Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/12/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, December 13, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Acting Senior Planner Hernandez, Assistant Planner Pedder-Pease, Senior Civil Engineer Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Ray) 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 29, 1995. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-96-04: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19.54.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS, AS DEFINED IN FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAW - City Initiated PC Minutes -2- December 13, 1995 Assistant Planner Pedder-Pease presented the staff report outlining the history of the proposed ordinance amending to establish residential care facilities for up to 12 residents, who are members of a protected class under the Federal Fair Housing Law to locate within residential zoned areas of the city, as a matter of right. Ms. Pedder-Pease noted staff recommendation that a 1,000 ft. separation requirement be included as part of the ordinance consideration. Assistant City Attorney Moore provided further details regarding the office of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) allegations that the City's current ordinance is discriminatory. Ms. Moore pointed out the City was not in agreement with those allegations. However, as a result of other court decisions that have resulted in large monetary damages awarded against cities, the courts have established the fact that cities need to treat group homes, as described, similar to other residences. Ms. Moore further explained that while cities have the right to retain CUP authority over these residential care facilities, the City's ability to impose conditions is essential, prompted by Federal law. Because of the preemption, staff has recommended adoption of the ordinance as drafted. Commissioner Davis indicated that she had a couple of concerns; 1) that without requiring a CUP, the City would be allowing what she considers to be a commercial business in a residential zone, and 2) without requiring a CUP, what would control the review of the 1,000 ft. spacing requirement? She also expressed concerns over not being able to impose adequate parking requirements and questioned what the City of San Diego was doing to address similar facilities in their jurisdiction. Assistant Attorney Moore explained that in respect to distance requirements, two different court decisions have come down - one in support of imposing a distance requirement as being reasonable, and the other decision in opposition to a distance requirement. It is the City Attorney's opinion that the 1,000 ft. distance requirement being suggested for the City ordinance would be defensible on the basis that such a requirement would not impose any hardship in the ability for someone to locate a facility within the City of Chula Vista in compliance with those standards. In response to what the City of San Diego is doing, it is my understanding that the City Council has decided to pursue the idea of regulating these types of facilities through the use of a conditional use permit against the advice of their City Attorney's office. This is not the direction that the City Attorney's office in Chula Vista would recommend. Ms. Moore noted that the City of San Diego is involved in a lawsuit at the present time wherein one of the allegations is that the City is in violation of the Fair Housing Law. Commissioner Davis asked if there was any opinion from the League of California Cities recommending how this type of ordinance should be addressed. Assistant City Attorney Moore responded that there are a number of opinions written by attorneys that work for the League and are in basic agreement with the position taken by the Chula Vista Attorney's office. She indicated she was not aware of any official position taken by the League itself. PC Minutes -3- December 13, 1995 In response to an earlier question, Assistant Planner Pedder-Pease responded that the staff was not concerned regarding a parking issue with these types of facilities based on the information received from the State Licensing authority indicating that the residents do not drive and that typically there are not more than 2 staff persons on duty at any one time. In a further response to Commission's questions, Assistant Attorney Moore stated that every city in the County, as well as any city in the United States, has to follow the same Federal law, but at this point in time, we do not know how many cities are actually being pursued by HUD in terms of potential violations. She went on to explain that retaining the CUP process which requires a public hearing can lead to specific problems relating to testimony from residents indicating they do not want certain types of housing and/or certain kinds of individuals in their neighborhood. Those types of comments will likely lead to discrimination lawsuits against individuals as well as the city. Commissioner Ray indicated that he was uncomfortable relating to not having enough information at thi~ point to adequately weigh the results of the implications of the Federal law and its repercussions vs the retention of the present City ordinance requirements. He questioned whether or not it would be better to hold off on any sort of amendment at this time. Assistant City Attorney Moore noted that their office strongly recommends that some action be taken at that meeting, keeping in mind that the ordinance only pertains to a use permit that is presently required for facilities that house 7-12 residents since the housing of 6 residents or less is currently allowed as a matter of right. She also pointed out that the City has reached a settlement agreement with HUD in which we have committed to pursuing an ordinance