Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-11-03 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA of NOVEMBER 3, 1993 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #93-51 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL ID. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 20, 1993 2. City Council Staff Reports to be Received and Filed: · Federal Reactive Organic Compounds Rate-Of-Progress Plan South Coast Air Quality Management District Public Hearing . Resolution No. ,A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ... SUSTAIN THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CUP 393-10, THEREBY APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN ALCOHOL-RELATED LAND USE ENTITLEMENT FOR ON-PREMISE SERVICE OF BEER AND WINE AT THE FIT SHOP, 12235 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD, SEAL BEACH, CA · Legislative Interim Hearing - Proposed Elimination of City Conditional Use Permits for Liquor Stores. · Public Hearing - Establishment of Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation Fees. IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Resolutions to be signed: . Resolution #93-48 Variance #93-4 A-I04 Surfside . . . . Resolution #93-49 Variance #93-1 Development Agreement/Masonic Lodge . Resolution #93-50 CUP #92-7; NO #93-2 Unocal v. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit #93-13 Address: 12541 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicants: Robert Fiscus & Associates Property Owners: Chevron Products Company, USA Inc. Request: Extension of operating hours from current hours (6:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M.) to 24 hours a day operation at an existing Chevron service station. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT . . . Page 3 . Seal Beach l'IaDDing Commisslou Ageuda for November 3. 1993 1993 AGENDA FORECAST: STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED . ZT A #92-2 E'ittwlnfuent 'Cil~'''7 ... .. : .:.............:v........ ......."=!~ A'CTION: ....City-wide policy statement on entertainment. STATUS: Pending City Manager's input. . ZT A # -- OiStVle_]Patio':::SMbacks "0)"0:>>::-' ..0:...:-:....... ......-.:-:-:--.:-.o:v.-.:-.. ACTION: ZTA needed. STATUS: Director to prepare staff report. 1993 NOV 17 '(S bmlSSilin:,DeidUne:m.:' be":;;a3th): ......:.:<<'! :......... ...............:...:. .... .:..:.:-:.......:.........:-: .>>..:-:-<.. 0 >:-:-:~t~.. .', ....: CUP #92-19/Clancy's 12 mos. review CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 8 mos./entertainment CUP #92-20/148 Main St./John's Food King/ABC [Review CUP #92-13 & CUP #92-20 at same meeting]. DEC 08 (~q~~Wi.~9ttP~~!!~':1~9.V:ei;n~~~\~t~). DEC 22 (S'16 'iSSf "1)"" ..(1).... . '.w. ...:,.... ":1 '," .~L:W .....J)n ,.',.@8 ...:We ~p'v~b~~\~. Z~) . Page .. . Seal Beaeh PlaDuing CommissioD ^ceDda for November 3, 1993 1994 JAN 05 JAN 19 FEB 09 FEB 23 MAR 09 MAR 23 APR 06 APR 20 . MAY 04 MA Y 18 JUN 08 JUN 22 JUL 06 JUL 20 AUG 03 AUG 17 SEP 07 SEP 21 OCT 05 OCT 19 NOV 09 NOV 23 DEC 07 DEC 21 . CUP #92-22/322 Main/Nip'n Stuff/12 mos. review/ABC CUP #92-24/1400 PCH/Glider Inn/12 mos/ ABC CUP #92-26/3001 Old Ranch Pkwy/Tortilla Beach/12 mos/ ABC CUP #91-15/330 "F" Main St/Cafe Lafayette/Indefinite Extension CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 8 mos./entertainment CUP #93-2/901 Ocean/Kinda Lahaina @ 12 mos/ ABC CUP #92-19/Clancy's @ 12 mos/indefinite extension CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 12 mos./indefinite extension for entertainment. Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman CUP #92-2/101 Main/SeaSide Grill/Review hours extension. . . . " ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Vice Chairman Soukup called the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 1993 to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was said. II. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairman Soukup Commissioners Sharp, Campbell, Law Absent: Commissioner Dahlman MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to excuse Dr. Dahlman's absence due to his work duties. Also Present: Depm1.ment of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Cm1is, Administrative Assistant Absent: Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary ID. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 20, 1993 A member of the audience wished to make a correction to the Minutes per Ron Jessner's comments. Mr. Steele said it was not appropriate to take correction to minutes from the audience. Commissioner Soukup asked to hear the comment. John O'Neil. 395 Clipper Way. Seal Beach, referencing page 22, lines 21 and 22, said Mr. Jessner meant the property is not well maintained. Mr. Steele and Mr. Whittenberg agreed that Mr. Jessner described the site as not well maintained and the Minutes will be amended, if a review of the tape confirms Mr. O'Neil's recollection. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 20, 1993 after a review of the tape is made to ascel1ain MI". Jessner's remm"ks. The Minutes will be amended if necessary. . MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Soukup, Campbell Dahlman *** 2. City Council Staff Rep0l1s to be Received and Filed: Director Whittenberg explained all four of the following reports are information items, based on prior City Council actions, for the Planning Commission's review. (a) Federal Reactive Organic Compounds Rate-Of-Progress Plan Sout.h Coast Air Qualit.y Management. District Public Hearing (b) Resolution No. _, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ... SUSTAIN THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CUP #93-10, THEREBY APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN ALCOHOL-RELATED LAND USE ENTITLEMENT FOR ON-PREMISE SERVICE OF BEER AND WINE AT THE FIT SHOP, 12235 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD, SEAL BEACH, CA . (c) Legislative Interim Hearing - P.'oposed Elimination of City Conditional Use Permits for Liquor Stores. (d) Public Hearing - Establishment of Mit.igation Monitoring Program Implementation Fees. Commissioner Campbell asked if the report on the Proposed Elimination of City CUP's for Liquor Stores indicated cities with these ordinances need to approach their Assembly and Senate representatives? Mr. Whittenberg explained the purpose of the education is to inform our legislative representatives that we feel the CUP process is necessary. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law t.o receive and file t.he above- referenced four .'eports. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Campbell, Soukup Dahlman *** . Vice Chairman Soukup recommended the Commission amend tonight's agenda. City Attorney Steele advised amending this Agenda would require a Motion and Page 3. Seal Beach Planning COllllnL,~ion Minules of Novcmbcr 3. 1993 . a 4/5th affirmative vote of the Commissioners to move Oral Communications prior to Scheduled Matters to amend the Agenda. MOTION by Campbell; SECOND by Soukup to amend the Agenda to allow Oral Communications to be moved up, ahead of Scheduled Matters. Commissioner Sharp said he had no objections to public comments if the comments would be limited. He felt the Commission should not take lengthy comments on the Unocal resolution when, regardless of what the Commission does, the matter will go to the City Council on appeal for an ultimate resolution. He asked the Chair for a ruling. Acting Chairman Soukup asked Mr. Steele to explain the comment period with respect to resolutions. . Mr. Steele explained the Planning Commission is limited by law to making its decisions based on testimony and evidence presented at a Noticed Public Hearing. Regarding the Unocal resolution, two Public Hearings on the Unocal application have already been held, where several hours of testimony were taken and the respective Public Hearings were closed. Two weeks ago the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing from a prior meeting on the Unocal issue, took testimony from both sides for several hours and then made a decision and voted on the environmental review and the CUP itself. The issue before the Commission tonight is the authorization for the Chairman of the Planning Commission to sign the resolution on this issue. Normally not much public comment is received on resolutions coming back to the Commission for authorization for signature. Under the Brown Act and the State open meeting laws, the City is required to allow members of the public to speak and participate in every public meeting prior to action being taken by a body of the City. Mr. Steele cautioned the Planning Commission that it's decision on the issue of the CUP and the environmental review with regard to Unocal must be based only on the Public Hearing which was closed two weeks ago. Tonight's issue and the public testimony must be directed only at the content of the resolution. If the Commission were to feel there was new evidence, the Commission would have to direct staff to Notice a new Public Hearing. Mr. Steele said staff has advised him a number of persons have picked up the paperwork to file an appeal to Unocal's CUP. He advised the Commission to move forward tonight with their action on the resolution and allow the City Council to consider the appeal as a new issue and consider all additional information. He suggested a time limitation be set, either per subject or per speaker. . Commissioner Sharp asked for a show of audience hands on the number of persons wishing to speak on the Unocal issue; approximately ten to twelve persons. Vice Chairman Soukup said he was categorically opposed to time limits. He favored keeping Oral Communications as agendized, allowing public comment on the resolution only and having the public contain their comments to the . . . Page 4 . Seal Beach l'IaDning Comll1t~sioD Minutes of November 3. 1993 language of the resolution. He cautioned that if the audience feels their comments do not fit within that framework they should hold their comments to the scheduled Oral Communication time. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Steele if that is opening another Public Hearing? Mr. Steele said the determination of whether this opens another Public Hearing is determined by how the Commission considers the testimony. If the Commission limits itself to making its decision on the overall issue on the record that was presented at the prior two Public Hearings, then the Commission is not opening up another Public Hearing. If the Commission listens to the public testimony this evening only with an eye to perfecting the language in the resolution itself the City is legally on solid ground. The Chair must control the testimony that comes forward. There are no due process considerations because the applicant and the opponents are present tonight. There being no further discussion: MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Soukup, Campbell Dahlman IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Resolutions to be signed: . Resolution #93- 48 Variance #93-4 A-I04 Surfside . Resolution #93-49 Variance #93-1 Development Agreement/Masonic Lodge MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to sign Resolution Nos. 93-48 and 93-49. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Soukup, Campbell Dahlman *** . . . Page 5 - Seal Beach Plannillg COlllllli9~ioll Minutes of Novcmbcr 3. 1993 . Resolution #93-50 CUP #92-7; Negative Declaration #93-2 Unocal * 99 Marina Drive (7:45 p.m.) Vice Chairman Soukup called for public comments with respect to language in Resolution #93-50. He stated there would be no time limit on speaking. Mr. Steele said staff has received written communication on this issue. These letters were received after the Public Hearing was closed. In anticipation of an appeal, staff will forward these communications to the City Council once an appeal is being considered. They will become part of the full record but not before the Planning Commission. Mario Voce * 730 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Voce requested to the Planning Commission table the voting on this resolution, and requested a renotification for another Public Hearing. Ann Marie Sablock * 263 Electric A venue. Seal Beach Ms. Sablock disagreed with the resolution's statement "No substantial evidence in the record that a significant impact on the environment would occur". She presented the Commission with material to be included for the Record. She indicated the Planning Department's research repeats this comment over and over, as does this resolution. She asked for denial on the CUP. Commissioner Soukup commented that the statement "no substantial evidence in the record that a significant impact on the environment would occur" should be considered in context, after the mitigation measures are in place and the project's operation is conditioned properly there won't be significant impacts except in a worst case scenario. John O'Neil * 395 Clipper Way. Seal Beach Mr. O'Neil said eventually somebody will listen. The Commission is apparently listening to Unocal and not to the people who are impacted the most, the people that live in the area. The Commissioners can go home and away from this project while the area residents are stuck with it. Commissioner Law said these speakers should attend the City Council meeting when it considers the appeal. Everybody will have a chance to be heard at that meeting. Commissioner Soukup agreed, noting the Commission has already made a decision and recognized some people may disagree with that decision for various reasons. He said that in the last thirty years there has not been a time when both facilities were not operating. . . . Page 6. Seal Beaeb Planning Conuuis.ion Millull.1ll of Novcmbcr 3.1993 Eleanor Wamsley * 306 Regatta. Seal Beach Ms. Wamsley said she needs clean air for medical reasons and knows that if Unocal builds a fifteen foot fence in front of her house with the attenuating smoke, her medical health will suffer. She said she paid twice as much for her townhouse as she would have had to pay in another location because Seal Beach's air is clean. Commissioner Soukup asked if she noticed the facility across the street? Mr. Wamsley said at the time she purchased she was told the empty lot (oil facilities) would become a park. Vice Chairman Soukup indicated he has not heard any public comments directed to the resolution's language. He said he would have to cut off comments not directed to the resolution. The public expressed dismay that they did not have a copy of the resolution. Fred Shriner * 245 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Shriner qualified himself as a professional engineer who works at a major aerospace company. He said he did not attend the Planning Commission meetings where Unocal was discussed because he felt there was no chance of it's being approved; he is in shock. He said that while the resolution says there is no