Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/09/11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, September 11, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis (arrived 7:20 pm), Salas, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Ray, Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Associate Planner Reid, Associate Planner Miller, Assistant Planner Nevins, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Assistant City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/Salas) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Ray who was ill (Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher not yet arrived). APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Salas) 4-0 (Ray excused, Tuchscher absent, Davis not yet arrived) to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 1996. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting, and welcomed Peggy McCarberg who would represent the City Attorney's office for some upcoming Planning Commission meetings. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PC Minutes -2- September 11, 1996 James Allender, 2193 Lago Ventana, CV 91914, President of the Chapawa at Salt Creek Homeowners Association, stated that their nearest park was approximately 1.6 miles away. They were concerned that the Regional Park was going to be built about a mile east of them. They were also under the impression that a park was going to be built across the street on Mt. Miguel. That was a little far for the children living in the high density community. They were currently playing in the streets with dangerous situations. He asked that the Planning Commission take a look especially at the phasing of the parks and that their neighborhood be given priority. He was also concerned about parking. The residents can not use the visitor parking. If Mt. Miguel is striped with a bicycle lane next to the curb, Mr. Allender asked that they consider a bike lane similar to the EastLake circle where it is pulled off the curb the width of a car. That could then be used for overflow parking from the two high density projects. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that staff would set up a meeting with Mr. Allender, homeowners, and the Parks and Planning Departments to consider these issues. Some of his concerns related to the Planning Department; others were tied to the Parks Director and Commission. Mr. Lee said this was the only residential development at the present time east of the proposed SR-125 alignment. Staff had been aware at the time of development that future park development to serve that immediate area plus adjacent areas would come through the development of San Miguel as well as the Salt Creek Ranch Project. Commissioner Willett asked if this was the same area where Fire Station 6 was to be relocated. Mr. Lee replied that there was a fire station site proposed immediately east of Salt Creek I at the westerly edge of Salt Creek Ranch. There was a proposed commercial site, a park site, a fire station, and elementary school in a cluster on the easterly side. ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING; VARIANCE ZAV-96-13; REQUEST TO EXCEED MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR AN OVERHEAD SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOME ORCHID GROWING AND SALES OPERATION AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE - Eugenia Hammond (Continued from 8-14-96 meeting) Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, using overheads to show the area, coverage of lot, petitioners indicating support, the adjoining park, razor wire at the top of the fence with shade cloth, and an accessory structure in the back. Ms. Nevins stated it did not obstruct views or block light; however, staff had difficulty in making the required finding that there was a hardship peculiar to the property, and as a result has recommended denial. Commissioner Thomas asked if the razor wire was legal. Ms. Nevins replied that it was; the City did not have any regulations that would preclude razor wire. The only regulation spoke to the fence height. PC Minutes -3- September 11, 1996 Commissioner Salas had noted in the staff report that one of the complaints was that there was a 4x6 sign in front of the yard. She asked if that had been removed. Ms. Nevins stated the sign was on the front of the building, but it had been removed. The original complaint spoke to the sign and to supplies in the driveway. Those had been resolved. This application was not part of the complaint that was issued. (Commissioner Davis arrived at this time - 7:20 p.m.) Commissioner Salas confirmed that this was brought to staff's attention as a result of complaints from the neighbors. She asked if the petition reflected who had done the complaining. Ms. Nevins stated it did not. She noted that at one time Code Enforcement complaints were confidential. She was not sure if that was still the case. Ms. Nevins had not received any contact from the residents adjacent to the applicant or the one across the street; she did not know if they were opposed. Commissioner Willett asked if staff had an overview to show how much coverage was actually allowed. It was hard for the public to visualize what the Code allowed and how much of an overlay would be on it. Ms. Nevins did not have anything to show what was permitted and what was being requested. The existing house was close to maximizing the lot coverage, within 35 feet. Commissioner Willett suggested that in the future staff include an overlay showing what the Code allowed so it could be envisioned. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Genie Hammond, 1341 Park Drive, CV, the applicant, stated that the sign was 4 x 6 inches, not feet. She said the shade structure was already in place and used in conjunction with a home occupation business of raising orchids, plants and flowers. She had had a business license since March 1989. Approximately 80% of the orchids were her own plants. Ms. Hammond said she imported endangered species from all over the world, and traded with other orchid growers in endangered species, trying to keep as many alive as possible, as well as doing propagation work in them. She said a complaint had been filed by a neighbor regarding an inoperable car and a commercial truck which had been parked in the driveway and regarding the barbed wire. The complaint was not regarding the shade cloth. A Code Enforcement Officer had come to her house to discuss the car. She had subsequently given the car and the truck to the crime victims fund. She had no intention of parking there all the time, and she had not been approached by the neighbor regarding it. Ms. Hammond stated that the following day the Code Enforcement Officer and a woman had gone back to her home, asking to see the orchids. It was at that time the officer saw the shade cloth, which was not visible from the street. The officer had filed the complaint, not a neighbor. Ms. Hammond had submitted a petition which had been signed by 28 neighbors. Ms. Hammond noted that Mr. Griffin had told her that an informal administrative hearing would be held, and that if only one or two neighbors complained, he would be inclined to grant the PC Minutes -4- September 11, 1996 motion for zone variance. Ms. Nevins had then contacted her on July 30 setting a date for the formal hearing. The Fire Marshal had approved the shade cloth; it helped make her home energy efficient; the solid wood fence is 4-1/2 ft. high with a wood trellis on it and shade cloth anchored against the trellis. The only part which could be seen from the street was the 1-1/2 ft. strip against the trellis. The gate across Palomar Park is gated off 24 hours a day. To see the park, visitors had to park beside her house as well as in front of the neighbors to the west. Ms. Hammond said they get graffiti, trash thrown in their yard, and food thrown at their houses as well as human waste. Commissioner Willett confirmed that a Code Officer had come to her Ms. Hammond's house to look at the orchids, and asked if during that time he or she advised Ms. Hammond of the Code violation, or did they leave and she found out about it later. Ms. Hammond stated the officer came about the complaint about the vehicle, and they discussed the orchids. He had asked if she had a business license and if it was current. Ms. Hammond had answered affirmatively. The next day, he came back with a woman he said was a volunteer. The volunteer never spoke. Ms. Hammond took them through her house into the back yard. They discussed the orchid plants; they looked at some of the flowers in bloom, and that was when he noticed the shade cloth. The first day he had asked her to get in touch with Norm Ostapinski. Chair Tarantino stated the second day the Code Enforcement Officer came to see the orchids and the shade cloth, not on official business. Ms. Hammond answered negatively. Commissioner Willett asked if after that visit, Ms. Hammond had received another visit saying she was in violation? Ms. Hammond confirmed. Commissioner Davis asked if her house was the original floor plan? Ms. Hammond stated the front had been remodeled and brought out a total of 225 sq. ft. It still maintained the 15 ft. setback from the street area. Commissioner Salas noted that Ms. Hammond had started her collection 40 years ago, but the homes were not 40 years old. Ms. Hammond said her home was 27 years old, and she was one of the original owners. She had moved the collection she had already acquired up until that time. Commissioner Willett stated he had visited the property that morning and noticed a car wrecker there tied to a car which looked like it had been there several days. He asked if it was hers. Ms. Hammond answered negatively. Commissioner Willett had noticed there was no signage behind her house informing park users that it was private property. Ms. Hammond said that had been gated off a few years before because of the dumping problem--refrigerators, mattresses, household furniture--and driving down the lawn area. PC Minutes -5- September 11, 1996 Commissioner Willett questioned Ms. Hammond as to the minimum area she would need to satisfactorily grow her orchids with shade cloth. Ms. Hanunond stated that 1/3 of it was rolled up and down, depending on the weather. She had left it out because of the impending hearing. Lee Kenaston, 3168 Fair Oaks Drive, Spring Valley 91978, said she and Genie had become very good friends because of the orchid society. Ms. Hammond is recognized as one of the foremost growers in the San Diego Orchid Society and had contributed a great deal to the community in setting up orchid exhibits, including the San Diego Zoo. She had provided a very clean, very environmentally sound location for her orchid collection, which includes many exotic species that take very special conditions for growth. She felt