amendment; therefore, without acting on an ordinance, that settlement agreement would be in jeopardy. Commissioner Ray questioned whether or not the City Council could be asked to take action on the ordinance if the Planning Commission were unable to come to an agreement. Assistant Director Lee replied that staff would move forward with the ordinance for Council consideration with an explanation but that it would be necessary to move the item forward since the present emergency ordinance which was enacted by the Council is set to expire very shortly. Therefore, we would not want to place the Council in a predicament of not having either an emergency or permanent ordinance in place in conformance with Council's directive. It was, therefore, Mr. Lee's recommendation to Planning Commission to either approve or deny the staff recommendation. Chairman Tuchscher opened the public hearing. Noting that there were no speaker slips and no response to his request for anyone from the public to address the Commission, the hearing was declared closed. MSF (Willett/Salas) 3-4 (Commissioners Ray, Tuchscher, Thomas & Davis against) that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCA-96-04 as presented by the staff and recommend that the City Council approve the code amendment as drafted, noting that his research had PC Minutes -4- December 13, 1995 indicated that staff's recommendation was in concert with both the California League of Cities and prevailing legal opinion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Motion by Commissioner Thomas to send the item forward to City Council without a recommendation; motion seconded by Tuchscher with notation that he requested an added statement that item be taken forward with maximum expediency taking into account procedural issues. The maker of the motion Commissioner Thomas agreed with the modification. Vice Chair Commissioner Ray stated that he was now in more of the opinion that the ordinance change should not be approved. Commissioner Davis also agreed that the City would be giving up due process and would be precluding the public an opportunity to provide input if a CUP were not required. Commissioner Thomas stated he would like to withdraw his motion and that he had no problem with his original no vote; Vice Chair Ray suggested a motion that Resolution PCA-96-04 be denied but said he had no problem with approving Item A of the Resolution. Assistant City Attorney Moore said it would was possible to separate the items, voting no on A and yes on B. Chairman Tuchscher stated, however, he did not feel there would be any benefit in separating the issues. Commissioner Thomas made the motion that no changes be made to the ordinance relative to PCA-96-04. The intent of the motion was clarified by Moore; she believed the motion was in effect retaining the current city ordinance as it is, thus requiring a CUP for residential care facilities. Commissioner Thomas concurred with that analysis and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. VOTE: 4-3 (opposed by Commissioners Tarantino, Salas and Willett) Assistant Planning Director Lee asked for a delay of Items 2 and 3. Chair Tuchscher stated he would take Item 4 out of order. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-04: REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SERVICE STATION FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CASHIER BOOTH, AUTOMATED CAR WASH, ADDITIONAL GAS ISLAND, AND 24-HOUR OPERATIONS FOR GASOLINE SALES ONLY, FOR THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 98 BONITA ROAD IN THE C-NqP (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Union Oil Company of California Principal Planner Griffin stated that an issue, of which staff had just recently become aware, had arisen on the noticing of the Unocal project. The notices had gone out per City policy to PC Minutes -5- December 13, 1995 property owners and tenants within 500' of the property. A large number of the tenant notices had been returned marked "vacant units-non deliverable", specifically from the apartment units directly south of the Unocal site. Because so many had been returned, the secretarial staff had called the manager of the apartment units to see if they had 50 to 75 vacant units. The manager replied that they did not. Staff had not had time to follow up on it, but there may have been a problem with the post office. Mr. Griffin noted that the tenant noticing policy was a policy of Council and not a legal requirement of noticing. The project had been legally noticed to property owners and several of the tenants did receive notice. There had been input at the Design Review Committee meeting from not only a representative of the property owner, but also a tenant. Staff recommended that the item be continued, but if the Commission felt the item should be heard, the applicant was in attendance from Los Angeles. Their consultants representing Unocal were also in attendance. Mr. Griffin asked if it be continued, that it be continued at that time so the applicant and consultants could leave. If the Commission wished to hear it, it could be heard in its original order. Chair Tuchscher was in opposition to the noticing ordinance and the staff time, applicant time, and procedure involved. He felt the Commission should not continue the item. Commissioner Davis agreed in that the property owner had been noticed, some tenants had received the notice and she felt that if the tenants were alarmed, they would have spread the word. Commissioner Thomas had no problem with proceeding. Commissioner Willett asked if the comments from the apartment units were negative. Mr. Griffin replied that there was a representative for the property owner and one tenant who had some fairly specific concerns. They were not necessarily against the project but were concerned about some of the aspects and made