Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-08-06 ;,..... ....~.n_ ........._._ ~__._..... .~. . . ...:.....f ~._ .a.r......._..~ _.1 _ . ...;;._.__~... SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA C,ty Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California -.; ~' . 2'he Seal Beach Planning Commi.ssion meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you "'ish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman ",ill call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those ",ho are not in favor. fihen you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and ",hen recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then ",ait a moment to see if the Commi.ssioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or 9Qmments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commi.ssion. If you ",ish to address the Commission on matters other than pUblic hearings, the agenda provides for that time ",hen the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address the COmmission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, al",ays stating your name and address first. SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 6, 1986 NEXT RESOLUTION #1434 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Report from Secretary 4. Consent Calendar A. Minutes of July 2, 1986 B. Minutes of July t6,1986 5. Public Hearings A. Variance 9-86 Conditional Use Permit.17-86 302 15th Street (Continued from July 16, 1986) A request to remodel and expand an existing substandard single- family residence, including the construction of a two-stall tandem style garage which would encroach into the rear yard setback. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review 'California Government Code Section 15061(d)) Code Sections: 28-2500, 28-2503, 28-0701(2)(c) and (d) Applicant: Keith J. and Marlis Mang Sneden Owner: Marlis Mang Sneden Resolution #1428 ~ <--. B. Conditional Use Permit 2-86 Negative Declaration 6-86 . 99 Marina Drive A request to upgrade and modify an existing oil filtration/extraction facility which is located within an Oil Extraction (O-E) zone. The new equipment to be installed includes several 24 foot high tanks, a 16 foot high tank, several pumps and other oil extraction facility equipment to replace antiquated equipment. Code Sections: 28-1600, 28-1601, 28-2503 Environmental Review: Negative Declaration 6-86 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Owner: Exxon Corporation/Texaco, Inc. Resolution #1433 6. Scheduled Matters A. Plan Review 17-86 (Miller) 312 14th Street .~ A request to build a master bedroom addition to a nonconforming two bedroom single family home. B. Resolution Number 1419 (Variance 8-86 - West) : "-;>'~-":-" "1'''' '; l :::.. ''"-::~ '_,:., ..~ 1o.-=:'lZ' 't.;:"~_..~__"?:...,::"" "'~~"~:'l::.r._C' '~R<___ I j SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 6. 1986 Page 2 '11 C. Resolution Number 1420 (CUP 9-86 - Corky's) D. Resolution Number 1429 (CUP 4-86 - Mansour) E. Resolution Number 1430 (CUP 7-86 - Osco Drug) F. Resolution Number 1431 (CUP 10-86 - Griffith) 7. Commission Requests 8. Oral Communications from the Audience 9. Commission Communications 10. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: must 13. 1986 T 2-86 Hotel/Hotel Definition August 20. 1986 Variance 12-86 2999 Westminster (Great Western Savings) ~- September 3. 1986 CUP 12-86 13~140 Main Street (Hennesseys) .' "lII ." '. ..- . SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, August 6, 1986 at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Perrin led the Salute to the Flag. PRESENT: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Covington, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs ALSO PRESENT: Al Warot, Acting Director of Development Services Mr. Edward Knight, recently appointed Director of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach was introduced and welcomed by the Commissioners. REPORT FROM SECRETARY There was no report provided. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Perrin requested each item on the consent calendar be acted upon separatly since not all" Commissioners were present during each matter. Item A - Minutes of July 2, 1986 Commissioner Sharp moved, second by Suggs to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 2, 1986 as presented. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried Item B - Minutes of July 16, 1986 Commissioner Sharp moved, second by Suggs to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 16, 1986 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 9-86 - CUP #17-86 - RESOLUTION #1428 - 302 15TH STREET - SNEDEN The Secretary, Mr. Al Warot, indicated this matter had been continued from the July 2nd and July 16th Planning Commission meetings, wherein both instances the Planning Commission asked for a continuation for staff to look into design alternatives to the project as currently proposed, and most recently, to investigate the possibility of allowing an encroachment into the front yard setback in order to allow for the requested expansion of the dwelling unit while at the same time providing two properly dimensioned off-street parking spaces. In looking at this particular alternative, staff has reviewed case files covering the past 10 year period and found no such request for front yard setbacks; therefore a precedent has not been established. Mr. Warot felt this would be a precedent setting action were the Commission to consider approval. With regard to . 