Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/07/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, July 26, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas, and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Assistant Planner Nevins, Assistant Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Tarantino) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Davis and Thomas abstaining, since they were not members of the Commission at that time) to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 24, June 14 and July 12, 1995, and the minutes of the Joint Planning Commission/GMOC meeting of June 14, 1995. (Commissioner Salas stated she had read the minutes of July 12 and believed them to be accurate.) Chair Tuchscher introduced the newest member of the Planning Commission, Patty Davis, who had been sworn in at the Council meeting the previous evening. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- July 26, 1995 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-14; REQUEST TO OPERATE A GASOLINE STATION 24 HOURS A DAY AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE IN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. (Continued from 6-14-95) Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, one being that the conditional use permit would be authorized for only a one-year period with the opportunity for extension after that time. Commissioner Thomas asked the hours of operation for the three service bays. Ms. Nevins replied that the hours were 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; however, they could technically stay open until 11:00 p.m. The applicant was not requesting extended hours for the auto service bays. Commissioner Davis asked if staff had made any efforts to meet with the neighborhood residents regarding their concerns. Ms. Nevins stated that the applicants, both Texaco and Unocal, had held a neighborhood meeting at the Loma Verde Recreation Center on July 6th. The applicants had used the City's mailing list and five people attended, four in response to the notice and one who happened to be in the recreation center but lived in the vicinity. None expressed concern with the applications for the 24-hour operation. Commissioner Salas asked the time of the meeting. Ms. Nevins replied that it was held at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Willett stated that he had visited the Texaco Station and Unocal, both during the day and at night. Regarding noise, he observed one two-story home on the south side of Orange Avenue and east of Melrose that he would be impacted. Regarding lighting shields, there were four lights which possibly could be extended downward slightly which could take care of the spreading of the illumination of light across the lot. He was impressed with the cleanliness and the landscaping of the Texaco station. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chnla Vista, a resident of the community, said his biggest problem was that the Texaco Station had been operating in violation of the Code for over a year, as had Unocal. Any action taken by the Commission to approve the request would reinforce violations of the Code. He was not opposed to the business, but felt there was a limit to what residents should have to tolerate. Mr. Radecki said the Code for the C-N zone was enacted for a reason but now it didn't matter. He felt that said that the quality of life for the people living around the gas stations didn't matter. What mattered was to keep the business in operation. Regarding the petition circulated by the gas station, Mr. Radecki noted that some of the signatures were from the gas station itself, and he questioned the validity of the signatures. He did not feel they were all in the neighborhood. He felt approval of the request would set a precedent. Regarding Police Department enforcement of the noise violations, Mr. Radecki did not think the residents would get any help there. PC Minutes -3- July 26, 1995 Aaron Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chula Vista, son of Michael Radecki, stated that he had a problem sleeping because of the traffic and the noise from the gas station, and the lights which shine in his windows. He hoped the station would not go to 24 hours, so he could get a good night's sleep. Susan Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chula Vista, wife of Michael Radecki, stated that since the gas stations had been closed and not open for 24 hours, the noise had decreased. The children had slept a little better. She felt the City would show by granting the 24-hour operation that they did not consider the quality of life for the residents and didn't care. Commissioner Willett asked if Ms. Radecki lived in the two-story house behind the 7-Eleven. Ms. Radecki said that was the Armintrot residence, but they were not able to attend the meeting because of family illness. She indicated she lived on the right side of the two-story house, as you face the house. Mark Aragona, 287 Sandstone Street, Chula Vista, complained of the noise. He concurred with Conunissioner Willett that the establishment was well-kept and neat; however, it was so large that people took advantage of some of the parking areas to change their tires and tried to fix their cars in the middle of the night. On several occasions, he had asked people to keep the noise down so he could sleep, only to have vulgarities shouted at him. He had called the police, but they could not respond immediately to a noise complaint. They never responded. Vern Shotwell, 287 Sandstone Street, Chula Vista, was opposed to the 24-hour service. He stated that he believed in business, but not in a residential area. He lived directly across the street, and could see the station from his sun deck. He stated that the men who worked at the service station would drop the heavy lids, which covered the tops of the underground gas tanks, at 2:00 a.m. When the level of