Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/08/28 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, August 28, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Thomas, Tuchscher and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Reid, Associate Planner Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Conservation Coordinator Meacham, Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan, Contract Attorney McCarberg PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Thomas/Willett) 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 6, 1996. Chair Tarantino and Commissioner Ray noted that they had been absent for the meeting but had read the information and felt comfortable to vote on the minutes. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting, and welcomed Peggy McCarberg who was representing the City Attorney's office for the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- August 28, 1996 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER AND MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Mace Street Transfer, Inc. (Continued from meeting of August 14, 1996) Assistant Planning Director Lee responded to issues raised in a letter which had been hand delivered that day from the applicant's attorney. Regarding the "irregular Planning Commission hearing held on August 14th in which testimony was taken," the applicant had been contacted and advised that staff would be recommending continuance of the item, with the notation that no action would be taken on the 14th. The hearing would be opened to allow anyone in the audience who would not be able to attend the meeting of August 28 to provide testimony. Mr. Lee asked those who had spoken on the 14th not to repeat themselves, but said they would be allowed to speak again if they had further testimony. Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, noting the surrounding land uses and the adjacency to the Otay River Valley Regional Park. Mr. Miller stated that staff had been concerned with three main issues: that the project is not consistent with the provisions of the Montgomery Specific Plan, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance; the impacts of a municipal solid waste plant and material recovery facility, that the type of traffic attracted to such a facility would degrade the community; that the project is not compatible with surrounding limited industrial land uses and the residential areas further to the east. Mr. Miller compared this site to the Maxwell plant near the Otay Landfill. It was staff's opinion that the findings required for approval of a special land use permit could not be made, as outlined in the staff report and the Redevelopment Agency resolution of denial. Associate Planner Reid stated that at the Resource Conservation Commission meeting held August 26th, five of the six Commissioners voted to not take action on the environmental document and to recommend that the Planning Commission deny the special land use permit for the proposed project. One Commissioner voted to approve the project, but did not take action on the environmental document. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission not take action on the environmental document and deny the project. Commissioner Willett questioned the current generation in tons per day by the City. Mr. Miller stated it was approximately 300 tons of municipal solid waste per day. Commissioner Willett aslced where the applicant intended to dump the left-over waste, into the current landfill or out of state. Mr. Miller deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Willett asked if all the trucks leaving the area were enclosed. Conservation Coordinator Meacham stated they would normally be required to be tarped, not necessarily enclosed. Regarding air circulation with the doors open, Commissioner Willett asked if there was any City expertise for this type of building. Mr. Miller replied that the air circulation system was part PC Minutes -3- August 28, 1996 of the environmental analysis, as far as odors, etc. were concerned. Ms. Reid noted that Hans Giroux, who had done a study of odor and air circulation and other potential impacts. The design of the existing building plus the additional mitigation measures incorporated would reduce any odors to a level below significance. Commissioner Willett was concerned about the particles of dust not caught with the mist system. Ms. Reid noted there were specific mitigation measures regarding dust, including pavement of all travel paths and barriers to any unpaved surfaces. Any evidence of dirt track-out onto Mace Street would be removed by washing or sweeping at the conclusion of each way. A misting system would be required to be installed as a mitigation measure, capable of maintaining average dust levels of less than 5 milligrams per cubic meter. Commissioner Willett asked if any scrubbers were required in the exhaust system. Mr. Giroux of Giroux Associates, stated that the dust control system proposed for this operation was an ultrasonic nebulizer misting system. He noted that it was considered to be state-of-the-art in terms of dust control and waste transfer. It was fairly unusual to build one of these systems and have that kind of dust control as part of the project condition rather than trying to fix the problem that arose later. Commissioner Thomas stated that the