2 the prevailing front yard setbacks along 15th Street in the 200- 300 block of 15th Street, Warot reported that the front yard setback varies in depth from 12 to 20 feet. The only exception to that 12 ft. setback was one illegal 9 ft. front yard. The applicants attached a letter to the staff report in which arguments were set forth for allowing the front yard setbacks. Staff felt the arguments were not justified and recommended the denial of the variance request for front yard encroachment and recommended approval of a variance to encroach to within 3.5 feet of the rear property line to accommodate the carport alternative described at previous hearings subject to the findings outlined in the staff report dated July 31, 1986. Based on the approval of this revised Variance 9-86, staff also recommended approval of the associated Conditional Use Permit 9-86. . Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing opened. Keith and Marliss Sneden, 302 15th Street, indicated their memo had been distributed to the Commission expressing their concerns. Mr. Sneden stated that none of their neighbors disagreed with the front yard setback encroachment. Commissioner Perrin pointed out that with the 12 reverse corner lots listed, there are only two that have 25xl00 lot size which may make valid the findings for a variance. Mr. Warot stated that staff's point of view, even when a property may be unique, is to seek alternatives that would allow for the provision of two standard size spaces rather than grant a variance. Perrin indicated that with the second curb cut recommended, the property might be the only site in Old Town with two curb cuts. Warot stated the City Engineer has no problem with the second curb cut. Mrs. Sneden argued that a design should not only be in compliance with code, but should made sense. In the Sneden's opinion, the carport design would not make sense as it would most likely be used as a patio effectively eliminating the parking usage. Mrs. Sneden felt their design fulfilled the intent of the parking ordinance by providing two practical useful ons-site parking spaces (although it is 5 feet short of the standard due to the particular constraints of their reverse corner lots). Mr. Sneden indicated that all the other lots would be able to accommodate the tandem parking for standard vehicles. Commissioner Covington indicated that the Commission has never granted a variance for tandem compact car parking. The City of Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach does allow one of the two off-street parking spaces to be compact. Warot indicated that the Snedens are taking the approach that one tandem parking would be standard-sized with the other being compact. Commissioner Sharp was concerned with the long-term effects of allowing tandem parking for compact size as it set up a precedent for future requests. Commissioner Jessner questioned whether the applicants had a unique lot and felt their arguments were biased in their favor. He further stated that the Commission had never granted compact tandem parking variance requests. Mr. Covington determined that the adjacent property with the same size lot was built on a vacant lot and was therefore able to provide adequate :. 3 . parking on the site. Mr. Covington indicated that this was the first time the square footage breakdown of the 12 similar lots was provided. Of the 12 lots, only two actually have the 50'x50 dimensions and one of those homes was built from scratch allowing for correct placementof parking. Of the 12 lots, Covington pointed out, only two meet the measurements of this corner lot and one of them was built from scratch so that the proper size for a garage could be built. This is the only lot for which these circumstances can occur, reported Covington, who felt the findings for uniqueness can be justified. Warot pointed out that City of Los Angeles and City of Long Beach do have provisions for compact parking spaces for residential areas. Covington indicated that if neighboring cities do permit at least one compact parking spaces, Seal Beach may be behind the times. Mr. Covington suggested that staff consider a compact space provision in the code for residential properties for the future. Covington also noted that only one compact parking space is being requested in this particular application. Warot indicated that based on Covington's comments along with other Commission comments, that the appropriate findings for a variance could be met. No other persons spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. . The Commission further discussed this matter. Covington requested that staff prepare the appropriate findings for approval of VARIANCE 9-86 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-86 consistent with the discussion held at this hearing for adoption of RESOLUTION NUMBER 1428 to be ratified at the next meeting; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs Jessner Motion Carried . PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2-86 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6-86 - 99 MARINA DRIVE, CHEVRON, USA Warot presented staff report indicating this item involved a request from Chevron USA for approval of a CUP to allow for modifications to an existing oil filtration/extraction facility located in the Oil Extraction (OE) zone. With regard to the environmental impacts of the project, staff prepared an initial study to conclude that a negative declaration should be issued for the facility. The subject property, as noted by Warot, has been used for OE purposes in the past. The applicant has been operating since June, 1965, however, due to the storms of 1983, the offshore oil platform had been destroyed, preventing the on- shore facility from operating. The site was a support system to receive crude oil via underground pipeline. The California Coastal Commission approved a permit for Chevron to replace underground cable to Island Esther, that cable installation now being complete. As further indicated by Warot, Chevron now wished to resume operation at their on-shore facility but felt 4 . that some new and replacement equipment was necessary for operating efficiency. This modification to equipment necessitated a public hearing which was held before the Planning Commission on February 5, 1986. At that time, stated Warot, the Planning Commission continued the matter indefinitely until landscape plans and additional information regarding mitigating measures for concerns expressed by the surrounding neighbors of the site were submitted. A detailed landscape plan which provides coverage over 10% of the site area has been submitted, along with a noise assessment study and details of illumination of the project area. During the 2/5/86 hearing, several concerns were expressed by citizens, as follows: air quality, odor, noise, lights and others. With regard to air emissions, Warot attached an Air Quality Management District permit which issued approval to construct and operate the Chevron facility. Warot indicated that staff deferred in this matter to the AQMD as being the expert in this area. With regard to the concern of lighting of the site, the detailed lighting plan submitted showed two types of high pressure sodium lights to be used, a total of 25 lights that would be installed on the site. Of those, only about 5 would be utilized on normal operating procedures. With regard to public safety and potential to explosions or fire on the property, the Orange County Fire Department felt adequate fire protection measures were included in this project. With regard to landscaping and screening requests, the applicants have submitted a detailed landscaping plan which will substantially improve the existing site and should screen the site fully within 6 or' 7 years. A final concern was that of noise, for which details of a noise analysis were prepared and submitted by BBN Laboratories, Inc. That analysis indicated that noise levels will increase due to the project, however off-site noise levels will not exceed the City noise standards. It was pointed out that 3dBA increases will be realized in the vicinity of this project, enough to be noticed. . It was the recommendation of staff, and so reported by Warot, to approve the negative declaration as it considered the measures provided by Chevron USA would have no adverse impacts associated with the project. Staff further recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit 2-86 subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Warot indicated that three additional conditions were added to those received by the Planning Commission and are as follows: 7. There shall be no outdoor loudspeaker or other outdoor communication devices utilized by the facility. 8. No truck traffic related to operations of the facility shall occur in the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (those hours could be tighten to read 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). . . 5 9. Chevron shall provide continuous and proper maintenance of all landscaped area as shown on the landscape plan as well as other areas of the facility for the life of its operation. Should the maintenance not be performed, the City shall have the right to perform such maintenance as it deems appropriate to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding residents and all such costs shall be reimbursable by Chevron within 30 days of receipt of an accounting of such costs by the City of Seal Beach. . Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Ralph Mayo, representing Chevron, 646 County Square Drive, Ventura, California, indicated that he had appeared before the Commission 6 months ago. during that time, he met with citizens to address their concerns arising from the first hearing. The concerns expressed were for the effect the facility would produce on surrounding residents. With slides, Mr. Mayo pointed out that this is not an expansion, but a re-establishment of Esther Island. Chevron is modernizing their site, bringing it up to air quality and pollution control standards. Mayo did indicate that 30 of the 90 wells located on Island Esther would be abandoned. With the presentation of slides, Mr. Mayo explained the operation of the on-shore facility. Three 24 ft. storage tanks are located on site. The crude oil is separated via exis~ing pipelines onto horizontal vessels and separated into oil, gas and water. The oil is transported to oil tanks, put into existing pipelines and run to their El Segundo refinery. The gas is piped into existing pipelines and run to a gas purchaser. The water is transported to tanks and discharged to City sewers which are regularly inspected to insure proper quality of discharge. The water treatment tanks are the new item of that facility - the new tanks will have closed tops so as not to allow odors from escaping, there is a vapor recovery system which allows compliance with air pollution standards. The additional equipment is the replacement of the pumps into more modern, up-to-date equipment. Another slide details the lighting plan which shows the readings and studies done to show the ambient lighting for the area. The plan was designed to provide sufficient light inside to be consistent with recommended engineering requirements and at the same time minimize the glare for the residents. This is accomplished by the placement of lights to minimize impacts. The study conducted was done in the worst case scenario with all the lights on in the facility. In fact, only five 70-watt lights will be on during the evening. The worst case scenario would be no different from lighting received from existing street lights. With regard to the landscaping, Chevron has tried to design a plan that is aesthetically pleasing to the residents but also addresses the noise reduction and mitigation goals. The plan, according to Mayor, is comprised of a 12 ft. wall along the west and north part of the plan. In addition, ground cover, oleander shrubs and evergreen trees will be planted along the facility in 24" x 24" box which are initially 10 to 12 feet tall and should reach . . 6 . heights of 24 feet in 7 years. There will be an automatic irrigation system. The portion to the south and east will not have a wall. There will be landscaping appropriate on the Chevron site and as to the portions near where the vessels will be serviced the landscaping will be placed on the City property so that the people in the south will have the same visual barrier as the other residents. Another concern was for the health and safety of the facility, as Mayo stated, is Chevron's number 1 priority. All plans were submitted to the Orange County Fire Department which reviewed them in detail, performed an on-site inspection and subsequently finding were adequate. With regard to the concern expressed of toxic and soil contamination, a soil assessment was performed on the facility indicating there was no hazardous contamination on the site nor were there any toxics on the site. Mr. Mayo felt the greatest concern to the residents was the noise of the operation. To address those concerns, a noise study was performed, the objectives of which were not only to meet the City's noise standards but to come in under those allowed limits for residential areas. Chevron took the worst case scenario (assuming all equipment is run at one time - which would not normally be the case) and comparing the results to City standards of 50 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day. The study showed, based on testing of equipment that will be there, that in the worst case scenario with a 10 foot wall, not 12 foot wall and based on a commitment to perform significant sound barriers within the facility (6 ft. walls around the equipment to absorb sound) that in many cases Chevron goes below the City standards. Mr. Mayo stated that Chevron is making a considerable commitment to noise reduction. The three additional conditions presented by staff tonight, have been agreed to by Chevron USA, advised Mr. Mayo. . Mayo also pointed out that page 24,of the noise study showed the barriers and enclosures that will be placed to meet City noise standards. Covington wondered why Chevron felt it was not necessary to mitigate sound to the east and southeast because it would appear that the noise at the tennis courts and basketball courts would appear to be counterproductive to what the intent is for recreational areas. There was very little mention for alternative proposals to mitigate the sound that is escaping to the park area, according to Covington. Mayo responded that the concerns of the residents in the park area and the southeast were not dismissed, but due to the need for easy access to the facility for maintenance of the equipment, the wall could not be placed there. The noise barrier and enclosures proposed are designed to take into effect the concerns to the south and southeast. Covington asked what additional modest measures might be feasible to reduce the sound escaping to the east and southeast that has already been evaluated for the rest of the perimeter. Mr. Jim Lousche, construction engineer for Chevron, stated some baffling and mitigation of the noise would be derived 7 . from relocating the office buildings. Covington asked if a standby alternative for sound mitigation was available to implement if the actual operation of the facility exceed the noise study levels. Mr. Lousche felt the relocation of the office was a favorable factor in