gasoline was checked, the same thing happened. During the day at 5:00 p.m. he couldn't hear the news because of the traffic noise. At night, the noise from people working on their cars came into their bedroom. He noticed a difference when they closed down at 11:00. Phil Schanberger, of Gary Engineering, 5125 Glasgow Dr., San Diego, consultant for Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., stated they had held a meeting on July 6th with the residents. They had mailed 279 letters in a radius of 500 feet surrounding the station. There were five people at the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Radecki were not in attendance. Three people had nothing against the service station being 24 hours; the crime prevention captain had some concerns-- Texaco was eager to meet with Mr. Fletcher about crime prevention and also with Mr. Meng from 7-Eleven who is the head of Business Alert, which is similar to Neighborhood Watch. Regarding the lighting problem, Texaco agreed to change the lighting from fluorescent tubes to a directional lighting with the use of reflectors. Mr. Schanberger stated that a lot of the service station owners honestly don't know they are violating the Code. He suggested that a condition be added that "no automotive work would occur after 6:00 p.m." He stated that none occurred at that time with no drilling or automotive work going on at night. If there is a noise problem, Texaco encouraged phone calls to Texaco Refining and Marketing who would address the PC Minutes -4- July 26, 1995 matter. The station manager would be told to discourage any loitering; the Police Department had already set it in motion; Texaco has a crime prevention training class the workers go through. Texaco could have deliveries early in the mornings rather than at night. Since the station owner agreed to stop the 24-hour operation, the next week and the week of July 1, his station was tagged in the back and beer bottles were found. Mr. Schanberger showed photographs of the areas that were tagged. He noted that the service did not sell alcohol. Answering Commissioner Willett, Mr. Schanberger stated there was only one operator on duty between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The operator worked through a pass-through window after 10:00 p.m. and no one was able to enter the station. Commissioner Willett asked if that person could leave the office to see if anything was going on in back of the station. Mr. Schanberger replied that they often left their seat, if no one was around, to empty the trash, after locking the front door. They could check around the station. There would also be a system with the Police Department to get a regular passing through of a police officer. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the violations of the City's performance standards would be corrected whether or not it went to a 24-hour operation. Ms. Nevins replied that they were required to meet the performance standards regardless of the time extension. Commissioner Thomas stated that from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. there would be a gross profit of approximately $30. He questioned how that was a profitable operation. Mr. Schanberger stated that many of the nighttime customers were also daytime customers, and without the ability to pull in late at night, some people would become frustrated and take their business elsewhere where they could go at any hour day or night. Since they were closed at night, they had already shown a drop in profit even during the daytime hours. There might not be a lot of profit at night, but it was also reflected during the daytime. Commissioner Thomas stated he had for seven years been a service station manager. Five of those years, he ran a 24-hour operation. When he changed from 24 hours to normal hours, the company did not suffer much decline. He did not believe it hard to find it would be a benefit to the community. Mr. Schanberger stated that this particular station tended to have a lot of repeat customers because of its setting. There were a lot of residents in the C-N zone who used the station. Commissioner Willett asked if Texaco would put security cameras in the back of their station. Mr. Schanberger said that was not discussed. They had discussed trimming the hedges behind the station to allow more visibility to the rest of the tenants behind in the parking lot, so there would not be the hidden element between the bushes and the back of the station. The cameras would go inside the sales area. PC Minutes -5- July 26, 1995 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that there was a petition signed and submitted by the applicant which carried approximately 500 signatures. At the Commission's request, he showed a locator which indicated those living in the immediate area. He noted that there were no signatures for anyone living on Sandstone Street immediately opposite the station or on Nolan Court directly east. Commissioner Ray noted that the station had only one complaint during the time they had been in operation for 24 hours in violation of the Code. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, they had ceased the operation. He asked why the recommendations regarding lighting, etc. had not been included as part of the conditions. Ms. Nevins replied that it was included in Condition B in the resolution. Commissioner Ray asked if the Planning Commission had any authority in requesting any neighborhood patrols or senior patrols to frequent the area. Assistant Planning Director Lee said he could consult with the Police Department and pass on any concerns of the Commission. Ultimately, that body is controlled by the Police Chief under the jurisdiction of the City Manager. Commissioner Ray stated he still had some misgivings relative to the conditions. He would like to see conditions specific to the lighting and the written terms on Attachment A, which had to do with crime prevention training for the employees. He would like to see it enumerated in the text of the resolution. Given that and the fact that it was for a period of only one year and subject to review at that time and that they must submit a new application to the Zoning Administrator prior to the deadline of that one-year period, he could reluctantly support the 24 hours, if those conditions were changed. Commissioner Davis had some misgivings. She wanted to know how to balance out making an exception to the rule, especially for someone who had been violating the Code. What was the economic benefit to the exception? She was in support of business expansion and development, but looked at this as being a commercial zone surrounded closely by residential. She felt the residents were too close to the station. She felt if an exception to the rule was made, that it should be an overwhelming reason. She thought $30 a night was not an overwhelming reason, to the detriment to the quality of life of the residents close by. Chair Tuchscher asked staff to comment on the background of a C-N zone, specifically relative to the guidelines for timing for businesses to be open and some examples of exceptions to that. Assistant Planning Director Lee gave the history of the C-N zone, which was to provide for those services located in close proximity to residences and noted it was the only zone in which there was a specific limit on the hours of operation, in recognition that people have the right to a quiet evening. The areas in which extensions of hours have been granted have been primarily involving 7-Elevens, since that was the typical market located within neighborhood centers, PC Minutes -6- July 26, 1995 providing a service to residents. In this instance, it was a more difficult call in terms of whether or not it was more disruptive to the neighborhood and to what degree. With staff's recommendation, with the conditions being recommended, it was worth proceeding on a year's basis. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the applicant had given staff any traffic flow numbers, customer based, to support any of their claims. Ms. Nevins stated that other than customer counts during the evening, no other figures had been requested for any differentiation during daytime business. Commissioner Thomas felt this was a corporate move for an image, and was made at the corporate level and not at the community level to serve the community. He was against the extension of hours. He concurred with Commissioner Davis that if an exception to the rule was made, he did not see a major advancement for the community. Commissioner Salas expressed her admiration for the Radecki family for being concerned about their neighborhood and involving their children in the process. To make an exception to the rule, she felt there should be a compelling need on either side--whether there would be a substantial economic benefit for the company, or whether or not there was a need for the service in the community. Whether or not it was extended, she did not feel the ambient noise and traffic level would be diminished enough for the residents to get a good night's sleep. She noted that there were four other 24-hour gas stations open close to the neighborhood, two of them in very close proximity to freeway access. She did not feel there was support in the neighborhood. She would vote against the request for 24 hours. Commissioner Ray noted that the Scoreboard and 7-Eleven were in the C-N zone and were allowed the extended hours. Given the proximity to the residences, there were not a lot of complaints registered against those businesses at that time. He felt the stations should be given a chance to fail before denying them any opportunity. He felt the City should look at the C-N zones to close any loopholes. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned about the quality of life--the cumulative effect of noise and traffic. He felt them would be a deterioration in the neighborhood. Somewhere along the line someone thought the C-N zone regulations were good and served the purpose, and he would vote to preserve the neighborhood. Commissioner Willett supported Commissioner Salas' comment about the young people coming forward and commended the Radecki's. He had visited the area twice in the evening and had observed the ambient noise. There had been several cars with boom boxes, traffic was heavy, and two vehicles had skidded through. He supported Commissioner Tarantino's comments regarding the quality of life. He stated he would support staff's recommendation with the caveat that the proponent modified the lighting. He supported the Police Department's recommendation for a surveillance camera on the back side of the station to decrease the graffiti. He was concerned that if the station was limited to hours and there was no real security in the area, they PC Minutes -7- July 26, 1995 would be subject to a lot of graffiti. He stated he found the largest amount of noise was coming from the 7-Eleven adjacent to Unocal where people gathered around the telephones, along with the music. Commissioner Thomas was concerned that if special consideration or financial profitability were eliminated, there would be no purpose in going forward with the request. Chair Tuchscher explained that the extension was allowable in the current zoning; it was not a conditional use permit; it was a discretionary decision and all of the issues presented by the public should be taken into consideration; they would not be setting a precedent. He also commended the Radecki's for allowing their children to take part in the proceedings. Chair Tuchscher felt the project was not negatively impacting a large segment of the neighborhood; the 500 signatures were compelling from his standpoint; he felt people were creatures of habit and it would have a long-term effect on the company's business. He liked staff's recommendation