatively modest investment in improvements (pavement, fencing, small
office, etc.) and are generally passive operations in terms of noise and
traffic.
Because of the acreage requirements and the relatively low improvement
costs, recreational vehicle storage facilities represent both a viable
interim use of property pending oevelopment at a higher use, and a
long-term use for so-called remnant property such as the SDG&E utility
right-of-way, both of which can involve property in various zones.
Furthermore, there appears to be a significant demand for RV storage
facilities as evident by the lack of vacancy in existing storage
facilities.
For the reasons noted above, we believe it would be appropriate to include
recreational vehicle storage facilities as an unclassified use subject to
location in any zone upon the issuance of a conditional use permit. The
amendment also includes a listing of issues to be addressed with each such
CUP application, including screenin§ (fencing and landscaping), access,
lighting, signs, hours of operation, adjacent land uses and structures,
customizer parking, office facilities, surfacing, security, height of
storage items, and a procedure to allow annual review by the Zoning
Administrator based upon any change in surrounding conditions for those RV
storage yards judged by the Commission to represent an interim use of
land. Interim facilities would be approved for a maximum period of five
years with extensions subject to rehearing before the Commission.
The prior amenament language described an RV storage yard as an area for
the storage of "... motor homes, camping trailers, boats and the like."
The Commission expresse~ the concern that this description was too broad
and should be refined. The problem comes in attempting an
all-encompassing definition which may exclude some 1 egitimate but
unforseen storage items.
Consequently, the language has been revised to read "... motor homes,
camping trailers, boats and items of a similar nature." The list of
issues to be addressed by an RV storage application has also been expanded
to require that the applicant submit a comprehensive list of items which
woulo be eligible for storage. This list would initially be subject to
Coml~ission approval, while any later amendments to the list would be
subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The intent being to
remain flexible in reviewing each proposal on its merits consistent with
the objective of providing an attractive well-maintained facility
primarily for the storage of recreational vehicles which cannot be
conveniently stored on private residential lots.
WPC 3026P
ne ativ dec a ation
PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment regarding recreational vehicle
storage as an unclassified use
PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
CASE NO: IS-87-2 DATE: August l, 1986
A. Project Setting
The Zoning Ordinance presently allows storage yards as a permitted use in
the I-L (Limited Industrial) and I (General Industrial) zones. Storage
yards can' also be established in the C-T (Thoroughfare Commercial) zone
subject to a conditional use permit. RV storage facilities are not
treated separately in the Code and thus they fall within this general
storage yard category.
Unclassified uses are considered to possess such unique characteristics
and special form as to make impractical their inclusion in any particular
zone. Consequently, such uses may be considered for location in any zone
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit following an analysis
of the location and operation of each individual proposal.
B. Project Description
CHAPTER 19.54 UNCLASSIFIED USES
19.54.020 Designated-Limitations and standards
Q__~. Recreational vehicle ~torage yards: see Section 19.58.400.
Conditional use permit applications for the uses listed in this
section except campgrounds, recreational vehicle storage yards, churches,
a~ausement arcades and centers, trailers (commercial coaches) and borrow
pits of not more than two acres, shall be considered by the City Council
subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the Planning
Commission.
CHAPTER 19.58 USES
19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards.
An application to establish a recreational vehicle (RV) storage yard
(storage area for motor homes, camping trailers, boats and the like) shall
aQdress the following issues: (1) height limit for stored items, (2)
screening (lanQscaping and fencing), (3) surfacing, (4) access to the
site, (5) office facilities, (6) customer parking, (7) lighting, (8) hours
of operation, (9) security, (10) signing, (ll) surrounding land uses an~\l~I,.'
structures.
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section_~HULAVlS-rAI
-2-
The approval of an RV storage yard judged by the Commission to
represent an interim use of land based upon zoning, development patterns,
and/or pending p~ans in the area shall be subject to a review and report
filed each year by the owner with the City Zoning Administrator. Failure
to file the report or abide by the conditions of approval shall cause the
matter to be set for a rehearing before the Commission to consider
revocation of t~e pernnt or other appropriate corrective action. ~ermits
for interim RV storage yards shall be granted for a maximum period of five
(5) years with extensions subject to rehearing before the Commission.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
This project is a Zoning Text Amendment and therefore upon adoption it
will be compatible with zoning. Each site will, if the amendment is
adopted, be subject to individual environmental review and compatibility
with the General Plan and any specific or precise plan will be evaluated
by a project level analysis.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
The amenoment provides a mechanism through environmental review and the
conditional use permit process to avoid any significant environmental
impacts. The adoption of the amendment therefore ~ill not result in a
significant impact.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
The project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the
environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. There are
no significant adverse environmental effects associated with the
proposed ordinance changes. Positive environmental effects have been
noted with the proposed action in that it will serve to reduce future
environmental impacts.
2. The project will achieve both short-term and long-term environmental
goals by limiting land uses which conform to the aesthetic goals of
the Chula Vista General Plan.
3. The project will not have potential cumulative adverse environmental
impacts upon the area affected by the ordinance change. No
significant environmental effects are associated with the proposed
changes.
4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly, since no adverse environmental effects are associated
with the project.
-3-
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner
Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Steve Griffin
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.
ENVIROnmENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 3043P'
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department CI~YOF
environmental review section CHL~L,~ VISTA
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 19.54 UNCLASSIFIED USES
19.54.020 Designated-Limitations and standards
Q__. Recreational vehicle storage yards: see Section 19.58.400.
Conditional use permit applications for the uses listed in this
section except campgrounds, recreational vehicle storage yards, churches,
amusement arcades and centers, trailers (commercial coaches) and borrow pits
of not more than two acres, shall be considered by the City Council subsequent
to its receipt of reco~nendations thereon from the Planning Commission.
CHAPTER 19.58 USES
19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards.
An application to establish a recreational vehicle (RV) storage yard
(storage area for motor homes, camping trailers, boats and items of a similar
nature) shall address the following issues: (~) height ~imit for stored
items, (2) screening (landscaping and fencing), (3) surfacing, (4) access to
the site, (b) office ~aci~ities, (6) customer parking, (/} ~igbting, (8} Hours
of operation, (9) security, (10) signing, (11) surrounding land uses and
structures. The application shall also be accompanied by a comprehensive list
of items which would be eligible for storage. Any subsequent additions to the
list shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
The approval of an RV storage yard judged by the Commission to represent
an interim use of land based upon zoning, development patterns, and/or pending
plans in the area shall be subject to a revie~¢ and report filed each year by
the owner with the City Zoning Administrator. Failure to ~i~e the report or
abide by the conditions of approval shall cause the matter to be set for a
rehearing before the Commission to consider revocation of the permit or other
appropriate corrective action. Permits for interim RV storage yards shall be
~ranted for a maxi~um perioO o~ five (5) years with extensions subject to
rehearing before the Commission.
WPC 3027P