trash would be picked up, dropped off, and transferred out the same day. He asked what provisions were there if trucks broke down and the trash could not go out the same day it came in. Mr. Miller deferred to the applicant to answer. Since the public hearing had been continued from the last meeting, it did not have to be reopened. Chair Tarantino noted that all of the people who spoke at the last meeting had elected not to speak at this meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission did have their testimonies before them. Chair Tarantino noted that the applicant had a group presentation, and that the speakers had 15 minutes in which to make their presentation. Charles Gill, 600 W. Broadway, 8th Floor, San Diego 92101, representing Mace Street Transfer, Inc., responded to comments made by Mr. Lee relating to the hearing of August 14. He stated for the record that there was a notice given that the hearing would not take place and that it had been rescheduled. He suggested that it was a hearing that did not necessarily have appropriate public notice. Mr. Gill stated that the trash transfer station was not a heavy industrial use, and in many jurisdictions was located in a variety of limited industrial/high tech business parks and directly adjacent with common boundaries to high density residential developments. The building was approximately 39,000 sq. ft., self contained, and all uses would take place indoors. All that would change from the standpoint of the actual use of this site is that the trucks bringing trash to the facility would drive into an enclosed building over asphalt, and dump the trash onto a concrete floor in an enclosed building. Mr. Gill noted there were no adverse environmental impacts that could not be mitigated. He suggested that the proposed use in an entirely enclosed building was significantly better than the current use. PC Minutes -4- August 28, 1996 There would no longer be truck storage; there would be no additional traffic; Chula Vista's record for redevelopment in the area was not successful. This type of use in this location would act as a catalyst for redevelopment of the area and would provide significant benefits to the City and to the community. Mark Watton, Mace Street Transfer, Inc., 187 Mace Street, Chula Vista, described the current use on Mace Street. He noted that some of the waste was going to other landfills outside of the area, wherever it was competitive and where they could get a Title D landfill. The existing use involved trucking not related to waste but cross-border trucking, trailer parking, and freight-forwarding activities within the warehouse building, along with a fueling operation. This generated approximately 400 trips per day. They proposed to exchange all of those present uses for the proposed use. Trucks were not only covered, but most had scales on them. Everything would occur inside the building within a controlled environment. He believed the dust issue would improve in that the lot that was currently a decomposed granite-type of structure would be paved. All the operations consisting of trucks entering and exiting, or employees parking their cars, would be done on pavement. Mr. Watton said the principal thing for them as a generator of waste was competitiveness, and the Maxwell Road site did not allow it to be a competitive situation. They were designing something that they thought would result in less tipping fees and free enterprise. Mr. Watton showed some slides of current areas where trash transfer stations were being used, noting that some of them were next to condominiums and immediately adjacent to residential areas. Based on demonstration of existing facilities in other communities and actual experience of those operating facilities, he felt this project did fit a light industrial use and fit and enhanced the Montgomery Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Mr. Watton asked for approval of the project. Commissioner Salas asked if all the sites were close to a residential area. Mr. Watton replied that most of them were next to a mixed use. Most all of them were within a 1,000 foot radius of residential. Pat Lawrence, Director of Facilities Engineering for SCS Engineers, 3711 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, showed some pictures of different facilities, showing the adjacent uses. He noted that the facilities could not increase operations in any way unless the facilities were improved. The buildings are well policed and inspected regularly for vector control and cleaned daily. The Integrated Waste Management Board has regulations that requires the facility to be emptied out on a 48-hour basis. In the event of a break-down, the operators have to do something to clean it up. Commissioner Salas confirmed that the trash was dumped inside the building; not outside. Mr. Lawrence showed a slide and indicated the entrance, exit, turn-around, and the area inside the facility where the trash would be deposited. He mentioned that the facility was designed to have a 15-minute air change, with 12 8,000 cfm exhaust fans on the roof of the facility which were low profiled, architecturally shaped and screened within the units themselves. PC Minutes -5- August 28, 1996 Commissioner Salas noted that the activity going on was not permitted and was unlawful. Attorney Gill stated that there was a citation for trash that was outside of dumpsters. The trucking operation currently existing is a legal non-conforming use similar to other uses in the Montgomery area. The citation had been taken care of, had not occurred since, and would not occur again. It did not go to the existing operation on the site. Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator for the City, stated that he had called the local enforcement agency to report the incident where there was trash on the ground. Other staff had at least on one other occasion seen trash on the ground at the facility, and he had seen trash on the ground at the facility but had not been able to get the local enforcement agency to respond previously, on not more than two occasions. Regarding the legality of the facility, Mr. Meacham quoted from the Municipal Code regarding removal of or conveying waste to the City. Mr. Watton stated they were not involved with any trash generated within the City, and were not in violation of any of the franchise agreements, or collecting curbside. Regarding the citation, in the process of characterizing the waste stream to get the 15% recyclable count, trash had been dumped and they were going through it. The Health Department gave them a clean-up notice. They had promptly cleaned it up. Mr. Meacham clarified that the quote from the Municipal Code was not part of the franchise, but applied to anyone removing or conveying waste to the City. Commissioner Salas stated it is not a permitted use, and the Commissioners were not to base their decision based on whether or not it is a permitted use. Commissioner Willett was concerned about trash around the building, and with trucks with no covers. Commissioner Thomas asked if the 300 trips per day was at 500 tons or at 1,000 tons. Mr. Watton replied that it was at 1,000 tons, the maximum design. In reply to Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Watton said there were probably 40 trips a day for the 25-ton trucks and 125 of the 8-10 tons, at 1,000 tons per day. There would be 500 tons going in. The trucks would be counted twice because they would be going in and out. Commissioner Ray asked how the Health Department was notified. Mr. Meacham stated he had called the Health Department. He had received a call from the public. Commissioner Ray asked if there had been other complaints in the past regarding trash on the ground. Mr. Meacham stated he had received complaints in the past, had attempted to go past the facility to verify that there was trash on the ground, and there would not have been enough time for the Health Department to drive by the facility and see the waste on the ground. He had notified them, but had not asked them to respond. Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Meacham stated he had probably had three complaints in the past eight months to a year. PC Minutes -6- August 28, 1996 Commissioner Willett stated that, in addition to the noise of the trucks, the wind would blow the exhaust fumes toward the homes on Date Street. Commissioner Salas wanted to know where the market for the product would be; the Maxwell facility was not operating at 100% capacity, and she felt it was adequate to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Watton replied that because they owned the property, it put them in a different cost structure. Regarding recycling and material markets, the markets were free markets. They currently operated recycle facilities and scrap facilities, and the material went oversees out of Long Beach. When the markets were high, it stayed on the West Coast. Regarding noticing of the prior meeting, Assistant Planning Director Lee reported that the notice had stated that the public hearing was being continued to the 28th. Mr. Gill had a copy of the tape and the minutes. Mr. Lee asked if that testimony could be included as part of the record, or if he would like to have those people testify again at this meeting. Attorney Gill stated he was satisfied. He had listened to the tape. Sarah Luedtke, 1636 Jasper Ave., CV, asked if it was not Chula Vista's trash, why should it be in an area within 1600 feet of residences and within 1200 feet of an elementary school? Commissioner Tuchscher noted that was to be considered by the Planning Commission during their deliberations. Ms. Luedtke: Where does Laidlaw dump? Mr. Meacham replied that Laidlaw Waste Systems under City franchise collected approximately 85 % of the City's solid waste, which is currently disposed of at the Otay Landfill at the top of Maxwell Road. Ms. Luedtke: Why is there a need for two trash collection areas? Who guarantees there will be no rodents or insects? Who guarantees there will be no diminished values in a property? What could Chula Vista gain in terms of the taxes, etc. that is more beneficial considering the cost of what happens to traffic on Main Street, safety of children, more trucks, more traffic accidents, the quality of life? Ray Mnichowicz, 339 Palm Ave., CV, said he could smell the sewer coming off the ocean, and was concerned about exhaust from the trucks going in and out of the transfer station. He reiterated his concern about safety of children, the proximity of schools, and traffic. He said he now had to detour to get on his own street. Start Ogus, 3732 Holiday Ct., CV, concurred with the two previous speakers. Robert A. Epler, 9601 Ridgehaven Court, SD 92123, stated that he was the