of a one-year extension; Texaco would have to come back with another application before expiration; if Texaco failed to live up to the conditions, and the Radecki's and others were not satisfied, they would be back before the Commission and the Commission would know about the failures. MSF (Ray/Willet0 3-4 (Davis, Salas, Tarantino and Thomas voting against) to adopt Resolution PCM-95-14 approving a 24-hour operation for the service station located at 1498 Melrose Avenue, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including Attachment A and those findings. MS (Davis/Thomas) to deny the request to operate the gas station 24 hours a day at 1498 Melrose. Commissioner Willett questioned if the hours of the station, in the case of denial, would be would be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Staff answered affirmatively. Commissioner Ray pointed out that the station also had the option to keep their automotive bays open until 11:00 p.m. to do repairs on vehicles as well. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered affirmatively and said that was in keeping with the C-N zone standards and performance standards. Chair Tuchscher clarified that the C-N zone allowed operation from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The ability for the Planning Commission to limit the operations of the service bays did not exist if they complied with the current zoning. The only way to limit that would be by approving the 24-hour use with some conditions. Commissioner Thomas asked if all businesses approved for a C-N zone would be under the exact guidelines. Mr. Lee stated they would be under the same hours of operation. In the case of a service station, they would have a conditional use permit which could he reviewed to see if there PC Minutes -8- July 26, 1995 was any specific language on the limitation of parking bay hours. The hours could not be arbitrarily limited. Commissioner Davis said the resolution stated no limitation to the bay service hours. By going with 24 hours, the Commission would not limit the bay service. Commissioner Ray stated that in his motion, he had asked that the items on Attachment A be included, in which the applicant had committed to stop their service at 5:00 p.m. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: To deny the request. VOTE: 4-3 (Ray, Tuchscher and Willett voting against) Conmaissioner Thomas noted that if the neighbors found there was a noise problem with people working on their cars at 10:30 at night, they could come back to the City with a complaint. Mr. Lee stated it would go to the Police Department. The Texaco conditional use permit could be reviewed to see what the approval language set forth and if the noise problem was addressed. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-16; REQUEST TO OPERATE A GASOLINE STATION 24 HOURS A DAY AT 1495 MELROSE AVENUE IN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE - Robert H. Lee Associates/Unocal Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, noting the issues were the same as the above item. She noted the Scoreboard Inn was operating until 2:00 a.m. and 7-Eleven operated on a 24-hour basis, but was considered grandfathered. Staff concurred that lighting on the Unocal site was impacting off-site, and Unocal had agreed to modify the lighting to mitigate that. Regarding traffic, the Unocal operator estimated approximately 50 to 75 customers per night. Regarding noise, a complaint had been filed regarding late-night auto repair at approximately 2:00 a.m. The noise had been stopped, and was not a part of the current application for extended hours of operation. Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Thomas asked for an explanation of how the "grandfather" clause came in effect which gave some leniency to businesses already in operation. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that this property was not zoned Neighborhood Commercial; it had been zoned Light Commercial which had no hours of restriction when the 7-Eleven went into operation. The rezoning of the property to C-N and the establishment of those particular hours would have not specific effect on this property unless there was an actual abatement section drafted into the ordinance to put that into effect. In essence, they were grandfathered in under that interpretation. PC Minutes -9- July 26, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if staff had had conversations with Unocal regarding lighting or whether they would be willing to make adjustments to their current lighting standards. Ms. Nevins stated she had spoken with the consultants who had spoken with Unocal, who indicated that they should not have a problem modifying the on-site lighting. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chula Vista, said that the complaints stemmed from the noise from repairs at the Unocal Station. Mr. Radecki stated that it was the straw that broke the camel's back. They had been listening to noise late in the evenings for several months, and it was the late-night gas tank opening operations with Border Patrol and Unocal that had upset him at 2:00 a.m. The station had not voluntarily ceased operations when the complaint had been filed last year; they just ceased operations earlier this summer. Mr. Radecki said they did not attend the public meeting, because they were on vacation. If they had been in town, they would have attended and would have brought more people with them. He felt the station had already had their chance; they did not need a trial period; they had been operating illegally. Complaints were submitted, so he felt they had failed their chance. He commended the Commission members who had visited the sites at night at various times. However, he did not think that gave a good indication. He did not feel there was a compelling need for gasoline; there are four stations within a 3/4 mile radius. The Scoreboard and 