some suggestions about ways to address their issues. Mr. Lee said they were land use issues and not design issues. He could try to relate their concerns to the Commission if they decided to hear the item. Commissioner Willett stated he had taken some photographs and had spoken to some of the tenants who were against it, until Mr. Willett showed them the drawings of the attenuation wall. They changed their minds at that point and withdrew their objections. Chair Tuchscher noted that the State mandated that staff mail notices to property owners within 300 feet. The City goes well beyond that. The adjacent apartments were owned by one entity, and Chair Tuchscher felt if the owner was interested in filling the room with his tenants that he would be successful in doing that. He felt the owner would have notified all the tenants he felt would be concerned from a noise standpoint, etc. Chair Tuchscher had no problem with dealing with the item. PC Minutes -6- December 13, 1995 Chair Tuchscher then proceeded to Item 2, going back to the original agenda order. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-95-04; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE EASTLAKE GREENS UNIT 22, CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-04, INVOLVING 9 LOTS CONTAINING 135 SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES ON 11.68 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE AND HUNTE PARKWAY WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY - California Pacific Homes Acting Senior Planner Hernandez gave a brief presentation of the project, giving the project location, proposed grading and a subdivision design. Commissioner Willett expressed concerns about the potential of Hunte Parkway to be a busy street and asked if a traffic signal was planned for the intersection of Hunte Parkway and North Greens View Drive. Senior Civil Engineer Thomas explained that if the traffic conditions at build-out warrant it, the intersection could be signalized. But he does not expect this to happen until EastLake III is built and North Greensview Drive is extended to the final phase of EastLake. John Norman, Representing California Pacific Homes, stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation and that he was available to answer questions. MSUC (Willett/Ray) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCS-95-04 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map EastLake Greens unit 22, Chula Vista tract 95-04, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-96-03; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE EASTLAKE GREENS UNIT 23, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-03, INVOLVING 70 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 20.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY - EastLake Development Company Acting Senior Planner Hernandez gave a brief presentation of the project, giving the project location, proposed grading and a subdivision design. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was open. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Tuchscher asked if the average lot size of the project was 8,000 sq. ft. Principal Planner Lee indicated that the lots at the end of cul-de-sacs appeared to be 10,000 to 11,000 square PC Minutes -7- December 13, 1995 feet, and that when combined with the 6,000 to 7,000 sq. ft. rectangular lots they produce an average lot size of about 8,000 sq. ft. MSUC (Willett/Ray) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCS-96-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map EastLake Greens Chula Vista tract 96-03, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-04: REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SERVICE STATION FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CASHIER BOOTH, AUTOMATED CAR WASH, ADDITIONAL GAS ISLAND, AND 24-HOUR OPERATIONS FOR GASOLINE SALES ONLY, FOR THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 98 BONITA ROAD IN THE C-N-P (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Union Oil Company of California Principal Planner Griffin reviewed the staff report and stated that the Design Review Committee had approved the design at their last meeting, subject to the Commission's approval of the conditional use permit. Mr. Griffin summarized the concerns expressed by a representative of the property owner and tenant of the apartments to the south at the Design Review Committee meeting: loss of auto services capability on the site; the possible need for a follow-up noise study to confirm what the initial noise study reported; reduced setback in the rear. The Code requires 15' rear setback, but with a left-over unusable area, staff suggests the building be brought back to the setback line. Mr. Griffin stated the site was subject to a Precise Plan Modifier, and the Design Review Committee could approve a setback reduction under that Precise Plan Modifier. The Design Review Committee had approved the setback reduction, but it did not preclude the Planning Commission fr6m indicating any concern they might have in terms of noise issues or landscape issues. Mr. Griffin noted the following changes to conditions in the staff report: Page 3, Condition A should read 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Item C should read "The masonry walls shall be constructed at a height of 9-1/2 feet and extend from the exit of the carwash tunnel to the corner of the property along the southerly property line." With those amendments, Mr. Griffin concluded his remarks. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any discussion regarding exiting and the location of the driveways. He thought there may be some potential conflict with traffic coming down Bonita Glen heading north, and the people exiting the eastern boundary of the property onto Bonita Glen Road, turning left. PC Minutes -8- December 13, 1995 Mr. Griffin noted that to provide the stacking and avoid some of the problems existing on the Shell site, it was preferable to leave the driveway more adjacent to the intersection. Conflicts could develop on occasion. Coaunissioner Ray suggested the use of cones in the median to limit the left turns. He was uncomfortable with the potential conflict. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that if there was a conflict, the Safety Commission would look at it and Engineering had the ability to provide the cones or could install an actual median as a barrier if it was needed to eliminate conflict. Regarding cones, Commissioner Davis was concerned that the people from the apartment building making a left onto Bonita Glen could not then turn into the filling station. Commissioner Willett stated a sign needed to be installed at the exit of the Shell station which stated "Stop and Then Proceed" since there is no sign there. Commissioner Thomas asked who in Traffic Engineering was staff liaison for this project. Mr. Griffin stated it was Frank Rivera. Commissioner Thomas asked to be shown the drainage on the parking lot near the exit of the carwash. Mr. Griffin deferred that to the applicant, who would speak later. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about hazardous materials on the property. He asked if the City was waiving any guidelines for rebuilding a business without the venting procedure for hazardous waste. Mr. Griffin stated the requirements had been set down by APCD, and the applicant would have the proper documentation and authority from the APCD to proceed. He assumed there would be testing of the site, and any remediation required would have to be done at that point. It would have to be accomplished before any redevelopment could occur. This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. Scott Peotter, Project Manager for Unocal, showed some slides of the neighboring facilities and what they had tried to do on their site to accommodate those. He noted that the project consisted of the fueling component and the carwash component. The Ordinance allows 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Peotter requested that they be allowed to open at 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. They had no objection to extending the wall to the corner of the property line, and no objection to building a 7' or 9.5' wall. Commissioner Ray questioned the number of spaces available for queuing, and asked if there had been allocation for space for the drying process. Mr. Peotter stated that the attendant dried the car at the exit from the carwash. On busy Saturdays, they could have two attendants available. From a queuing standpoint, they had not only the ability to stack four cars in the queue, but they could also control the conveyor speed. By adding the second attendant at the PC Minutes -9- December 13, 1995 end, they could speed up the conveyor. They could also back up through the gas islands. Mr. Peotter said they had a real operational incentive to make sure they did not get queues that blocked the gas pumps. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Peotter to explain the drying mechanism and what they would be doing to mitigate the water going into "E" Street. Mr. Peotter stated there was an air dryer at the exit of the carwash and they were able to capture and recycle about 80% of the water. Of the 20% balance, half would evaporate and the other half would be captured through the towels and the dry-off. The only part of the car that would continue to drip would be the undercarriage. The distance between the exit of the carwash to the street was significant. A trench drain would be installed across the sidewalk at each driveway; any water on-site would be captured before going across the sidewalk into the public right-of-way. He said the conveyor is actually a drain for the entire carwash, and the areas all slope back into the conveyor area for recycling purposes. Commissioner Thomas asked if there were any trenches outside the carwash around the corner which would catch any of the 20% that would be on the undercarriage. Mr. Peotter stated the high point of the driveway was probably somewhere around the beginning of the radius; from that point on, it drained back to the conveyor. On the other side, it drained into the trench drains at the exits. Regarding underground tanks, Mr. Peotter stated that the existing tanks would remain. The tanks currently meet the 1998 standards; however, with the revision of the pumps, the gas lines from the tanks to the pumps would be replaced with double-lined, double-walled pipe and the latest state-of-the-art electronic monitoring system would be installed for both the tanks and the lines. The County Health Department would permit all of their underground work, the replacement of the tank top packages and the lines. Commissioner Tarantino asked if there was any consideration for winter hours. Mr. Peotter stated that once it was dark, the carwash would be closed. Discussion followed regarding tanker refueling hours, other locations of their carwashes within the San Diego area, lighting, height of the canopy, type of hardscape to be used, and location of the air pump and water facilities. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Thomas suggested that on page 3, it was noted that the carwash would be manned by two attendants, one at the entry and one at the exit. He asked that it be added to the resolution as Condition "O". Commissioner Thomas also noted that he felt comfortable that if the traffic circulation went through Frank Rivera's critique, it was the best that could possibly be done. PC Minutes -10- December 13, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the hours of operation of the carwash. Mr. Griffin stated the applicant would prefer the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends. Martin Beahl, who did the noise study for the carwash, stated that if the hours for the carwash were from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends, that would be consistent with the City's noise ordinance. Mr. Griffin concurred. Commissioner Ray clarified that the changes to Condition C would be instead of 28' past the exit of the tunnel, the wall would go all the way to the western boundary of the property line. Mr. Griffin concurred. Commissioner Thomas, referring to Condition J, said that unless the water was on the asphalt and damaged the asphalt, there could be water on the concrete and not cause any problems. He wanted more assurance by adding another drain at the exit approximately 10' or 15' away from the tunnel, with possibly Botts Dots outside the tunnel. Mr. Peotter stated that he no problems in concept. He questioned whether there would be enough fall for an underground drain line from that location to the storm drain and gutter. There was some discussion as to feasibility and cost effectiveness. Chair Tuchscher felt that anytime any type of new development or construction was being done, hydrology was the initial driving force behind decision making. He felt the type of system to be used had already been discussed, and that the safety issue fell onto the property owner. Commissioner Ray asked if Condition P should be added to install Botts Dots between the exit of the carwash to the piunacle of the rise. Commissioner Thomas felt that would guarantee that less water remained on the automobile. Chair Tuchscher stated that the difference in this Unocal station and the Shell station was that the Shell station exited directly onto a City street. The Unocal had significant internal circulation. Commissioner Tarantino, after comparing this station with others, stated that he was comfortable with not having the Botts Dots. With the attendant continually changing their towels, the water would be taken care of. Commissioner Ray asked if there was a provision for City review in six months or a year of the operation and percentage of reclamation to verify compliance. Mr. Griffin replied that it could come back if it started affecting the public street in terms of water. There was no condition to allow staff to review for compliance. PC Minutes -11- December 13, 1995 Commissioner Ray questioned how it would be determined whose water caused the damage if the cars still had water on the undercarriage when they exited to Bonita Glen from the Unocal or Shell. Staff had no answer. Chair Tuchscher confirmed that the Plauning Commission was being asked to approve the continued 24-hour operation of gas service. Commissioner Davis asked if the Planning Commission could address the cylindrical corporate image disapproved by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Griffin stated the applicant would have to appeal the Design Review Committee's decision to the Planning Commission. It was not part of this application, and it would have to be noticed. Commissioner Ray again questioned how a determination would be made as to who shared the burden of cost or proof if the road deteriorated. Assistant City Attorney Moore said there would be an agreement with the property owner, and the City would have to go under the terms of the agreement to ask them to do the repairs. The City would probably have to hire an expert or have staff make a determination of who was causing the damage. Chair Tuchscher noted that when he used the Shell carwash, he exited onto the street with his car 100% wet. The Unocal would be 80% dry, and then there would be the drive across the site before exiting to the street. He felt there would be a significant difference in deterioration of the asphalt in one case versus the other. Mr. Lee stated there were several other carwashes in the City, and the Shell carwash was the only one with which there had been a problem. Chair Tuchscher, regarding the corporate image, asked if it was part of the application. The DRC recommendation was not to have the corporate image lighting. He felt it was still part of the application. Mr. Griffin stated that the Design Review Committee had the authority on design issues. They had made their final judgment and unless that judgment was appealed, those elements would not be on the building. MS (Davis/Ray) to approve PCC-96-04, including the amendments to change the hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday; Condition C, that the masonry wall be extended to the edge of the property in the rear; and adding Condition O, that two attendants--one at the entrance and one at the exit--mann the carwash. Commissioner Thomas asked that Condition P be added that the City have the option to come back in six months for review. The second concurred if it was agrcable with the maker. He clarified that it would be a check that the water was being reclaimed and that the streets were not deteriorating. Commissioner Davis felt it already had a review. Chair Tuchscher asked that a secondary motion be made for that rather than including it in this motion. He felt it was in the operator's PC Minutes -12- December 13, 1995 best interest to recirculate as much water as possible from a cost standpoint, so they would make sure the system was as efficient as possible. Commissioner Ray agreed with the intent, but had a problem with a conditional use permit where the conditions were not checked. He would feel more comfortable with a fall-back position. Commissioner Davis, the maker of the motion, said she did not accept the last amendment. VOTE: 7-0 ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-06: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR A PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, LOCATED AT 455 QUAIL COURT IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT - Pacific Bell Mobile Services Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, noting the project location was at the end of a cul-de-sac adjacent to the 1-805 freeway. A letter had been received from an adjacent resident who had several concerns about the proposal. Staff had written a response to the resident. Mr. Griffin reported that staff felt the antennas did not represent any sort of negative visual impact, were very modest, and would not represent any type of electrical interference or electromagnetic problems. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kirk Dakan, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that the facility was the first system they were proposing in San Diego County. Their technology is the personal communication services, called PCS, which is a new digital technology. He explained where the system would be located and the service area. He noted the visual impact was very minor because of trees and freeways. Pacific Bell Mobile Services agreed with staff's findings and had no objection to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Tarantino asked if all subsequent antennas would be located on residential property. Mr. Dakan replied that they would not; there were two other applications which would be coming to Chula Vista in the future, either for Planning Commission or for administrative approval. One would be located at Rohr Industries with the antennas mounted on the facade of a parking structure. Commissioner Tarantino, regarding tests to be conducted six months after installation for the EMF emissions and for interference to local television and radio broadcast, asked if those readings could be taken before with a mobile unit. Mr. Dakan stated that that had already been PC Minutes -13- December 13, 1995 done. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the tests could be done within a shorter period of time--rather than six months. Mr. Dakan agreed with that. Chair Tuchscher asked if he would use the system in a similar fashion as the cellular phone. Mr. Dakan stated it would be similar. The advantages the customer would notice would be the higher sound quality, because of the digital technology. The transmissions would be encoded so people could not listen in on conversations. Chair Tuchscher asked if there would be less busy cells. Mr. Dakan stated that it basically introduced competition into the market. Greg Wakefield, 461 Quail Ct., CV, lives next door to the project. He stated the antenna would be located in an Otay Water easement and would have to be moved another 5 or 10 feet to the south. He was concerned with the EMF, and did not want the antenna in his back yard. There was a 5' fence between his home and his neighbor; there were cypress trees spaced about 10' apart. He was concerned about the aesthetics of the antennas and decrease in property value. He opposed the location, not necessarily the installation; wanted to see the study go to the property just south on Rienstra Court. He mentioned a two-story house next to 455 Quail Ct. on which it may be better to install an antenna. Chair Tuchscher asked if the Otay Water easement was an issue which had been addressed or considered. Mr. Griffin asked the applicant if he was aware there was an easement. Mr. Dakan said Pacific Bell Mobile Services had a master agreement with the Water District to locate facilities within their easements as long as it did not interfere with their operations. Commissioner Salas stated it seemed that the objection of the resident was that of an aesthetic standpoint. She asked if possibly some kind of decorative shrubbery could be installed to soften the effect of the antennas. Commissioner Ray asked if the antenna would run with the property if the owner moved. Mr. Griffin stated that as long as the project remained the same, the conditional use permit remained with the land, not the ownership. Commissioner Ray noted the agreement was signed by the owner, and asked if it had to be signed by the new owner if the property changed hands. Chair Tuchscher stated that he assumed the lease would run with the land and transfer by the recorded document. Mr. Dakan stated it ran with the property and added value to the property. Regarding the visual screening, Mr. Dakan stated that at close ranges, vegetation absorbed the frequencies. The antennas would be directed primarily down at the freeway but would also be projecting north as well. Nothing higher than 8' could be along the rear 20 feet of the property line. PC Minutes -14- December 13, 1995 Commissioner Ray asked if the cypress had to be cut down to 8' as well. Mr. Dakan answered negatively. The cypress trees were tall and narrow, and by themselves were not enough of an obstruction. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Thomas/Ray) to accept staff's proposal with the added condition that 8' shrubbery be planted between the cypress along the fence line. Commissioner Tarantino asked for a shorter review period of three months for the testing. The maker and the second agreed. Chair Tuchscher stated that he hoped the Planning Commission had addressed the concerns of the applicant and the neighbor by adding the 8' shrubbery. VOTE: 7-0 DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 5. UPDATE OF COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the Council had unanimously approved the EastLake SPA Amendment and public facilities document. There was a trailing item to the next Council meeting that had to do with financing of the gymnasium at EastLake. Mr. Lee wished everyone a merry Christmas and happy new year. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 10:40 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of January 10, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rip~ey, Sec~tary~ Planning Commission (m:\home\planningknancykpc95min\pcl 2-13 min)