reducing the noise levels at the park site. Mr. Andrew Kugler, consultant with BBN, Canoga Park, stated that the noise levels in part of the park area are higher than 55 dBA noise levels that are allowed for residents in the daytime area. According to Kugler, there are two reasons for not pursu~ng noise abatement further: 1) The areas which exceed noise levels represent areas which typically don't require 55 dBA - there are countless examples where tennis and basketball' courts are located with an excess of 55 dBA, more in the order of 60 decibels; and 2) There could be other methods used to bring those levels down which Chevron has reviewed but not "included at this time because they would produce safety or production problems with Chevron. These measures would require more enclosure of the sources of noise in the direction of the park area. Perrin asked if the calculations for noise barrier system were formulated on concrete block wall with Kugh1er rep1ing the concrete block will absorb some noise, although how much is an unknown factor. The pump and compressor facilities cannot be enclosed completely, according to Chevron, for operating safety reasons. Mayo stressed the fact that Chevron is not only meeting the City standards, but in the worst case scenario, they are below those standards. Responding to Covington's inquiry, Mr. Kugler indicated an acoustical blanket surrounding the equipment will provide some sound attenuation and allow for maintenance of equipment. Perrin felt the tennis courts should reach the 55 dBA levels also. Mayo stated that if it becomes necessary to employ other sound attenuation measures, they understand and will agree to that. Chairman Jessner questioned the separation operation which was clarified by Mayo as follows: The gas is natural gas, not gasoline and is directly piped out to gas purchaser (Petro1ane) tp be immediately removed offsite. There is no gas storage on the site. The oil storage tanks are there for a day's supply and fed into the existing pipeline and.sent to E1 Segundo. The water storage tanks are necessary because Platform Esther is in its old age as an oil reservoir. Chevron will be processing more water now as opposed to oil; therefore, a greater percentage of water will be treated and filtered to meet City sewer standards and released to sewer. The purpose of the water tanks is for processing the water removed from the pipeline. The residue separated is not toxic, bqt is crude oil. The 24 ft. oil tanks are for storing a certain amount of the crude so that maximum pressure will allow releasing into the pipeline. The E1 Segundo facility is a refinery; the Seal Beach site is a separating facility. No offshore islands pump directly into Chevron's E1 Segundo refinery. Jessner asked if there was a history compiled with regard to the types of equipment in the facility, to which Mr. Mayo replied that since the site has been operating in 1965, there have been no problems . . . 8 . with these types of facilities. The track record is significant in that no problems with these facilities have occurred. Jessner indicating that when dealing with certain types of equipment that have to do with explosions, etc., that the manufacturer must keep records on these pieces of machinery to make sure there has never been an accident attributable to this type of equipment. Mr. Jim Lousche indicated that the overall site safety and fire prevention engineers have studied the types of equipment to minimize safety record. The comment on this facility is that it was a simple oil extraction facility and the risk of catastrophe was very low. The track records on the individual pieces of equipment was used in that study. Mr. Mayo pointed out that in no time since 1955 has Exxon had a problem, nor has Chevron since 1965. Jessner felt that since new equipment was involved this should be a factor in studying the safety of the site. According to Jessner, the environmental check list indicates there is a risk of explosion or risk of release of hazardous substances. Mr. Warot indicated that it was inappropriate to say no when checking that category in that a certain level of risk was there when working with the human factor. The report further indicated that staff would be present to monitor conditions on a 24-hour basis. Mayo indicated that oil tanks could burn, but not explode as there are protective measures on the tanks consistent with AQMD requirements to eliminate the risk of explosion. The gas scrubber has no heating or flame. There are two heater treaters that use enclosed burners. Jessner asked if there are devices that automatically sound an alarm if fumes are released in the air. Lousche indicated there are natural gas detectors and fire detectors that will shut down the production coming into the platform and notify the appropriate persons, all fully explained to the Fire Department. Mr. Suggs questioned whether there was a program of training operating personnel, Mayo replied there is always a qualified person on site. Mr. Ray McGee, area superintendent of Huntington area which includes Island Esther pointed out there is a training program for personnel with actual classroom hands-on training from experienced personnel to new employee. Pay classifications actually