7-Eleven could not be compared regarding noise. He asked staff if the repairs had to be conducted inside the repair bays. At staff's affirmation, Mr. Radecki stated Unocal was also in Code violation since they did their work in the parking lot. He stated that ambient noise adds up when noise is allowed to continue. Repairs were conducted by individuals on gas station property late at night. He thought the gas stations should take some measures to limit unauthorized repair on their facilities. He asked that the Commission support the community. Commissioner Ray noted that his earlier comment regarding the cessation of 24-hour business had been directed towards the May meeting. Mr. Radecki stated that the station was still open after the May date. Aaron Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chula Vista, stated that the main problem was the noise-- traffic, people working on the cars, and people arguing. Also, the light came into his window at night, so he had to put his pillow over his head to sleep. It was hard to concentrate at school when he had not had enough sleep. He felt it would be better if the station was not open 24 hours. Susan Radecki, 1460 Nolan Court, Chula Vista, noted that Unocal was not kept like Texaco. It had no shrubbery, nothing around the station, so besides them wanting to go 24 hours, it was an unkempt station. She felt if the Commission granted the 24 hours, they had little regard for the quality of life. Regarding the noise at 7-Eleven along with the Unocal station, they had a complaint with the noise abatement people which was being taken care of. A lot of their noise was coming from the equipment on their roof which is at the back of the Radecki property. She PC Minutes -10- July 26, 1995 stated that one of the businesses was putting out rat poison which was killing some of the cats. With the 24-hour issue, with more garbage and more activity with soda cans and trash, there may be more of a rat problem. Their main complaint was the noise and the lack of sleep. Mark Aragona, 287 Sandstone Street, Chula Vista, declined to speak, indicating that all of his comments on Item 1 held true for this item. Vern Shotwell, 287 Sandstone Street, Chula Vista, was also concerned with the quality of life. Since the station had been closed, the residents had had peace, and he appreciated it. Jim Forgey, R.H. Lee & Associates, 1201 S. Beach Blvd., Ste 207, La Habra, CA, consultant to Unocal, stated that as a result of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 14, Unocal voluntarily ceased operation of their facility between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No bay work was being done before 8:00. Most of the noise generated in the area comes from the street intersection and the surface streets in front of the station. A mailing went out to the residents within 300 feet of the service station site in order to give people of the community a chance to communicate their concerns directly to Unocal. There were five people at the meeting. A petition had been placed at the Unocal counter, and within 48 hours 100 signatures had been received. Since that time, an additional 100 signatures had been obtained. The Police Department had indicated there had been a limited number of service requests to the site during the last year, while the service station had been in operation 24 hours. This indicated to Unocal that the surrounded area benefitted from having a 24-hour operation where an attendant was available to respond to the activities in the area. He noted there were no pay phones or cigarette sales on the site that might attract foot traffic or loitering. He felt Unocal had demonstrated a strong effort to meet the concerns of the community, and as community member and a long-standing business in the community, Unocal was adapting to the changing world of the customer's needs. Mr. Forgey stated that Unocal requested 24-hour gasoline sales and was not requesting to have 24-hour auto service. Unocal had incorporated a business action plan and established security methods for their employees for their safety and those around. Referring to the conditions, Unocal did not intend to place high- intensity-type light fixtures on several corners and underneath the canopy, but intended to replace the lighting fixtures under the canopies with a 2x2 low-level halogen light. Mr. Forgey stated that Unocal appreciated Planning staff's help on this project and was looking forward to favorable results to extending their operation for fuel dispensing only for 24 hours. Commissioner Willett agreed with the lighting to be installed under the canopy, but noted there were two very large 5' lights on the corner which threw out a lot of light. He asked if Unocal intended to turn those downward similar to those Texaco had across the street. Mr. Forgey replied that it had not be brought up, but those light fixtures had a purpose of serving the approaches to the service station which needed the light on the entrance. There was a possibility they could look into a change-out on that. He would have to address that with Unocal. Commissioner Willett concurred regarding the importance, but stated the lights were approximately 160 degree lights, which were going out into the street and then bouncing back, PC Minutes -11- July 26, 1995 especially to the neighbors on the south side of Orange. Mr. Forgey replied that a Unocal representative was present and he could possibly address the situation. Julio Aguayo, Jr., 5663 Balboa Avenue, #510, San Diego, representing Unocal, stated his primary purpose was to answer any questions the Commission might have regarding day-to-day operation of the service station. Unocal cared about the quality of life. He agreed with Mrs. Radecki's complaint regarding the lack of landscaping and he intended to pursue that. Mr. Aguayo noted some things Unocal could do to mitigate some of the concerns. Commissioner Willett asked