substantial evidence of adverse health risks, there are many technical inconsistencies in the studies and they alone should require an EIR. Referencing the Meredith-Boli Associates three-day health study at Fort Apache in Huntington Beach, which measured levels of benzene and other pollutants and found they were within Federal guidelines, he said there are many uncertainties in the health reports. Although the emission levels were measured, the chronic effects of long term exposure were never addressed. Benzene is a known carcinogen which has been known to cause birth defects in pregnant women. He these emissions will hurt the community and we will hear about their bad effects in ten or fifteen years. He said it is unreasonable to base a decision on a three- day emission survey. He felt it is appalling that when there's a question of "probably" and the community's health is at risk, that the Commission would not demand an EIR be done. The staff report regarding noise did not specify the vertical height of the noise measurements; this should have been fundamental to a noise report. There is much public support for an EIR and for not starting this facility up. It would be foolish to force an appeal situation and asked for another Public Hearing. Page 7 - Seal Beach Plllnning Commission Minules of Novcmbcr 3. 1993 . Sol John * 338 Pacific Coast Hwy.. Seal Beach Mr. John said the people here tonight are right. He suggested Unocal go to Signal Hi11 where many oil wells exist. He didn't think the people of Leisure World would want such a facility in Leisure World. He said "Let's take care of our town". Michelle Freeman * 487 Galleon Way. Seal Beach Ms. Freeman said she has not yet seen the resolution. She said she is a physician and addressed the health impacts of air pollutants, saying she knows as fact these emissions cause chronic lung diseases. These effects are not seen in the first couple of months, they show up years later. She felt it would be a disgrace if this occurs in this community as it's a real problem for our future. It seemed to her that the Planning Commission has already made up its mind. Commissioner Soukup said everyone should know the Planning Commission has made a decision on the Unocal proposal and now they are looking at the language of the resolution to be sure it's language meets the Commission's intent. This is not a Public Hearing. . John Morrison * 304 Spinnaker Way. Seal Beach Mr. Morrison said the citizens are being railroaded by this proposal. The Assistant City Attorney has stated this issue can be tabled and another Public Hearing Noticed and that's what he wants done. Eight years ago the Council denied a similar request. Now, there are double or triple the homes in this area and this Commission is. saying it's alright to reactive this facility. He believed that Exxon would be denied to double their facility because they're at the maximum of their pollution. Unocal, with a new license, can go to their maximum on emissions and the pollution would be extreme. At the last meeting, one Planning Commissioner stated they stopped by Exxon for two minutes, another Commissioner said they passed the site in their car --- he asked why doesn't the entire Commission go to the site at 99 Marine Drive and stand there for one hour and then decide. Paul Sablock * 263 Electric A venue. Seal Beach Mr. Sablock said that while nothing said this evening would be able to sway the Commission's mind tonight he and his wife never received any Notice of any of the meetings on the Unocal application. They have lived at 263 Electric Avenue for five years. He asked Mr. Steele if there is any legal verification or due diligence that needs to be done to see that the Notices are actually be delivered to the appropriate people? He questioned whether the legal Notices were received by the proper property owners and noted that many more area residents showed up after the Commission's decision for approval was noted in the newspaper. . . . . Page 8 - Seal Beach P10nning Commi~~ion Minule<l of Novcmber 3. 1993 Vice Chairman Soukup explained that the evidence being brought out now, that Mr. Sablock thinks is new evidence because he just now learned about it, has already been brought to the Planning Commission's attention. The residential side of this issue has been well represented at every meeting. He asked that Mr. Sablock point the remainder of his comments to the resolution in question. Mr. Sablock said the residents trust the Planning Commissioners to watch out for them. It seems strange to him that the area residents are in an uproar when the Planning Commission has" ... independently elected to do something and then be totally non-accountable for your actions. Because all you say is, well, ... you can then wait to have the City Council vote it in. My only comment is that we vote you in to protect us and you can always fall back and say I'm not accountable because you still can get another level ...". MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law that the Oral Communications be closed at this time and be opened again at the end of the meeting. Commissioner Sharp explained the Planning Commissioners are not elected officials, they are appointed by the City Council members who are elected. He explained appeal rights. Acting Chairman Soukup called for order, saying this is not Oral Communications, that will come later. These are comments on the resolution. He said he would keep this open for one additional speaker. Justin Nogele * 129 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Nogele said he spoke on behalf of the children of Seal Beach. He said the children come to Seal Beach to go in the water and have fun, but not to worry about the pollution of air or water. He said the children want to stand up and save the waters and air and the environment for themselves and their children. Mr. Steele advised that the Brown Act does require that people who wish to be heard on this issue be heard. The Chairman may limit the time. Acting Chairman Soukup said he has not heard anything regarding the language of the resolution but he would like to keep the comment period open to 8:30 p.m. Robert Province * Unocal * 9645 Santa Fe Springs Rd.. Santa Fe Springs. CA Mr. Province said regarding the added conditions to the application, Unocal does approve and has no concerns with the adoption of the resolution. There is a lot of venting going on here and he agreed this is not the appropriate forum for it. However, the citizens need to be heard. Unocal is conducting a community meeting Thursday, December 2, 1993 at the Marina Community Center at 7:30 p.m.. Representatives from Unocal, Air Quality Management District (AQMD) . . . Page 9 - Seal BClIch l'1l1nuiug Commission Minutes of Novcmber 3. 1993 and the Poison Control Center will be present. He urged all concerned citizens to please attend. He said Unocal will send out Notices throughout Seal Beach and said 1-800-339-9679 is a number that can be called for information. Jim Bridges * Huntington Beach. CA Mr. Bridges said he has been involved with Unocal's Ft. Apache problems for a year. He wondered how a resolution could be drawn up by Seal Beach with only 10% of the information known. Especially when the Planning Commission knew he was going to volunteer a lot of background on a similar operation. At the time of the last Public Hearings on Unocal none of the Planning Commissioners had any questions for him. He stated Ft. Apache has had several incidents: 1981 pipeline or valve breakage that covered a mobile home park and several cars; There was a tire on February 6, 1992 and there were several different versions of how long that fire went on; March 1993 there was another fire; There was an oil spill which required three dump trucks to remove and it was allegedly only one barrel of oil; There violations of Proposition 65. No information about these incidents was volunteered by Unocal until questions were asked by the Huntington Beach community. He assured the Commission that none of the area residents are going to go away in the near future. Karen Davis * 47 Galleon Way. Seal Beach Ms. Davis said she is a physician and sees patients with respiratory problems from emissions. She stated she did not receive Notice of any prior meeting. If there is a statement in this resolution that there is no significant health hazard from emissions, she would suggest this be amended or altered to say that the long term health hazards are not known; that should go on Record. Leah Heinrich * 704 Sandpiper Drive. Seal Beach Ms. Heinrich said in the last 1 V2 years she and several persons she knows have been diagnosed with leukemia. She telephoned the Cancer Center and asked to get a study done on this area. Three other people who lived on Sandpiper Drive have died of cancer within the last two years. . . . Page 10 . Seal Beacb Planning COlllml~~ion Minull'S of Novcmbcr 3. 1993 Ellie Gimberling * 265 Corsair Way. Seal Beach Ms. Gimberling said their patio is very close to the site's storage unit. They saw when the oil spill occurred before. Regarding health hazards, the odors from this facility are sometimes so bad that she cannot go outside and they have to close their doors. How can the City say there is no hazard there? A similar request was turned down years ago but now, because the City is in a different financial situation, the Planning Commission approved this similar application. Thirdly, what are the individual Planning Commissioner's duties? It should be to make the properties and the developments in Seal Beach blend together. Additional oil storage does not blend with this community, amid existing housing. Acting Chairman Soukup read from the resolution: Section 5(c) The institution of operations at the on-shore production facility, if properly conditioned and enforced, is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is a request to institute operations at a pre-existing facility, which operated from 1965 to 1983 without any substantial adverse impacts on the community. Adding, "That's a fact". 