reflect an employee's experience level, i.e., Trainee #1 and Trainee #2. McGee stated it is not only classroom and theory-oriented but hands-on performance. In the third year, if an employee is qualified, he or she may be classified as oil personnel. Automatic dialing systems to the fire department are in place. The citizens in the area have decided that audible alarms are not desirable and Chevron, stated Mayo, has taken steps that they are no glaring horns in the night. Mayo further explained that pickup trucks and maintenance vehicles would be the only on-site trucks. Maintenance would occur only during the daytime. Pickup trucks will be present during nighttime hours, but no heavy duty trucks and are willing to prohibit heavy duty trucks from coming to the site in the nighttime unless an emergency exists. There were no others who spoke in favor of this matter. . . 9 . BECKY JENKS, 325 Spinnaker Way, president of Riverbeach Homeowners Association, spoke for members of the Association. During the past 6 months, she reported, members have been working with Chevron attempting to mitigate possible effects of the proposed reactivation. Chevron has been cooperative with regard to concerns of noise and health and safety. According to Ms. Jenks, the issue that no one has addressed is the fact that the type of facility is not appropriate in the middle of residential property. Ms. Jenks felt this facility was not in the best interest of the surrounding residents. JAY BULLMASH, 127 Electric Avenue, urged the Planning Commission to get a formal environmental review rather than accept the negative declaration. He felt this area was out of the expertise of staff from a technical and legal point of view. Mr. Bu11mash resided in Seal Beach when the original plant was operating and expereinced hydrogen sulfide odors. odors. There are hydrocarbon sensing devices that can be placed in the plant to protect the neighborhood from these odors. Mr. Bu11mash staed that sound carries much further when there is moisure in the air. From a legal point of view, Mr. Bu11mash felt the City should do everything it can to review this matter since the City subdivided the Electric Avenue property, zoned it for residential and allowed development of that property. Mr. Bu11mash request a formal EIR be performed and the City Attorney review the City's obligation in this matter, since City subdivided Electric Avenue in the first place. MR. VERNON SHAPIRO, 290 Corsair Way, stated a number of residents in Bridgeport are also concerned by the impacts of this matter. Mr. Shapiro explained that disasters can occur such he experienced when he live next to the E1 Segundo oil refinery wherein a tank was hit by lightning in 1969. The tank burned for almost two days, with homeowners being evacuated. LARRY & ELLY, KIN, 265 Corsair Way, spoke regarding the odors and noise they had experienced from the Chevron/Exxon sites. Covington suggested that complaints regarding odor be directed to AQMD in the future. Mrs. Kin explained that Exxon had an oil spill two or three months ago with the Police being notified. She also requested that landscaping involve the entire facility, not just the Riverbeach side. DAN LEVIN, 281 Electric Avenue, asked what homeowners could do if noise abatement studies were incorrect. Can they come to the Planning Commission to shut down the plant? How long would it take? STEVE DAVIDSON, 315 Spinnaker, also opposed to the facility in its present location. Mr. Davidson felt this was a residential neighborhood and as such is not compatible with the residential neighborhood of this area. If the Chevron permit is approve, he felt that noise abatement procedures should be much more strictly enforced. Mr. Davidson felt the equipment should be enclosed and monitore via television camera. JAMIE MCCULLOUGH also spoke against the matter for reasons of incompatibility of use with surrounding neighborhood. LLOYS LANE, 249 Corsair Way opposed this permit as none of the studies have addressed the joint operation of Chevron and Exxon as it impacts noise levels and odor levels. There has been no . . 10 . comment on anticipated actions of Chevron if their application is denied. BUD RICHARDSON, 334 Spinnaker Way, concurs with all others in opposition to Chevron. He experiences noise from Exxon facility and feels the joint operation will exceed City standards. CURT WALLIN, 270 Corsair Way, agrees with other opponents. Mr. Wallin felt the noise and odors experienced were enough to warrant an environmental impact report fully incoporating questions brought forth in this hearing. GLEN CARDEN, 332 Spinnaker Way, opposed the operation of this facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood fully realiz~ng Chevron can somewhat mitigate the smells, noise, etc. His concern was what would happen as a result of an earthquake. Carden urged the Commission to require an environmental impact report. SHELDON ASHER, 315 Spinnaker Way, Board of Directors of Riverbeach Townhomes, represented the tennis players. He felt tennis players would like to have the right atmosphere. He requested clarification of 55 dBA. He also requested information regarding Exxon's operation and how it will contrast with Chevron's operation. Asher felt the