about the debris behind the station where there were rodents. Unocal and 7-Eleven had open bins. He felt that needed cleaning up. Mr. Aguayo said he intended to make changes to the trash enclosure and provide additional trash containers for the public's use. Commissioner Willett asked if Unocal was going to limit bay operations. Mr. Aguayo said they would be limited to 5:00 p.m.; however, if a customer needed their car and the service required another 30 or 45 minutes to get the car out, they would work past 5:00. Commissioner Willett noted that he had observed repair work being done in the open area. He asked if that would be curtailed. Mr. Aguayo said he would speak to the operator about keeping all repair operations within the bays. Commissioner Salas asked if Unocal intended to go through with those needed improvements whether or not the extension of hours was approved. Mr. Aguayo said it would be very helpful if the 24 hours were approved for a year. Unocal tried tO consider the cost of all the modifications on a site-by-site basis, and if the investment was to be made to replace the strip lights, they would like it for a year. Commissioner Salas asked if that meant they would only be willing to do 100% of the improvements if approved. Mr. Aguayo said they would do them, but they were just asking for the Commission's consideration. They would also investigate the pin-arm lights Mr. Willett mentioned. Commissioner Ray mentioned that Unocal's lease prohibited them from working beyond 5:00 in the bays, previously noted by Mr. Aguayo. Mr. Ray asked if that was the lease for the physical property or the conditional use permit. Mr. Aguayo stated it was Unocal's own internal document between the operator and Unocal, a general arrangement for all operations. Commissioner Ray asked if the Commission were to approve this extension, would Unocal agree to include that as part of the conditions of approval that those improvements would be in fact guaranteed to be done prior to the one year review of the approval. Mr. Aguayo saw no problem. PC Minutes -12- July 26, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if Unocal would still guarantee those improvements, or if they would just look at those. Mr. Aguayo answered affirmatively. Chair Tuchscher clarified that if the approval had those stipulations, Unocal would comply. If they did not comply, the approval would not be effective. Commissioner Thomas asked if the dealer was a local businessman or the corporation. Mr. Aguayo replied that the dealer was a local businessman and was a multiple dealer. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray stated that in light of what the Commission had heard and the fact that there were no guarantees that the lease arrangements could not be changed and that they are permitted by current City statutes to operate their entire facility until 11:00 p.m., he believed that the recommendation of staff would benefit the neighborhood rather than degrade the neighborhood, because of the potential for extended hours for the bays, the fact that there is no guarantee the improvements would be made. MS (Ray/Willett) that the Planning Commission adopt PCM-95-16 approving 24-hour operation for the service station located at 1495 Melrose, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commissioner Davis stated she would vote against the motion because there were areas of the City where she thought the C-N zone should have the exception and allow 24-hour service. She did not feel this was the place, because of the close proximity of the residents. The police report has stated 24-hour operation increased the opportunity for possible criminal activity. So close to residential, she could not support it. Commissioner Tarantino said being a good neighbor was like quality of life. His impression of being a good neighbor was to do things unsolicited. He felt like with all the improvements coming forth now, it was as if Unocal would give something for something. He could not support it. Commissioner Salas was happy to hear that whether or not the extension was approved, there would be improvements made to the station. She stated she was using the same rationale that in order to grant an exception, there had to be a compelling reason which she did not find. She did not think the noise in the neighborhood would be resolved to the satisfaction of the residents by what was done regarding the Unocal station. She would not support the motion. Commissioner Thomas commented the Unocal station had been there for many years, and Unocal could have made a good faith effort to be a good neighbor and clean up the station on their own. He did not feel that had happened in the past. The area of noise, foot traffic, and loitering seemed to be at the telephones at the south side of the 7-Eleven. In his opinion, PC Minutes -13- July 26, 1995 opening the station for 24 hours would aggravate the situation and would increase the foot traffic to the phones and would increase loitering. He had not changed his opinion from the prior item. Chair Tuchscher said he was concerned about the two dark corners on the intersection; he appreciated Mr. Aguayo's comments that they would make a good faith effort. He thought this would give the Commission a chance to reach for a little beautification and improvements. He did not have much confidence that a businessman who had just been cut down on hours would make those improvements without the one-year extension. Commissioner Thomas asked if the lighting on the corners was functional and if everything was working properly. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that would have to be clarified with Engineering. Chair Tuchscher clarified that he was talking about lights that would be shut down on-site where graffiti and other things could happen. Commissioner Tarantino said the applicant had stated they had voluntarily cut back their hours after they came to the Planning Commission meeting. It was his understanding that they were never supposed to have the extended hours; it was done without anybody's permission, and the cutback in hours was because they took it upon themselves to open for 24 hours when they were not supposed to. Now they were just complying with the law. Commissioner Ray asked when the Scoreboard was allowed to operate outside the C-N zone timeframes and the Commission's reason at that point in allowing extended hours. Mr. Lee stated the Planning Commission approved the extended hours in 1980 to 2:00 a.m. The Commission had been concerned about patrons leaving the premises during late hours and slamming doors. It was a relatively small operation with all activities conducted inside the building. It was the judgment of the Commission at that time that it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood because of the limited outside activities. He was not aware of any specific complaints coming forward. VOTE: 3-4 (Motion defeated) (Commissioners Davis, Salas, Tarantino and Thomas voting against) MSC (Thomas/Salas) 4-3 (Conunissioners Ray, Tuchscher and Willett voting against) to deny the request for a 24-hour operation. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee distributed a revised meeting schedule and asked that the workshop of August 2 be canceled. It was necessary to move MCA theater item to August 16; because of the shift in the environmental process, the date for Otay Ranch slipped by five weeks PC Minutes -14- July 26, 1995 based on the applicant's work with the environmental consultant. He asked the Commission to adopt the new schedule. MSUC (Ray/Davis) 7-0 to cancel the meeting of August 2 and adopt the revised schedule as presented. Commissioner Thomas noted that he would be on vacation on August 16 and would not be able to attend the meeting. Regarding the Otay Ranch workshops, Chair Tuchscher asked that they be the type in which the Commissioners could take part and have open discussion with all concerned. He felt it would be important for the applicant and staff to gain a lot of input and be very interactive. ITEM 3: UPDATE OF COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee apologized for the confusion regarding the date of the joint Council/GMOC/Planning Commission meeting. The GMOC report had been accepted. Commissioner Ray asked if there were any comments on the section changing the light rail to a mass transit corridor. It was reported that there were no problems with that. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the EastLake Affordable Housing Program had been discussed at the previous night's Council meeting and had taken approximately three hours. There had been much public input, but the Council had upheld the Commission's recommendation. Regarding the Broadway Business Home project, the Citrons had requested a different financial arrangement, but Council held firm in their original arrangements and at this point it was not known if the Citrons would proceed. Regarding the affordable housing, Commissioner Ray said he had heard a report that the foreclosures in Southern California had increased, and the majority of the increase had been attributed to the increase in affordable housing. He asked if the City of Chula Vista had experienced any problem. Mr. Lee stated that it had not. Affordable housing projects in Chula Vista had been very successful from an economic standpoint and from a visual standpoint. Commissioner Salas said that most of the foreclosures had been in the higher end housing, not in low or moderate housing. Commissioner Thomas asked if there had been any decisions that would slam the door on the back-up offer from Courtney Tire for the property. Mr. Lee replied that he was not aware of any, but Courtney Tire was moving ahead on the property located at the southeast corner, the old South Bay Chevrolet site. He was not sure Mr. Courtney would be interested in both properties. Regarding the MCA amphitheater, Commissioner Willett asked if it was feasible to contact other cities with reference to some of the problems that they might have experienced that Chula Vista PC Minutes -15- July 26, 1995 could profit by. Mr. Lee said that was valid, and he would talk with the project manager to find out what information he had gathered through the operation of other similar facilities. Commissioner Willett said he had attended a Design Review Committee meeting and the proponent had talked about a rotating advertising sign on top of the MCA speaker building to advertise the location or futura presentations. He did not think that was conducive to being in the middle of a regional park. Mr. Lee stated it was not allowed by Code, so the Design Review would not have any authority to even allow that. Chair Tuchscher noted that the project approval would be before the Planning Commission in an upcoming meeting and those kinds of issues would be brought to them. Mr. Lee said the actual land use decision would be before the Planning Commission, but the design issues were actually determined at the Design Review level. He thought Mr. Willett's comments were well taken, and he would review that. Mr. Lee stated that at a previous Council meeting, the Covenant Christian School extension had been considered. Council concurred with the Planning Commission but offered the applicant an additional extension subject to Council approval and subject to the applicant making an honest effort to find a new location. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chair Tuchscher commented that he was looking forward to working with the new group of Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT at 9:10 p.m. to the Special Workshop Meeting of August 9, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Special Business Meeting of August 16, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~lancy Ripl/~y, Secre~tary Planning Commission