2. The proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the existing Exxon facility located immediately to the north, which has operated for many years without any substantial adverse impacts on the community. 3. The proposed project will utilized best available control technology to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval and the mitigation of all potential adverse effect to a level of insignificance. He added that if Unocal doesn't comply they can't have this project. He continued reading from the resolution, saying "Again, this was here before the residential area encroached upon its use. And I agree with you, that perhaps this may not be the use that should exist forever and this body is going to take up that issue and it's going to be dealt with legally" 0- Page II - Seal Beach Planning COUlmiR..ion Minutl'S of Novembl'r 3. J 993 . Virginia Hadley * 237 Eighth Street. Seal Beach Ms. Hadley said she's been wondering where the air pollution and smoke has been coming from. Sometimes she can't go outside without a mask on. She does not want an increase in the air pollution. Pam Williams * 273 Corsair Way. Seal Beach Ms. Williams said that until you live close to this site you cannot appreciate its problems. They have called the Fire Department twice because the odors were so strong. The emissions effect the environment. She suggested that because the Planning Commissioners don't live in the immediate area they are not cognizant of the real problems from the site. Christie Zedonas * 281 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Ms. Zedonas said that although this is a pre-existing facility, the Planning Commission has approved a CUP that will increase productivity by 300% to 400%. It has not addressed cumulative effects with the other facility. The reactive organic gasses, which composes the largest percentage of emissions (75 pounds per day), equates to approximately 150 to 200 vehicles running 24 hours per day. . Kurt Wallen * 270 Corsair Way. Seal Beach Mr. Wallen said he has lived in this area from 1979 to 1983, when that site was in operation. The site has smelled bad, sounded bad, it was bad. The happiest day of their lives in that neighborhood when was the facility shut down. On still nights, when there's no on-shore breeze, they smell that facility and it's very bad. The odors are caused by emissions. Although he is not an expert on emissions, he would expect they are not good. "I would think that the least you people could do is have an EIR to study the emissions and find out what they are, what the intensity of them are before you make and decision and say it's a negative impact" . Reva Olsen * Old Town.Seal Beach Ms. Olsen commended Commissioners Campbell and Dahlman for listening to the people. She felt that there was no one on City staff or among the Planning Commission who is qualified to determine that this is not a health hazard. She pled with the Planning Commission to "Not neg dec our environment away. They're doing that all over the world. And I don't think Seal Beach will really allow that". Seeing no further speakers, Vice Chairman Soukup closed the comment period. . Director Whittenberg said the prepared resolution was modified based on the discussion at the October 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, when staff was directed to prepare the resolution to include additional findings and conditions. Page 11 . Seal Beacb Planning COllllui'l..iou Miuutes or Novcmbcr 3. 1993 . When additional conditions are added, additional mitigation monitoring measures are required. Staff has prepared the resolution to reflect the Commission's discussion. This would be the appropriate time to make any changes to the conditions of approval and/or the mitigation monitoring measures. Vice Chairman Soukup called for Commission comments. . Commissioner Campbell, referencing page 6, section K, said the Planning Commission previously denied CUP #2-86 without prejudice on November 19, 1986. This was a request for an expanded on-shore separation facility on the subject property. The denial was based on the fact that Chevron USA did not proceed with the preparation of an EIR as determined to be appropriate by the Planning Commission after Public Hearings. Referencing page 9, Section 6.2, she indicated there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the application with the required mitigation measures might not have a significant environmental impact. She was concerned that the City has danced around some of the very important issues in this case. For example, she noted these facilities have existed for some time --- enough time for problems to be popping up --- like leukemia. Another example is Mr. O'Neil's questions re the amount of reactive organic gasses emitted on a daily basis. The Commission's information said 75 pounds per day was alright but other documents