Commission should request that Chevron put in the maximum absorption materials that will mitigate sound. Mr. Warot, in response, indicated that a motorcycle riding by would be about 80 dBA, a rock concert would exceed 100 dBA and the State standard for an inhabitable room in a single family detached dwelling is 45 dBA. The working environment with xerox in the background and normal conversation would probably be about 55 dBA. Mr. Asher strongly recommended that an environmental impact report be required and agrees with Becky Jenks who requested rezoning for the site to have Chevron move their facility. Mr. Kugler further defined noise as unwanted sound. He further explained that 55 dBA of music would not irritate whereas equipment noise at 55 dBA would annoy. Mr. Ralph Mayo, in rebuttal, reiterated some of the points he initially tried to point out to Commission; i.e., the system will be entirely closed with no open water tanks, therefore no odors escaping. The work performed by Chevron in the last six months would is exactly what is necessary to compile an environmental document, therefore, Mayo felt those concerns had been addressed. He stated the landscaping plan has tried to make that area more aesthetically pleasing than it is now. Chevron operates both in this State and in this area and sympathizes with the concerns the citizens have raised and has tried to do everything to make this facility a good neighbor reported Mr. Mayo. MIKE CAREY, 327 Spinnaker Way, contends that the environmental process used in this project was improper and should have required a full environmental impact report due to significant impact on the environment. Chairman Jessner'closed the public hearing. In response to questions by Commissioners, Mr. Warot stated the property is zoned OE and facilities that exist there now as well as the additional proposed facility is permitted in the OE zone. For the replacement of the equipment, there is no question that a CUP is required. Warot was not aware if Chevron had been initially issued a CUP in 1965 as regulations were not the same . 11 . as today. Covington said if this usage was grandfathered and the land was subsequently not used for that purpose for three years, it would appear that the grand fathered right would have expired and this application should be considered as a new use. Warot indicated if a use is abandoned for a period of 3 or more months, that can result in the abatement of that particular use. Covington stated with the possibility of researching by City Attorney that a negative declaration could be invalidated since you would be in a sense have a new project. He felt an environmental impact report is necessary because no where in the attached negative declaration checklist has the issue of earthquake been addressed. Covington brought out additional concerns to be addressed in an environmental document, .i.e., the negative synergy that occurs by re-establishing this facility next to another operating at an older standard of performance, the financial aspects of homeowners living next to the site with regard to insurance costs, real estate values, etc. Responding to Perrin, Warot indicated that should this application be denied, Chevron would have to abandon the site as the additional facilities proposed would not be allowed. Jessner requested' information to be provided on court cases or specific land uses cases involving this particular type of situation. He also requested information from the City Attorney as to City's position should they deny the project. . Covington moves that the proposed negative declaration be rejected; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp Suggs Motion Carried Covington indicated he would not feel comfortable with changing the zoning of this property without an EIR to substantiate it. He therefore made a motion that a full environmental impact report be required for the proposed use of the property by Chevron; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried SCHEDULED MATTERS A. Plan Review 17-86 (Miller) 312 14th Street will be continued to August 20, 1986, with the consensus of the Commission. B. Resolution #1419 (Variance 8-86 - West) Commissioner Covington motion for approval, Jessner seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Suggs None Perrin, Sharp Motion Carried . . 12 C. Resolution #1420 (CUp 9-86 - Corky's) Commissioner Jessner moves to approve, Jessner seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Perrin None Suggs, Sharp Motion Carried D. Resolution #1429 (CUp 4-86 - Mansour) Commissioner Covington moves to approve, Jessner seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried E. Resolution #1430 (CUP 7-86 0 Osco Drug) Commissioner Covington moves to adopt, Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried F. Resolution #1431 (CUp 10-86 - Griffith) Commissioner Covington moves to adopt, Jessner seconds. . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried COMMISSION REQUESTS There were none at this time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION COMUNICATIONS There were none at this time. ADJOURN TO AUGUST 13, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 1:00 a.m. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION. .