Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/01/08 Tape: 329 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, January 8, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director I~e, Senior Planner Griffin, Community Development Director Saiomone, Environmental Consultant Richardson, Finance Director Christopher, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting, APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of November 6, 1991, and December 4, 1991 MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 7-0 to approve the minutes of November 6, 1991, as follows: The arrival time of Commissioner Carson should be deleted under "Commissioners Present," In the approval of minutes of 9/25/91, it should be noted that she had abstained from voting on one- half the minutes, but had voted on the Scripps project; therefore she voted to approve that portion of the minutes, MSC (Carson/Casillas) 6-1 (Commissioner Decker abstained) to approve the minutes of December 4, 1991, as submitted, PC Minutes -2- January 8, 1992 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA DOCUMENTS FOR THE MID-BAYFRONT PLAN (A) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MID- BAYFRONT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SUBCOMMITTEE ALTERNATIVE), EIR-89-08, (S CH # 89062807) (B) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MID-BAYFRONT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SUBCOMMITTEE ALTERNATIVE), MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Community Development Director Salomone introduced those who would be speaking and noted that the Commission would be updated on the financial feasibility issue which had previously been requested. Chair Fuller noted that because of the complexity of this item, and because of legal issues involved, the Commission would accept testimony from the public even though it was not a public hearing. Environmental Consultant Richardson presented the staff report, and noted that staff recommended that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution recertifying the Final Environmental Impact Report with the Addendum, approve the findings of fact, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Finance Director Christopher updated the Commission on the economic feasibility analysis, comparing the two alternatives being considered and the bases on which each was considered. At Commissioner Tugenberg's request, Finance Director Christopher explained the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to the developer and the net present value of the project. Commissioner Tugenberg asked the break-even IR_R, with the developer receiving no return. Mr. Christopher explained that the target rate would be zero IRR. PC Minutes -3- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Casillas asked Mr. Christopher to explain the narrow margin using the baseline no Agency participation and using 50% tax increment. Mr. Christopher explained the method used in the determination. Community Development Director Salomone stated that 15 % tax increment was a very modest Agency participation for a project of this size. Chair Fuller asked if the financial feasibility analysis was an interim analysis. Mr. Christopher answered that further economic analysis was intended for the LCP and negotiations for the development agreement. Commissioner Decker, referring to the annual interest rate of 8%, asked if was high given today's standards. Mr. Christopher said 8% over a long term was a reasonable interest rote assumption for tax and bonds. Commissioner Decker asked if more alternatives would be run. Mr. Christopher responded that it depended on the direction from the subcommittee, Planning Commission, or City Council. Before a final economic feasibility analysis could be done, staff needed to know what the final land uses would be. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the recertification of the Final Environmental Report be considered first, including the addendum, and adoption of the master resolution be taken last. Mr. Rudolf noted and clarified the changes in the master resolution which were being recommended. Commissioner Tugenberg clarified that the vote by the Planning Commission and City Council on the conceptual plan did not obligate the City in any way or subject the City to a lawsuit from the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf concurred. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 25, asked if the physical roadway improvements was to be at LOS D or C. Traffic Consultant Dan Marum answered that the threshold standards were applied directly to arterial intersections. After explaining the methodology used, he said LOS C would be the minimum level of service required at arterial intersections where two arterials meet one another, and that LOS D would be the minimum standards for locations where arterial streets meet freeway ramp intersections. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 35, asked what the Connors Plan was. The biologist for the project answered that the Connors Plan was developed by Peter Connors for Wetlands Research Associates in 1987 when they did the overall marsh enhancement study prepared for the City of Chula Vista, which provided some basic guidelines for predator management. PC Minutes -4- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Carson asked how many enforcement officers would be required to handle the project. Staff believed two would be sufficient to handle the project. Commissioner Carson asked if the additional position for Fire was to be paid from the general fund or by the applicant. Ms. Richardson answered that the City's general fund typically funded that type of position. Commissioner Carson commented that there would not be additional need for another Fire Inspector if there wasn't a project. In the future, she would like to send a message that the developer should be the one to pick up the tab. Commissioner Carson commented that anything that would be an additional cost due to the fact that the project was being developed by a developer should be paid for by the developer, including the additional gardeners and landscape equipment in Parks & Recreation. She asked that the EIR be consistent in that regard. Finance Director Christopher explained that upon development of a project, it would have an impact on the City's operations in terms of services provided to the area. Offsetting that would be additional revenues received by the City by virtue of the development of the project. Mr. Christopher added that the analyses done so far indicated a very positive fiscal impact on the City's operating fund. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 28, regarding landscape chemical application, asked how the City would know if the person doing the chemical application was a state certified contractor. There was nothing in the mitigation section assuring that this person was in fact a certified contractor and using the correct pesticide or herbicide. The biologist stated there would be a second plan that would have to developed at the project level that dealt with materials, landscape design, etc. where that would be incorporated. In the mitigation monitoring, the Planning Department is the monitoring agent. Commissioner Decker asked how the full-time enforcement officers would be funded after the development was finished. The biologist answered that it would be through a development agreement to provide a funding mechanism through funds generated from the project. Commissioner Carson, referring to the mitigation for water on page 62 of Attachment A, asked why there was no requirement for no-net increase water consumption. Ms. Richardson said that at the time the Final EIR was prepared, that measure was not yet being incorporated. Commissioner Carson recommended that it be included. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pointed out three technical changes as follows: Page 25, Level of Service, delete the parenthetical statement. Resolution A, as revised, on page 4, paragraph 2d, should be 21.081.6 instead of 21.080.6. Addendum, page 2, #1, Section 15.1.64 should be Section 15.1.62. PC Minutes -5- January 8, 1992 At Commissioner Martin's request, regarding page 73, Overriding Considerations, items 1 and 2, Mr. Rudolf explained the rationale of overriding considerations. Chair Fuller noted that she had a request to speak by Bill Robens of the Sierra Club. Bill Roberts, 254 Camino Elevado, Bonita, representing the Sierra Club, spoke to the findings of fact and overriding considerations. He submitted a letter to the Commission which included the Siena Club's position. Mr. Robens stated that the Sierra Club did not oppose development on the Bayfront; development up to the existing Local Coastal Plan in terms of intensity was agreeable to them. He disagreed that Alternative 2 was not a feasible plan. Mr. Roberts pointed out that alternative 2 had not been studied regarding feasibility and, therefore, could be as feasible as the recommended alternative. Secondly, he discussed transit occupancy tax and jobs. The third issue was social considerations which had been considered infeasible because it was not a viable community. He said it had never been a goal of the City to have a stand-alone plan on the Bayfront. It was the intention that from a social standpoint the Bayfront Plan be integrated with the community and not be a stand-aione situation. Mr. Robens continued by discussing the traffic issue in both alternatives, and felt that if the same assumptions were made for alternative 2, it would be found to also be mitigable. The Sierra Club recommended Alternative 2 be considered. Commissioner Tugenberg, regarding the intersection of "E" and Bay Boulevard, asked if it was feasible that traffic would be mitigated by people choosing to drive south to "F" Street rather than using "E". Mr. Robens felt it was a questionable assumption. Chair Fuller asked if Alternative 2 was the development plan approved under the existing certified LCP, and if that was not the plan on which the Siena Club filed a lawsuit, and if there had not been changes made to the area in question as a result so that the conditions certified under the original existing certified LCP are no longer the same. Mr. Robens said a position had been taken by the Sierra Club because of the environmental problems with development on "D" Street fill and Gunpowder Point. They were not objecting to development--only to that development which was environmentally harmful. Chair Fuller noted that the first item to be considered was the resolution recertifying the final environmental impact report and the addendum. MS (Martin/Casillas) to recertify the Final Environmental Report for the Midbayfront Cqnceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) (EIR No. 89-08; SCH //89062807). Commissioner Tugenberg stated he was voting against the project because he didn't feel the EIR had mitigated the problems of traffic; the density far exceeds the ability for the biological area surrounding it to survive. PC Minutes -6- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Carson said her feelings had not changed, and she would vote against the project due to traffic, impact on schools, density, and the lack of view. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Tugenberg and Carson voted against) MS (Decker/Casillas) to recommend to the City Council that the Council approve the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan, Subcommittee Alternative, making findings of fact relating to feasibility of mitigation measures and project alternatives, adopting a MitigationMonitoring Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as modified. Commissioner Tugenberg felt the location of the culturai arts center was illogical with access from the east and west; the traffic generated in that location would create mayhem; the project almost doubled the intensity laid out in the General Plan. He did not believe the overriding considerations could be justified. He stated he would vote against the overriding considerations. Chair Fuller, responding to Commissioner Tugenberg, said she was relying on the phrasing included in the amended version on page 3 which stated that there were a number of issues which had not been resolved, and the documents stated it was not intended to constitute final approval of the plan at this stage, which included a cultural arts center. She stated she was going to approve it on that assumption, and was looking forward to continued studies of economic feasibility. Commissioner Carson said that, based upon that same paragraph, she was voting against. She did not feel she would like to give staff further direction to efficiently and effectively develop an LCP amendment and the General Plan amendment. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voted against.) ITEM 2. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER, EIR-91-02 AND CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-91-04 AND PCZ-91-F: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL", TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL" AND "OTHER" TO "MERCANTILE AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL", AND TO REZONE FROM I-L-P TO C-C-P CERTAIN 3 ACRE TERRITORY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN BROADWAY AND THE MTDB PALOMAR TROLLEY STATION PC Minutes -7- January 8, 1992 Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the item was being reviewed and addendum written; therefore, he requested a continuation to the meeting of January 22, 1992. That request also included the public hearing. MSC (Decker/Martin) 6-0-1 (Commi~ioner Tugenberg had temporarily left the dais) to continue Items 2 and 3 to the meeting of January 22, 1992. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-07: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARK WAY PLACE TOWNHOMES, CHULA VISTA TRACT 91-7 - Juan and Noelia Sanchez Senior Planner Griffin presented the staff report, and recommended approval of the project, based on the conditions and findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the first unit on the left facing the building from the street was being made by combining two existing units. Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public heating was opened. Dale Harvey, 71 N. Fourth, CV, of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, representing the applicants, suggested additional wording on recommendation no. 1. The condition called for reconstruction prior to approval of the final map. Mr. Harvey requested "or to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Engineer" be added to the end of the first recommendation. Regarding condition no. 2, Mr. Harvey stated for the record that when the project was built, payment of park fees in the amount of $2,000 were made pursuant to the City's requirements. That money, he assumed, had been used for park and development purposes. He asked that during the process of the final map, if so desired by staff, there could be a legal determination made as to whether those fees paid at that time would be satisfactory. He asked for Commission approval of the project. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Harvey stated the building was constructed in 1985 or 1986. Commissioner Carson asked if $2,000 per unit was paid, or $2,000 total fee. Mr. Harvey answered that it was a total of $2,000. Mr. Griffin, correcting his earlier statement, said the unit to be converted is in the rear right when facing the project from Park Way. At Chair Fuller's request, Senior Planner Griffin responded to the applicant regarding finding an alternative to converting the unit to the final map, the map process provided that an approved tentative map is valid for an initial period of three years and can be extended for an additional three-year period. If the tentative were approved at this point, the applicant could actually have six years in order to accomplish the conversion before they would have to convert the unit and PC Minutes -8- January 8, 1992 sell the project. Mr. Griffin felt that was a reasonable amount of time to have a valid tentative map and make the decision as to when they would actually convert the units from rental to for- sale units. However, if they want to include the language, Mr. Griffin had no objection; he felt it would not change the substance of the condition. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated staff's concern was that if the map is recorded and the building was already there, staff has no way of monitoring when the units would be sold, which necessitates that conversion before the map records. Chair Fuller noted that if at the end of the six-year period, the project had not been converted to for-sale units, they would have to reapply. Mr. Lee concurred. However, if the map is recorded before the conversion, there is no way of monitoring it. Chair Fuller asked if there was a problem with addressing the legal question about the park acquisition and development fees. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich explained that the applicant could apply for a waiver or reduction in the fee, since it was a master fee and the City Code allows for that. It had to be done in writing, and it would go to the waiving authority. In this case, it should be addressed to the City Clerk to go before the City Council for waiver. Regarding the legality of the previous payment, staff would have to discuss it with the City Attorney. Senior Planner Griffin, after the discussion regarding alternative wording to condition no. 1, recommended that it not be amended. Although the Planning Commission does not have the ability to waive the park fees, the applicant wanted to have it on the record at this hearing. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the tentative map remained in place for six years. Mr. Griffin stated the initial period was for three years with a possible extension of three years. A fee would have to be paid to consider an extension. The fee was not usually significant, but the extension would have to be considered by the Planning Commission. Jane Unger, 714 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, representing the Chula Vista Women's Club, stated they were very concerned about the acute parking situation on Park Way and "G" Street between Third and Fourth. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Decker) 7-0 to approve the tentative subdivision map for the Park Way Place Townhomes, Chula Vista Tract 91-07, subject to conditions 1 through 8. PC Minutes -9- January 8, 1992 ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING; PCA-92-02; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW AUTOMATED DRIVE- THROUGH CAR WASHES IN C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Senior Planner Griffin stated the Municipal Code presently allows car washes in the Limited Industrial zone and with a conditional use permit in the Central Commercial, Visitor Commercial, and Thoroughfare Commercial zones, with conditions regarding noise, hours of operation, circulation, and setbacks. Car washes are currently prohibited in the C-N zone. Mr. Griffin said the present automated drive-through, single-bay type coupled with service stations with new technology regarding noise and other impacts were generally compatible with the neighborhood setting, based upon site-specific consideration which could be reviewed under a conditional use permit. The request was to allow car washes in the C-N zone subject to individual review by the Commission of conditional use permits. Staff recommended approval of the amendments. Commissioner Decker commented that upon approval of the amendments, there may be several requests for car washes which would be brought before the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Griffin replied that each request would be reviewed by the Commission; however, existing Neighborhood Commercial zones were limited and most were built out, so there would be few opportunities. Commissioner Decker asked if there could possibly be a net savings in water consumption by usage of the car wash rather than washing cars at residences. Mr. Griffin concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher asked why the request took so long to come before the Commission; Mr. Griffin answered that it was a shared responsibility between the applicant and City staff, with problems in getting the environmental review separated between the Code Amendment and the actual conditional use permit. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Patrick Fiedler, Project Engineer representing Texaco, 2322 W. 3rd Street, Los Angeles 90057, stated that staff did a very thorough job with the analysis. Regarding the water usage of the car washes, Mr. Fiedler said they were able to reclaim 80% of the water and get the fresh water usage under five gallons per wash. New technology had made the automated car washes very user friendly and efficient. Commissioner Decker asked how a user would pay for the wash. Mr. Fiedler said, besides just paying to use it, users are given a code number which could be used within a 30-day period. PC Minutes -10- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked for the applicant's assurance that the car wash would be engineered for proper water flow. Mr. Fiedler said special strip drains had been designed to collect water on-site and not all over the site. The site would be graded to collect it. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 7-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, f'md that this proposal will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-12. MSUC (Decker/Carson) 7-0 that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A. ITEM6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24: REQUF~T TO REDEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND ADD MINI- MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE - Texaco Ref'ming and Marketing, Inc. Senior Planner Griffin described the project, location, and surrounding zoning. He noted that the project design, including the site plan and architecture, had been approved by the Design Review Committee on September 23, 1991. A noise study had been done in conjunction with the initial environmental study which showed that the car wash would be within the City's noise standards during the day. The facility would not be allowed to operate at night, because there would be a potential for exceeding the standards during that period of time. Staff recommended approval which would ultimately be dependent upon the City Council approving the prior Code amendment. Commissioner Martin asked about ingress and egress to the project. He was concerned about congestion at the location on Melrose, and illegal turns. Those travelling from the Bay area or 1-5 on Orange would have to turn in the exit. Mr. Griffin said staff could consider some alternative circulation programs before the project went before Council. Commissioner Casillas asked if alcoholic beverages would be sold at the mini-mart. Chair Fuller noted the applicant would address that during the public hearing. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dave Madsen, representing Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 9966 San Diego Mission Road, San Diego, said they had filed a conditional use permit in December 1990 and had worked with staff, Design Review Committee, traffic engineer, and acoustical engineer regarding the sound study for the car wash. He believed their plan would improve the traffic flow by closing two driveways closest to the intersection. Regarding alcoholic beverages, Texaco would request the sale of beer and wine from this facility. PC Minutes -11- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked if the company policy prohibited sale of single cans of beer. Mr. Madsen answered that company policy was to not sell beer from an iced container next to the door. ABC governs the particular quantity that could be sold at one time. Singles would be sold in the convenience store. ABC has placed the condition to not sell single items at Texaco in some areas. Commissioner Casillas felt the City had the authority to recommend to the ABC that a license not be granted for the sale of alcohol, based on police information and saturation of the neighborhood. Commissioner Martin asked if the mini-mart would be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Madsen answered affirmatively. Commissioner Martin was concerned that when the car wash was closed, it would be a potential meeting place. Mr. Madsen assured him that was not a problem at their other locations. Commissioner Carson asked if the applicant agreed with all the conditions as listed. Mr. Madsen answered affirmatively. Jack Meng, 889 Red Bud Place, CV, owner of the 7-11 Store across Melrose Avenue, was concerned with traffic increase, traffic pattern, and probable illegal tums into Texaco property; growth that would take business away from existing businesses in the neighborhood; number of existing businesses with liquor licenses; water conservation. He urged the Commissioners to consider the project carefully, and submitted a letter to the Clerk to be filed. Answering Commissioner Casillas, Mr. Meng said Lucky's, Omar Liquor, and Scoreboard sold liquor; the 7-11 Store had a beer license. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Another speaker came forward, so Chair Fuller reopened the public hearing. Patrick Fiedler, 2322 W. Third Street, Los Angeles 90057, representing Texaco, said much study had gone into what type of impact the project would have on traffic. The condition to widen the Melrose/Orange intersection was to improve circulation which was currently operating at Level A, and would continue to operate at Level A after installation of the project. He disagreed that cross-over traffic would be a problem; that people would frequent a station closer to their homes; the number of trips making a left turn on Melrose would be minimal. Regarding water conservation, Mr. Fiedler said the project used low-flow fixtures and maintained a zero net, as well. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -12- January 8, 1992 Commissioner Casillas commented that the Planning Commission had requested a workshop on issuance of liquor licenses, but had not yet attended one. He believed this was a good time to begin dialogue with appropriate people in the City, in particular the Police Department. That particular area was inundated with establishments which sold alcoholic beverages. He felt this would be the appropriate place to begin and attach a condition prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages at the mini-mart. Otherwise, he was in favor of the project; it was well done and would be an addition to the area and serve a legitimate function. He did not believe it furthered the health and safety of the welfare of the people in the area to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages. MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 7-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant enviromnental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-22. MS (Casillas/Decker) and that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-91-24, subject to Conditions 1 through 19, and adding Condition 20 prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Commissioner Tuchscher asked the radius of mailing of the notices. Mr. Griffin answered that it was a 500' notice. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to Condition 15, asked if the applicant was agreeable to using 80% reclaimed water. The applicant concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher asked that an amendment be made to the motion that Condition 15 read 80% reclaimed water shall be used for all carwash application. Chair Fuller asked if it was acceptable to the maker and second of the motion. Both were agreeable. Commissioner Tugenberg did not agree with Condition 20, because it would be equivalent of spot zoning. If the City generally had a law that said convenience stores could not sell alcoholic beverages, he would agree. However, he did not believe this project should be penalized; the fact there were already four purveyors of alcohol in the area should have no consequence--no relationship to this applicant; the Commission should not construct monopolies or limit the number. He could not support Condition 20. Commissioner Decker asked the Assistant City Attorney if this was a legal condition to be applied to the findings. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf believed the City was preempted by State law; the City previously had a role in limiting or conditioning the sale of alcoholic beverages, but no longer. He asked that the applicant respond from their perspective. PC Minutes -13- January 8, 1992 In answer to Mr. Rudolf, Mr. Fiedler said he understood that legislation had been passed last year, and added that they had filed an application and had a number of protests. The ABC, even though they had been reduced in manpower, seemed to do a good job. Texaco would abide by the rules ABC set forth. He asked that the Commission not vote against the project, and allow the ABC to do their job. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf replied that even assuming there was no State preemption, there was still the perspective that the ABC was the license issuing authority, and the concerns of Commissioner Casillas were the kinds of concerns the ABC considered in granting, denying, or conditionally approving a license. Mr. Rudolf suggested the Commission vote on Condition 20 separately. Chair Fuller asked that the Commission entertain a motion to divide the question. The Commission would vote on each item in turn. Commissioner Martin was concerned that people would drink and drive. He would like to know whether or not the Commission was charged with taking a position on this type of question; if not, he wished to make a strong recommendation that someone take a good look at it. Mr. Rudolf noted that possibly the Commission might word the motion so that Condition 20 would be to add a condition prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages, /f the City is not preempted by State law from doing so. Chair Fuller asked if that was in agreement with the maker and second of the motion. Agreed. Commissioner Martin was concerned with the traffic circulation, and the left-turn going east on Orange. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich noted that with the widening that would be required of the project, he believed a "U" turn could be made into the driveway on Orange. It may require revision to the intersection, adding another phase to the light. Commissioner Decker pointed out that the Traffic Engineer constantly reviews ail the intersections, and as the level of service changes on those intersections, revisions are recommended. If there were any appreciable changes, it would be an issue before the Safety Commission. Commissioner Martin was concerned with the location of the ingress and egress to the station with a 7-11 across the street, and other businesses in the same area. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that the intersection was operating at LOS A. With an addition of 7' on Melrose and 6' on Orange, it would be improved with the addition of this footage. PC Minutes -14- January 8, 1992 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: Based on f'mdings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-91-24, subject to Conditions I through 19, with Condition 15 being amended to read "80% reclaimed water shall be used for all carwash operations," and adding Condition 20 prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises, on the condition that it was not preempted by existing State law. VOTE: 2-5 (Commissioners Casillas and Decker voted for; Carson, Fuller, Martin, Tugenberg, and Tuchscher against) MOTION FAILED MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) $-2 (Commissioners Casillas and Martin against) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-91-24, subject to Conditions 1 through 19, with Condition 15 being amended to read "80% reclaimed water shall be used for all carwash operations." Chair Fuller commented that in light of the discussion held regarding the sale of alcohol, a workshop be scheduled regarding addition of mini-market conversions with a report or someone from the Police Department discussing this as a social issue or problem. Commissioner Carson asked for further information from the Attorney as to whether or not this was in the Commission's purview. Commissioner Casillas noted that someone from the alliance of Ministers, and other interested parties in the community, might be included. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted there was no workshop this month; however, there was tentatively a field trip on ~Ianuary 18 for the San Miguel property. It may be impossible because of the rain. February would be busy with a special meeting and a workshop session. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT at 9:55 p.m. to the Special Meeting of Saturday, 1anuary 18, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. for a field trip to Rancho San Miguel. Planning Commission (l, cl-8.mln)