Ms. Hammond had a great deal to be proud of in the property she had maintained there for many years. Margot Elder, 1340 Park Dr., CV, stated she lived across the street from the applicant. She probably was the only one who saw the shade cloth. She and her husband had no problem with it. It was neatly done and nicely tucked away. Corwin Bell, 1320 Park Dr., CV, across the street from the applicant, spoke for the Wynns who lived adjacent and abutting the property of the applicant. The Wynns and Mr. Bell were opposed to the shade cloth attached to the fence and the razor wire across the top, security lights, etc. It was very unsightly to the Wynns. The Bells also opposed it because the setback was designed to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. The shade cloth could be supported by posts within the setback areas. He felt that having the shade cloth over the entire back yard facilitated turning a residence into a retail outlet for orchids. When people come to purchase orchids, the street was blocked with cars. The Hammonds park their personal automobiles on the street. At times, pallet loads of fertilizer and perhaps pesticides were in the driveway. He and the Wynns opposed the project. Commissioner Davis asked if any of the traffic could be attributed to the park. Mr. Bell said he felt people who utilized the park may like to park there but could not because of people purchasing orchids. He had witnessed an 18-wheel semi tmck trying to turn around in the cul- de-sac when it was making deliveries to Mrs. Hammond. They had objected to the truck, because the truck hung out over the sidewalk. They had not brought it up to Mrs. Hammond, because in the past they had gotten no favorable response. Maria Bell, 1320 Park Dr., CV, stated she was opposed to the fence. Ms. Hammond had ignored most of the conditions of her home occupation permit. It was an eyesore. There is a commercial business going on there. When Mrs. Bell was home during the summer, the 18- wheeler semi-truck would deliver products most Fridays at 10:00. It would back down her cul- de-sac. All the cars would have to clear the area so deliveries could be made. There were usually pallets of things left out in the driveway. The garage was floor-to-ceiling wall-to-wall with boxes. Cars were unable to park in her driveway. Ms. Halnmond had made a statement that her sign was 4" x 4". Ms. Bell stated it was a real estate sign advertising her business. Ms. Bell said a lot of traffic was created and people coming and going. This type of business lowers property value and lengthens the marketability of homes in the area. She thought it was PC Minutes -6- September 11, 1996 time to keep it a residential area and not have a business there. The business may have started out as a small business, but has turned into more. Their complaints had been related to the business. Ms. Bell gave the Planning Commissioners some pictures of Ms. Hammond's home. Commissioner Salas clarified that there were 18-wheelers going there on a regular basis. Ms. Bell stated they were there every Friday at 10:00. Answering Commissioner Salas, Ms. Bell said that during the sulnmer every Friday them were deliveries at 10:00. She now works on Fridays, so she didn't know if it was still happening. Commissioner Salas asked if staff had received any complaint about 18-wheelers being on the street. Ms. Bell said they probably had not. You try to live in harmony and not make complaints. Commissioner Salas confirmed that the truck and the car had been removed from the driveway. Ms. Bell stated they had. Hazel Wynn, 1337 Park Dr., CV, who lives next door to Ms. Hammond, said she was mainly concerned with traffic. The cars, vans, and trucks outside her house would not be going to the park, because she had walked around and there was no traffic by the park at that time. The razor wire was 5' to 6' above Ms. Wynn's fence and very ugly. Therese Petermichel, 1300 Park Dr., CV, said that there was a neighbor across the street from Ms. Hammond who had a business hauling trucks. If he could have a business of that nature, she did not know why Ms. Hammond could not have a business raising flowers. There was a lot of traffic on the street; a lot of kids speed through going to the park. Ms. Hanunond was trying to get the cars fixed for her children; the truck was to haul her flowers to the different shows. Her truck was backed in and not hanging over. She supported the applicant. Melonie Hammond, 1431 Park Dr., CV, said the razor wire is legal. Police had been out because of complaints. The Police had recommended they put up the razor wire and the security lights because they had been burglarized twice. People stole orchids. The cars were mostly not theirs; the owners of the cars and trucks liked to park on their side of the street. The Hammonds had an overnight visitor who had parked in front of the Bells' house because of the street light. The Bells had called and harassed Ms. Hanunond four times about moving the truck. The traffic problems were not created by the Hammonds. There may be one or two people during the weekend, and they could park in the public parking by the park. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Willett, regarding the car that was on the end of a tow vehicle, said he was not aware there was a business across the street that was repairing cars. Commissioner Salas felt that the comparison being made was what type of business was being raised in the neighborhood. She felt a business of growing flowers was very much different PC Minutes -7- September 11, 1996 from manufacturing a product. From her previous experience of living in a neighborhood where miniature roses were being raised, it was a great soume of pride to their neighborhood and a place of education for children. Commissioner Salas had not seen evidence there was really an abuse of the business. She stated she would have to go against staff's recommendation and allow the family to continue their business. Commissioner Thomas, regarding compliance of the home occupation permit, asked staff to comment. Ms. Nevins stated that there was a questionnaire which accompanied an application for a home-based business license. Regarding aesthetics, Commissioner Thomas asked if the business had changed the character of the house. Ms. Nevins stated there was a question as to whether it would change the residential character of the property. Mr. Thomas felt the razor wire was there because of the business. If the orchids were not there, the razor wire would not be required. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that Mrs. Hammond stated that Mr. Griffin had indicated that a variance of this type is normally handled at staff level. However, if staff, after reviewing the application is unable to make the findings, it is automatically forwarded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. He noted the home occupation had been permitted. The applicant had been notified of some potential violations of that home occupation permit, putting them on notice that they are not allowed to have customers coming to the property. If that was still occurring, that was a violation of the home occupation permit. The item before the Planning Commission was dealing with lot coverage. They were two different issues. The Planning Commission was not dealing with the home occupation permit at that time. If the violations were still occurring, the residents concerned should file again with Zoning Enforcement. Staff would make sure they were enforced, or the applicant has a right to appeal that to this body. He asked the Planning Commission to concentrate on the issue of the variance and the lot coverage. Commissioner Davis thought the wire was there because they back up to the park, not necessarily because there were orchids there. She asked for clarification of the size of the lot. Mr. Lee said it was a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. Code allows 40% lot coverage. The house, patio, and an accessory building appeared to approach the 40% maximum of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Almost any coverage in the rear yard would likely exceed the 40%. The Code classifies the shade cloth as a structure. The question was whether the Commission was comfortable making findings to approve this type of coverage in the rear. Commissioner Davis questioned the floor area ratio. Mr. Lee explained that the floor area ratio dealt with the amount of total coverage of the lot. Commissioner Davis said the netting was an up and down thing, not permanent. Commissioner Salas said the cover was there but, depending on the sun and the time of the year~ it may be rolled back and forth, so sometimes it was okay and sometimes it was not okay. She PC Minutes -8- September 11, 1996 had a hard time reconciling that the netting that could be moved back and forth could be defined as a structure unless it was the points where they were attached. Mr. Lee responded that when the enforcement officer was there, the netting was up and constituted a structure by Code and exceeded the lot coverage. If in the Planning Commission's judgment it was not the same as a true structure and had no impact on the neighborhood, the Commission may be able to make findings that staff was unable to make. Assistant Planner Nevins stated that it was her understanding that the temporary winter netting was what was moved up and down. The remainder was the more permanent netting. Chair Tarantino clarified that if the temporary winter netting was removed, Mrs. Hammond would be in compliance. Ms. Nevins stated that given the square footage she had, her allowable square footage at 40% lot coverage, the maximum, would be roughly 3,000 sq. ft. In addition to that, she is allowed a 300 sq. fl. open patio. The existing house, including the patio, is over 2,800 sq. ft. Currently, there is a total of over 3,200 sq. ft. coverage. The maximum is 3,300 sq. ft. Ms. Nevins showed what would have to be taken down to be in compliance. Commissioner Willett felt that if this was approved, it would set a precedent for other applicants requesting the same thing. He supported the home business and sympathized with the applicant, but, when he had viewed it that morning, it appeared that the whole back area was covered. Based on staff's position and based on the Code and enforcement of Code throughout the City, he agreed with staff's conclusion. Commissioner Davis had a problem looking at netting as being a permanent structure. Mr. Lee agreed that it was a difficult situation. If it was reversed and someone wanted to put this in their front yard and carry it out to the sidewalk, everyone on the block would be complaining to the City. It was a similar situation and a judgment call. This happened to be in the back yard, not as visible other than the fact that it is attached to the fence. Commissioner Salas