Assistant Environmental Services Director for the City of San Diego, and spoke as an expert witness. He operates the City of San Diego's solid waste management system and his department did the solid waste planning for the City of San Diego. The facility is next to the border of the City of San Diego, and the proponent had indicated the trash would come from the City of San Diego. Mr. Epler stated there was no need for this trash transfer station with this tonnage to meet the waste management needs of the City of San Diego, and no trucks operated by the City PC Minutes -7- August 28, 1996 of San Diego would ever come to this transfer station, if permitted. San Diego was concerned because the applicant had never spoken to them about it, the photographs of their temporary operation to him seemed in direct temporary violation of the State requirements, or pushing the envelope strongly. He was in support of staff recommendation to deny the project. San Diego's Planning Cormnission had denied a similar project which brought trash into their community to transfer to another, and impacted their community when there was no real benefit to it. San Diego had been sued by the applicant, but the judge had thrown the lawsuit out. He noted that SCS in this case had designed an excellent facility for the wrong location. Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery St., CV, stated he was speaking for 10 others, who he asked to stand; approximately 20 others stood also. He felt a lot of progress had been done in the Otay (Montgomery) Community, and thanked the Commissioners and the Planning Department for their efforts. He confirmed there was a school in the immediate vicinity, with residences less than 500 feet from the proposed transfer station. Less than 1,000 feet from the project site, a gymnasium was proposed, and Mr. Palma did not want 300 trash tracks impacting that area. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the project. Mike Vogt, 4932 Golf Glen Rtl., Bonita, objected to the traffic, and stated there was no reason to put the transfer station there. He owns an office building on Main Street opposite the site. It is extremely dangerous to turn on Main Street. He was concerned about the image of the area. Many of the buildings had been upgraded. The area had been in the worst real estate recession during the last five years; he asked the Commission to give them time to realize the goals and objectives the property owners had for the area. Mr. Vogt urged the Commission to deny the project. Mark Kroeger, 3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, stated he was the property owner directly across the street from the project; he owned approximately half of Mace Street. He had complained to the City, the Air Pollution Control, Hazardous Trash, for four years about what Pacific Disposal was doing on the site and the property at the end of Mace Street. He had seen human waste sitting for weeks in the roll-up containers, uncovered. He had no response from anyone. In the summer, the flies were very bad from the empty containers. He asked where all of the trash trucks would be kept during the night? The project showed no truck parking overnight. The residents were fighting a traffic problem on Mace Street from Sky Trucking. The trucks line up on Mace Street waiting for one truck to go in and one truck to come out. With no traffic light at the intersection, during rush hour traffic, the trucks were backed up six trucks deep waiting to get out onto Main Street. He did not feel this was a proper street for that amount of traffic. Mr. Kroeger stated that the area was not zoned for this type of building. He was concerned about whether truck maintenance was done on site, destruction of the streets by the trucks, who pays for the damage done by the trucks, noise level, loss of tenants because of noise, effect on worth of his property. He was also concerned about the water main. He had to cut down the square footage of his building and sprinkle the whole building because there was only a 6" main with low-water volume. He questioned whether a proposed tank would be of large enough size to handle a garbage fire. He was concerned about fire protection for his PC Minutes -8- August 28, 1996 property. He did not feel the environmental study was thorough enough. A proposed park would be less than 250 feet away, and the elementary school is 1200 feet away. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas agreed with the comments made that a lot had been done in the Otay area recently. More improvements needed to be made. She saw no compelling need to put another trash transfer station there. Needs are being met by the Maxwell Road facility. MS (Salas/Ray) to not consider the EIR and adopt Resolution SUPS-95-02 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency of the City to deny a special use permit request for the municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility at 187 Mace Street. Commissioner Davis thanked Mr. Epler for coming and offering his expert opinion. She felt that bringing trash from another city into Chula Vista and the wear and tear on Main Street and the traffic within the residential area, the school, the proposed gymnasium and the park were not conducive to what was being done. The existing use was non-conforming, but the City was trying to change that. She did not consider this to be light industrial, with the traffic trips this would bring with it. She supported the recommendation to deny. Commissioner Thomas was concerned that the facility would bring diesel exhaust and fumes. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he had seen projects which had mitigated negative declarations which showed more significant impacts; but his concern with the project was a vision issue as to this particular area of the city. He did not take offense to the looks of the buildings; they looked like they would fit within a light industrial zone. However, he felt the city was coming out of the worst real estate recession in history and thought this area of town had a great potential to do some high quality light industrial type uses. He was in favor of the motion on the floor. VOTE: 7-0 to deny Associate Planner Martin noted that this item was tentatively scheduled to go before the Redevelopment Agency for a final decision on September 17, 1996. Chair Tarantino declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. (Commissioner Ray left the meeting at this time - 8:45 p.m.) The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-95-03; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.14.490 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE REGULATIONS REGARDING HOME OCCUPATIONS - City Initiated (Continued from meeting of August 14, 1996) PC Minutes -9- August 28, 1996 Assistant Planning Director asked that the Planning Commission continue the item indefinitely. MSC (Davis/Tuchscher) 6-0 (Ray had left meeting) to continue PCA-95-03 indefinitely. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-97-11; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CAREER TRAINING COLLEGE AT 780 BAY BLVD. - Foster Properties for ABC Career Training Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report. She noted the only issue staff had with the project was parking. Under the existing parking, the project had a maximum deficiency of 50 parking spaces. The resolution of approval included solutions offered by staff to ensure sufficient parking on-site at all times. Also, staff had accepted a survey from the college indicating that approximately 50% of the students utilized public transportation. Within approximately a block, there was a bus stop with routes running through 7:30 in the evening. A condition of approval had been included that would require the applicants to either ensure that an additional bus route was provided for evening service, or that they would require shuttle service to take care of that. Commissioner Thomas asked where the college was receiving funding. Ms. Nevins replied that it was a private college. Answering Commissioner Salas, Ms. Nevins stated that the shuttle service was from the school to the trolley station at the time when the bus was not running after 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Salas asked if EduTek had agreed to that. Ms. Nevins stated that Foster Properties, the owner representing EduTek, had agreed that they would arrange with the City for additional bus service in the evening or provide the shuttle. Commissioner Willett asked why staff was imposing the condition that public service had to be provided. Ms. Nevins explained that staff was not requiring that the City provide the service. Since the closest transportation was within a block, the students using the transportation could get from the public transportation drop-off to the site. Students could not get to the site during the evening, since the last bus route stopped at 7:30. The school had classes running until 10:30 p.m. Mr. Greenwald thought he could talk to the transit coordinators and have an additional bus route running. He thought it could be obtained if there was a need. He may not have arranged for it. Commissioner Willett asked staff to contact the transit office to alert them to the possibility. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Leslie Cusworth, 1420 Kettner Blvd.//710, San Diego, representing Foster Properties, the owner of the property, stated she was there for questions. They had conformed to the PC Minutes -10- August 28, 1996 parking issue, adding 35 additional spaces to the parking lot. They also had an adjacent lot which they could extend further should they need additional parking. Commissioner Willett asked if the adjacent parking lot was utilized by the post office. Ms. Cusworth answered negatively, stating that they had a vacant lot further south which could be paved. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Thomas/Tuchscher) to approve PCC-97-11, request to establish a Career Training College at 780 Bay Boulevard. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that he was aware that EduTek been looking for a site in the South County area for quite some time. He was happy that they found it in Chula Vista; he felt it was a good operation, brought added educational training and job training to Chula Vista. Chair Tarantino stated that with the push from the schools to career, he thought it would be a great asset to the community and for the high school students. VOTE: 6-0 (Commission Ray had left) ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-97-10; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY AT 1655 BROADWAY #15, WITHIN THE C-C-P ZONE - Jose R. Brijandez, Roberto's Automotive Repair Shop Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, noting that the primary concerns staff had with the application was noise. A noise study had been conducted which concluded that the project would meet City noise standards. Staff was concerned that even though the noises might be intermittent and might occur for less than 15 minutes per hour, it would be a disturbance to the adjacent residents. The residents of the adjacent trailer park had been noticed, but staff had not received any phone calls or written response. Ms. Nevins noted that staff was also concerned with the limited size of the facility, and stated it was not uncommon for a small facility to have work spill over and occur outside. Staff required that all uses take place within an enclosed building. Since there were trailers adjacent, it was perhaps more of a concern here than it might be in other locations. Because of the concerns about noise and conflict, staff recommended denial of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Willett asked if staff had looked at the two automotive facilities at the end of the building to see if work was spilling over. Ms. Nevins said staff had taken a number of trips out there. When she visited the site, she did not see work being conducted outside; other staff had noted that work was occurring outside at the north end. Staff recognized the potential for spill- over in any automotive facility, and it was probably happening on-site with the existing businesses. PC Minutes -11- August 28, 1996 Commissioner Willett asked if staff had noted the vacancies within that complex, which were in excess of 60%. They were still moving out. Principal Planner Griffin stated that staff had distributed a letter from the property owner indicating that there were a lot of vacancies within the center, and he hoped that this type of use would increase occupancy. Staff was aware there were several vacancies in the center. Commissioner Salas noted that the Commissioners had received a fax from Roberto's shop stating that they were going to assume the lease on space 16 which would give them additional space. Mr. Griffin said that Mr. Palma had been working with the applicant in facilitating the application and the process with the City, and he had been attempting to address all staff's concerns. This was one of the ways to address their concerns regarding the small space, eventually providing a larger space where it would be much more likely that work would occur inside and not spill outside. Commissioner Salas had also noticed the vacancies. There were empty storefronts. She asked if the repair shops leased the entire space and were not using the storefronts? It looked ugly and blighted. Mr. Griffin thought they were just vacant spaces. Commission Willett stated that the end of the building actually had two sections. The front was divided off into small office areas, where the fire wall ran the full length of the upper section. The store fronts were vacant and available for lease. Commissioner Salas said it was a question of what was wanted for that area. There was an automotive cluster going on in the north side of it. Was it the plan for the whole shopping center to be series of repair shops? With it so heavily concentrated with automotive repair, nothing else would fit in there. Mr. Griffin said that from a staff point of view, to move the auto repair down into the balance of the center facing Broadway and serving that area would not be something staff would encourage. It would, in his opinion, be hard to attract other types of uses to the center once a major portion of the center was automotive. He noted that the property had gone through several zoning changes since 1988. The major auto repair use which had been there quite some time went in as a permitted use. Now auto repair needed a conditional use permit. Mr. Griffin noted that from a staff point of view, they could not support approval on the application. They did know there was a time crunch, and did prepare an alternative resolution of approval in case the Commission wished to look at some possible conditions of approval. Commissioner Salas commented that she had swayed back and forth on this project. There was a thriving automotive repair center to the north. She had driven through there, and them were cars stacked up outside of the repair shop, which was one of staff's objections. The proximity to the mobile homes was very close. Conversely, the center was blighted and needed to be PC Minutes 42- August 28, 1996 turned around. An automotive cluster may be the answer. She was concerned, however, about the residents and the stacking of cars. Principal Planner Griffin stated that staff would not recommend approval in any case. The owners had already moved their equipment in, but staff did not recommend a trial period because they did not want to encourage someone to take a chance at something where they would have to invest a lot of money and then have to leave. They were already in place, however, and if the Planning Commission was in favor of a trial period, staff was ready with a resolution. Staff normally did not offer alternatives. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, Otay, Chula Vista, stated that the broker who rented the property misled Mr. Brijandez. Mr. Brijandez had already moved his equipment in the space and had been paying his staff for the last couple of months, while Mr. Palma was trying to get the business license. Mr. Brijandez would not stack or have vehicles sitting in the parking lot, because that would not make him money. He had a machine shop on Main Street. The reason he left was because of the same problems. The real problem of so many vacancies was not because of bad management of the shopping center. It was because of one of the existing tenants. The vehicles would be in the back, entering through roll-up doors. It would be fleet- type and commercial business. The noise from the impact wrench would be less than 15 minutes per hour. The sound test cost $2,350. The neighbors in the mobile home park had made one complaint about a parrot which Mr. Brijandez had taken care of. The shopping center needed this type of traffic. The business would not jam up the parking lot on the outside; it would not have work performed in the parking lot. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if Mr. Palma had been involved on this project since inception, how long it had taken, and how much money had been spent by the applicant? Mr. Palma replied that he had been involved since the beginning; the process had taken two months; the applicant had spent approximately $5,000 to $6,000. Mr. Griffin noted that the completed application had come in on July 30th and to the Commission in less than a month. Commissioner Tuchscher replied that he was more concerned about the time it took from the time the applicant walks in the door to a completed application. That was where staff and applicant have to reconcile issues. He was curious as to what kind of hoops the City is putting them through and how long it takes our bureaucracy to get them to the completed application stage. Mr. Palma stated it had started June 10, but Steve and Patty had been remarkable, most hasty speed. Commissioner Salas felt it was inconceivable that a deal like that could be made without him knowing about the permitting. She asked if the applicant had any recourse to go back to the PC Minutes -13- August 28, 1996 realtor for damages. The realtors on the Planning Commission said that was a legal question, and they were not privy to the issues involved or the representations made. Commissioner Davis said there was some confusion that the shopping center was originally light industrial which would allowed this, and then changed to the commercial center zoning. Mr. Griffin answered that it was under the light industrial zoning for two or three years. It would have been a permitted use without any conditions. Commissioner Davis stated that she had been in the area the day before and heard a car being repaired. She noted that it was the garages in the mobile home area. She did not feel the use being proposed would bother the mobile home residents if the existing one did not. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Willett noted some of the up-to-date noise abatement equipment being used. He also noted that the fire lanes were improperly identified and the "no parking" sign could not be seen. The office space was very clean, and there was fire protection. He did not concur in the recommendation for denial. The Commissioners reviewed conditions of approval provided by Mr. Griffin. Commissioner Davis asked if one-hour fire separation presently existed between the suite and the adjacent suites. Mr. Griffin did not know. Commissioner Willett said from his visit, it appeared that both sides had a fire retention wall. Commissioner Davis asked the hours of operation for the automotive repairs at the north end of the shopping center. Mr. Griffin did not know; the hours noted in the staff report were for the requested operation. If the Planning Commission wished to approve the project, the idea would be to give a trial six-months operation. Staff could monitor and at the end of the period, the Zoning Administrator would send out a notice asking for any input, complaints, concerns. If there had not been, any permit could be approved by the Zoning Administrator on a permanent basis. If there were concerns that could not be resolved, it could be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. Commissioner Davis questioned the fees at the end of the six-month period. Mr. Griffin replied that a Zoning Administrator extension was around $185 to notice and process. Commissioner Tuchscher thought it was a use that was already in the building, there were tremendous vacancies, and he hoped other auto-related uses would be attracted to the center. He was concerned about small business people being put through so many hoops. If the use were approved, Mr. Tuchscher hoped the applicant would be given enough time to operate and be able to plan and make the right business decisions. He was not swayed by the fact that his equipment was already there, but did not see a negative impact associated with this use. PC Minutes -14- August 28, 1996 MS (Tuchscher/Willett) to approve the project with the conditions provided, with the modification that the conditional use permit be provided for a period of one year, automatically renewing. He asked that staff help save some applicant dollars, yet provide for mitigation if there were complaints. Commissioner Willett asked that suite 16 be included in the permit. The application was only for suite 15. Mr. Griffin was concerned that the project was only noticed for a particular suite. He asked if Mr. Tuchscher was requesting that the City absorb the cost of noticing. Commissioner Tuchscher thought that if the City was approving a two or three year conditional use permit that automatically renewed after one, unless there were complaints--three one-year conditional use permits could be issued, each one renewing if there were no complaints. He wanted to avoid the current process if there were no complaints. Commissioner Thomas wished to eliminate Condition D, which he said was unmeasurable and unenforceable. Clarifying the motion, Mr. Griffin stated they wanted to approve the permit in perpetuity and only review it if there was a complaint. Commissioner Tuchscher replied that it would be a three-year conditional use permit, subject to review annually. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if that was standard, from the City's standpoint. Mr. Griffin replied that if staff reviewed for written complaints, it would be easy. The Commissioners agreed that would be acceptable. Mr. Griffin said that staff needed Commission direction also as to whether to handle it through an administrative permit which would be a lower fee, when the shop expanded into the adjacent space. The Commissioners agreed with that also. Commissioner Salas commented that she was swayed by the equipment being there and the length of time. She felt the applicant had suffered a great inconvenience and monetary loss. Therefore, she would go against the staff recommendation. She also wanted to see something better for the area. If it was mostly automotive, it would be hard to attract other types of businesses. Commissioner Tuchscher said it would either be vacant, or it would be uses such as these. Right now, it was vacant. The property manager was encouraging the Commission to go in the automotive direction. PC Minutes -15- August 28, 1996 Commissioner Thomas asked if the Commission would rule on taking out Condition D, the noise from the pneumatic wrenches. He felt it was not needed. Mr. Griffin stated that the noise study had said that the project would comply with the City's noise standards if these noises did not occur over 15 minutes per hour. To give some credence to the noise study, something needed to be done. Commissioner Thomas, regarding Condition J, asked if all the licenses had been taken care of. Commissioner Tuchscher said they would need the conditional use permit to get the business license. Mr. Palma stated that the next morning a check would be written to renew their HAZMAT license from the San Diego County Health Department. They had already been there. The County is very aware of what is going on in the area. All of the licenses have been waiting to be renewed. Commissioner Thomas wanted verification that the licenses were taken care of after the conditional use permit had been granted. Commissioner Davis asked if the noise ordinance of the City was not sufficient for compliance if complaints were received, versus having it in the conditional use permit. Mr. Griffin stated they would have to comply with the noise standards regardless. Commissioner Willett noted that the only license to be renewed was the hazardous material. The others were already in place. He had looked at the oil retention and oil clean-up and was satisfied that their procedure took care of that. With reference to the impact wrench and the noise, with the portable sound panel, a lot of that noise would be mitigated and it would not go out the doors. He was very impressed with the condition of the facility and the people there. Commissioner Tuchscher asked for concurrence from the applicant relative to the conditions which had been discussed. The applicant indicated acceptance. Chair Tarantino asked for clarification of the motion. Principal Planner Griffin stated that he understood Commissioner Tuchscher to say that he wanted Condition A reworded to: "This conditional use permit shall be approved for a period of three years, subject to review based upon review of any written complaints." He assumed the last part requiring a formal extension at the end of the three-year period would need to remain. Commissioner Tuchscher confirmed that it was his intent. Regarding Condition D, Commissioner Tuchscher felt it should be left in, since it came out of the sound study that had been done, and needed to be there to make sure they applied the property City standards. PC Minutes -16- August 28, 1996 VOTE: 6-0 to approve the conditional use permit. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that the response time on this project had been pretty good; however, the expense was terrible. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 5. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee had nothing to report. Everything which had been forwarded to the City Council from the Planning Commission had been continued. No action had been taken. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Colnmissioner Thomas felt the map provided for the transfer station could have used more thought. The other maps were very good. He depended upon maps to get a basis as to where he was going, the surrounding areas, etc. ADJOURNMENT at 10:05 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 11, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. N~ancy R~ple~ S'~cretad Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc8-28.rain)