felt that one of the basic issues was whether or not this business changed the residential character of the neighborhood. From everything she had heard and seen from visiting the property, she did not see that it changed the residential character of the neighborhood. This was a unique type of business that actually added value to the community. She thought the Codes were there for a reason, but the Commissioners had to be practical about it and be able to make concessions when it was possible to make them. She disagreed with Commissioner Willett. Commissioner Davis asked if anyone had filed a concern about the property two doors to the east of the applicant, where there was a building at the back exceeding the lot line. Mr. Lee replied that he had not seen it. Accessory structures could be constructed at a zero set-back in the rear, provided they are in the mar 70%. PC Minutes -9- September 11, 1996 MS (Willett/Tarantino) to support staff's recommendation denying the request, based on the data furnished by staff. Chair Tarantino stated that he concurred with Commissioner Willett that the variance and Codes were there for a reason; he was concerned about the precedent which was being set, and about the fact that it exceeded the lot line. Those rules were put there for protection of the neighbors and homeowners. He supported the applicant's business; it sounded as if it had gotten larger than originally intended and that they had outgrown the area. Commissioner Davis spoke against the motion; she felt this was the type of home business that did not have a major negative impact on the neighborhood. She felt the way of the future and the present has been cottage industry and it was something they should support. It was a way people could make a living and keep things going without going on welfare and without having to go on the public dole, and she encouraged people to do more of it. She understood that the Wynns felt that from their back yard that there was not a very positive view of the netting. They were the ones most affected. She suggested that the Wynns plant something taller so they would not be affected by it at all. She felt the home business was a positive thing and not a negative in the neighborhood. She supported the variance. VOTE: 3-2 (Davis and Salas voted no) (Ray and Tuchscher absent). Attorney Googins clarified that under applicable Code provisions, if a variance is denied by a vote of less than 4 votes, as in this instance, the applicant could choose to appeal the Planning Commission's decision at the next Planning Commission hearing or, at the applicant's option, they could appeal the matter to the City Council. They could work with Planning staff to process that through the applicable procedures. Chair Tarantino informed Mrs. Hammond that she had the option of appealing to the Planning Commission again when more members are present, or she could go directly to the City Council. Attorney Googins noted that the result of the vote was a denial; however, a resolution was not adopted. The effect of it was a denial for inaction on the matter. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING; PCM-97-02; REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AND RECONSTRUCT A PORTION OF A NON-CONFORMING MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECT LOCATED AT 219 MADRONA STREET, WITHIN THE R-3-P-14 ZONE - Faustino Martinez Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, noting that the applicant wished to demolish the existing unit in front and replace it with a new larger, more modern residence. The Planning Commission could determine that a non-conforming use may be replace by another non- conforming use of the same or of a more desirable nature. In this instance, staff believed this would be replacing an existing non-conforming use with another non-conforming use of the same PC Minutes -10- September 11, 1996 nature, but aesthetically of a more desirable nature, upgrading the property and the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. Commissioner Willett expressed his desire for more pictures that actually showed the condition of the property. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Faustino Martinez, 1198 Camino Biscay, CV, said the mason that he wanted to demolish the house and rebuild was because his wife could not drive, and wanted to be able to walk downtown. It would uplift the neighborhood. He would put in a new fence and bring it up to standard. It would add more value to Madrona. Alan Austin, 1622 Pioneer Way, El Cajon, said they planned to enhance the existing structure to match the new structure, as the Design Review and staff had requested. They planned on taming the landscaping and replacing the fences. Alfred Piselli, 355 Oxford St. CV, the owner of 223 Madrona Street west of Mr. Martinez, said he was paying half of the cost of the new fence. He was concerned about drainage of water from Mr. Martinez' property onto his property. When the grounds were totally saturated, he would get major flooding in the corner of his property. He would like to work out something regarding drainage. Commissioner Davis thought drainage would be one of the issues addressed by City staff, so this would probably help his problem. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Willett agreed with the applicant that the fences needed to be replaced. He also recommended that prior to demolition, that the applicant take care of the front porch. It was a fire hazard. There was a problem with drainage and, with landscaping, that could be corrected. He concurred with staff's condition that the apartment buildings be painted. The new house could be a show place. The neighbors were in agreement with the applicant's removing that house. He concurred and supported the request. MS (Willett/Thomas) to concur with the recommendations of the Planning staff in allowing the applicant to demolish and reconstruct the single-family residence at 219 Madrona Street. Commissioner Salas was in support of improving the property and would support the motion. PC Minutes - 11- September 11, 1996 Commissioner Thomas said there were several properties in the City which were non-conforming which should be put in a conforming use or upgraded to make it more desirable. This was a great opportunity to upgrade and beautify the neighborhood. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Ray and Tarantino absent) ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING; SUPS-96-06; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING A TEMPORARY TRUCK TERMINAL/TRAILER STORAGE YARD AT 2400 FAIVRE STREET - California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Material Company Associate Planner Miller gave the staff report, noting that staff had concluded that the use of the project site as a temporary truck terminal/trailer storage yard was an appropriate use until such time as a more comprehensive land use study could be completed and more suitable land uses could be defined for this area. Staff, therefore, recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Addendum IS-96-08 to Negative Declaration IS-90-09M and PC Resolution SUPS-96-06 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the application to continue operating a truck terminal/trailer storage yard pursuant to the draft Redevelopment Agency resolution, as amended to included the hours of operation. Commissioner Willett noted that one of the letters from Welder Supply Equipment commented on the deterioration of the street leading into the applicant's property. He asked if Public Works had been alerted to the deterioration of the street. Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp responded that he was not aware whether Operations had been apprised of the condition. They were aware of the problem with drainage on the adjacent westerly parcel. They were trying to work with the owner of that property in resolving the drainage problem there. Commissioner Willett suggested that staff look into that and answer this letter, and also for the Planning Commission's information. Mr. Goldkamp stated that regarding improvement of the street, three years ago Engineering conditions had been placed on the property so that in the event they came in for a building permit of over $10,000, they would have to install certain public street improvements along the frontage of that parcel of 660 feet in length. The applicant at that time entered into a deferral agreement with the City of Chula Vista, which expires in December. One of the conditions in the deferral agreement is that they will install those improvements prior to the expiration of that three-year period. Commissioner Willett noted that it had never been brought to the attention of the Otay Regional Valley Park that this applicant had been trying to restore the wetlands. He suggested that staff forward this comment on to Frank Herrera-A, a member of the CAC. Mr. Willett supported the restoration, but other committees needed to know about it. Commissioner Thomas asked if there had been any complaints or any problems with the existing use. Mr. Miller stated this particular use permit was noticed and there were no complaints received. In 1993 when they had gotten their extension, there had been complaints from PC Minutes -12- September 11, 1996 residents on Jacqua concerning dust. A condition was introduced at that time, which is still effective and in this conditional use permit, that the applicant has to apply magnesium chloride, which is a biodegradable substance, to the driving areas including the public right-of-way in front of their property to control dust. Commissioner Thomas stated that he was confused regarding the timeframe. Mr. Miller said that the original conditional use permit expired with a maximum life term of five years. The applicant had their application in prior to that time requesting this conditional use permit. He explained that this was not an extension of the original conditional use permit which expired. This is a new conditional use permit; the redevelopment area had been created, and therefore it is a special use permit falling under the redevelopment law. Commissioner Willett asked if the applicant was responsible for the street in front of his entrance regarding holding down dust. Mr. Miller said he was responsible for 660 feet along Faivre Street. He was not responsible for applying the magnesium chloride to the public street, but to the shoulder area which was unimproved. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Eddy Kubota, 2387 Faivre Street, C.V., representing California Multimodal, Inc. (CMI), supported the extension of the conditional use permit for another five year term. He was available to answer questions. Commissioner Willett asked if he was in agreement that he was responsible for the area alongside the street in improving it some way? Mr. Kubota stated it would not be their responsibility, but the property owners (Fenton) who would have to improve the street if there were $20,000 worth of improvements. Regarding spraying the shoulder of the street, they had agreed to that. They sprayed twice a year, prior to summer and at the end of summer. Commissioner Willett asked if it was only sprayed twice a year, or during the week. Mr. Kubota said they were spraying it twice a year with magnesium chloride. Commissioner Willett stated that he was confused; he thought they would be spraying more often to keep the dust down. Mr. Miller stated that magnesium chloride was a kind of substance that held the dirt together for weeks or months at a time. It was environmentally safe. In this particular special use permit, staff is requiring that it be sprayed a minimum of three times a year--spring, summer, and fall, and any other time of the year that the Zoning Administrator deems it necessary. Commissioner Willett stated that he had visited the site twice, the prior week and that day, and he had noticed dust being raised by trucks on the pavement. The wind from the truck brings a whirlwind from the side of the street. Mr. Kubota stated that they would bring a street sweeper in to sweep the street prior to applying the magnesium chloride. They actually sprayed the street, the shoulder, and their traffic areas. They were agreeable to that. PC Minutes -13- September 11, 1996 Linda Kaufman, 7220 Trade St., Suite 300, SD, representing H. G. Fenton Company, stated that they were in agreement with staff's recommendation. She questioned the five-year permit and the one-year extensions. There was nothing about an appeal if the Zoning Administrator were to deny the project after the first year, or whatever. She asked if there was an appeal process. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it went automatically to the Planning Commission. She stated they had a deferral agreement; they were aware that it was expiring. If they came in with a building permit, they would be going for the deferral agreement; they would do all of the road improvements that they had agreed to. Because of the interim use, they would ask for a deferral of the road improvements until it was a permanent use. She noted that the magnesium chloride usually lasted from four to six months if properly applied and really cut down the dust. Commissioner Willett asked if because of the temporary use they had not done the road improvements. Ms. Kaufman said they had not because it was an interim use, not a permanent use. The Otay Valley Park people would sometime come up with a plan and their site would be designated. The redevelopment group was becoming active there, and they would like to do something permanent on the site. George Solis, 151 Jacqua St., CV, stated that he had been complaining about the condition of the street and traffic. The street was not wide enough for two trailers to pass each other; one of them had to go on the shoulder in order to avoid hitting. There was dust constantly. They had only sprayed once in five years. The street was deteriorated to the maximum. Trucks were always speeding; he was concerned about safety of the children. 90% of the trucks were from Mexico, and Mr. Solis thought they possibly did not know the traffic laws here. Trucks parked along the street and honked their horns trying to get other trucks to move. There was a bus stop on the comer in front of his house. The bus driver put on the blinking lights and stepped around the bus with a stop sign; she was almost run over. He suggested that speed bumps be put in the street. The chemical had been sprayed, and two weeks later there was loose dirt there. Commissioner Willett stated that there had been two officers on motorcycles with radar guns in the area during the day when he had been there, along with a police vehicle. They were monitoring traffic. They had pulled over a truck and a van. Anthony Vasqua, corner of Jacqua and Faivre St., gave staff a tape to be reviewed showing the trucks blocking the whole street. He was in favor of the permit as long as they kept the dust down. It was hard for them to breathe dust eight or nine hours per day. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas stated that the timing of the permit confused her and the testimony of the applicant in terms of road improvements. This was still something that was going to be considered on a year-to-year basis. If the applicant had not made road improvements in the past because there was no certainty to the project, what was the incentive for the applicant to make those improvements now. PC Minutes -14- September 11, 1996 Mr. Lee replied that the City had a deferral agreement which was to expire in December 1996. The City can call that forward at any time. Staff was uncertain as to the history of what triggered that deferral agreement. Mr. Lee thought that should be reviewed with the applicant to ascertain whether or not to call that deferral forward and have those improvements installed. Mr. Lee said that could be done and staff could report back to the Commission for the expiration in December. If there is a consideration for an extension, that could be folded into the equation. By testimony at this public hearing, it is evident that there were potential issues which should be looked at very carefully, along with the road condition. Commissioner Salas said there had also been a very strong letter from Welder Supply Equipment that also documented that. She hoped the deferral was called and that the applicant made the necessary improvements. Mr. Lee stated that it was at the discretion of the City Engineer, but because of the circumstances and how this had been extended, there had been no discussion with the applicant. In fairness to the applicant, staff needed to go through that. If the concerned citizens wanted to leave the tape with staff, they would review that and get it back to them. Commissioner Salas asked if it would be within the Planning Commission's authority to include a condition that the road improvements be taken care of or that deferral be withdrawn. Mr. Lee replied that the Commission could place the condition; however, there was time to call the deferral forward and get those improvements installed. The Planning Commission could either take action on this item to extend the project for a certain period, but the improvements could be required before any extensions were granted; or the item could be continued for two weeks at which time staff could have a better resolve with Engineering as to whether it made sense to call up the deferral, and report back to the Planning Commission before they made the decision. It was not time sensitive. MS (Thomas/Salas) to defer the item for two weeks because of the road condition and the dirt, and because it was not time sensitive. Commissioner Willett recommended that the City talk to all of the businesses on that street regarding the road problem. Mr. Lee said that if the City had a deferral on that particular applicant, he did not know if the City had any control over the others. It might be that staff would report back that staff could call up improvements for 600 feet of the road, but other sections would remain unimproved. He was not comfortable without discussing it further with Engineering and getting all the facts. Commissioner Davis asked how the Otay Valley Regional Park Planning work into the road improvements in the future. Mr. Miller said the intent of the wording in the staff report and the recommendation and conclusion was that there were land use studies going on which, hopefully, would compel developers to come in and build a higher and better use in that area. That was why the permit was on one-year increments. PC Minutes -15- September 11, 1996 Commissioner Willett said the Citizens Advisory Group was preparing a draft EIR report on the Otay Regional Valley Park which was about ready for publication. One of the problems was identifying the park boundaries. The rest of the City could not do anything for any of the people until that report was out and identified and a final EIR issued with park boundaries identified. Commissioner Davis could not support the motion to defer; she did not think they would have the answer in two weeks and the Commission should go ahead and approve the conditional use permit, and then have staff work with the need for road improvements based on improvements to the property where there would be a nexus for requirement. (The meeting was interrupted at 9:10 p.m. because of a fire alarm and resumed at 9:30 p.m.) Commissioner Davis left the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Thomas asked that his motion be amended to accept staff's recommendation with the purview that staff understands their concern for the street condition and the dust and to check into calling the deferral in. The motion died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Thomas restated his original motion to continue the item for two weeks, based upon Mr. Lee's suggestions. Commissioner Willett concurred. Commissioner Salas asked that Condition E on page 6 be reviewed. She understood that the applicant would apply the magnesium chloride at least three times a year. This condition said that it would be applied to all driving surfaces at least once a year. She wished to see it put in the condition that it was at least three times a year, or perhaps quarterly. Mr. Miller said the wording should reflect that it would be spring, summer, and fall at the very minimum and during any other time of the year, including the months in between, if the Zoning Administrator so determined. Commissioner Salas asked if the residents in the neighborhood called and complained that there was a dust problem, would that prompt the Zoning Administrator to visit the site to make sure things were in order. Mr. Miller concurred. Mr. Lee said they would review that condition along with the others and discuss it further with the applicant to clarify. VOTE: 4-0 to continue for two weeks (Commissioners Ray and Tuchscher absent; Commissioner Davis had left the meeting) PC Minutes -16- September 11, 1996 DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 4. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Mr. Lee reported that the EduTech project had been approved by unanimous vote of the Council; regarding the EIR on SR-125 had endorsed the alignment similar to the Board of Supervisors in terms of the Horseshoe Bend alignment and the modified CAC alignment; the Citrons addressed the Council asking for an escrow on the property to secure financing to move ahead with their plans for the hotel. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT at 9:35 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripleq, Secret~ty Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96mln\pc9-11.min)