said 30 pounds per day --- what's the correct number? Are credits being played with? Mr. Whittenberg said the 75 pounds per day criteria is a number the South Coast Air Quality Management District utilizes to determine if a facility proposal would require an environmental analysis for air pollution impacts as part of the environmental review. If you're less than 75 pounds per day, AQMD requirements don't call for an EIR. The 30 pounds per day, under Rule 13, is a permit requirement that if you exceed those levels you have to obtain certain types of permits from AQMD. They are two different levels of analysis and two different levels of review. They are not comparable. Seventy-five pounds per day is the threshold level to require some sort of an environmental analysis over and above AQMD simply issuing a permit. . Commissioner Campbell asked what's to stop the City from saying there are a lot of unresolved issues and requiring an EIR? Mr. Whittenberg replied the City could take that position. The City has taken the position that the AQMD is the permitting and licensing agency for all air quality emissions within Orange County, Los Angeles County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside County. They are the experts on air quality issues within the Southern California region. If you begin establishing levels of review that are drastically more restrictive than the major permitting agency in the area you start to delve into areas of concern that the City does not have the capability and authority to . . . Page 13 - Seal Beacb Planning Commi~.illn Minllll"lllf Novcmher 3. 1'.1'.13 regulate. The permits could still be issued by AQMD regardless of what the City says. Unocal does not have to come to the City to get a permit. The City has no mechanism nor authority to become involved in that permit issuance process. Commissioner Campbell said there are not a whole series of situations like this, this situation is unique. And this facility is not out in the middle of nowhere; it's right in the middle of a residential area where the residents have had to deal with Exxon who has not been a good neighbor. The residents are very concerned. Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission needs to keep its focus on the application that's before it, whether or not it feels the potential impacts identified in the Negative Declaration are adequately discussed. If the Commission feels the Negative Declaration doesn't adequately address the issues and the proposed conditions of approval do not reduce those impacts and the mitigation monitoring measures do not provide an adequate monitoring program then the Commission should not adopt the resolution. Then the Commission should take an action to re-open the Public Hearing and schedule additional testimony. It's a discretionary matter for the Commission, based on its feeling of how you received your testimony and how you evaluated that information. MOTION by Shar"p; SECOND by Law fOI" the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution No. 93-50 as pl"esented. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 - 1 - 1 Sharp, Law, Soulmp Campbell Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg advised there is a ten day appeal period in which an appeal to the City Council may be filed at the City Clerk's Office. *** v. PUBLIC HEARINGS (8:53 p.m.) 4. Conditional Use Permit #93-13 Address: 12541 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicants: Robel1 Fiscus & Associates Propel1y Owners: Chevron PI"oducts Company, USA Inc. Request: Extension of opel"ating hours from current hours (6:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M.) to 24 hours a day opel"ation at an existing Chevron service station. . . . Page 14. Seal Beacb l'Innning Commi~sion Minules of November 3. 1993 Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Sharp asked what area did the Notices cover? Mr. Curtis said the Notices were sent out to all property owners within 300' of the subject property, regardless of what city the property owner lived in. This mailing mainly included Rossmoor residents on Yellowtail. Commissioner Campbell asked what time they are currently receiving deliveries? Mr. Curtis said the applicant would have to answer. Public Hearing Bob Fiscus * 2050 South Santa Cruz. Anaheim. CA Mr. Fiscus said he is not aware of gas being delivered between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. They do get late night loads at 12:00 or 1:00 a.m. because traffic is low. Off-loading of fuel is quiet because it's gravity fed and no motors are involved. Regarding Condition #1, Mr. Fiscus corrected a typographical error, the time should read 6:00 a.m. not 6:00 p.m.. Regarding condition #4, Chevron would like add wording to allow deliveries between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. in case of an emergency. Mr. Whittenberg said this wording could be added but it should not be an on- going occurrence. Staff's concern is that if a 24-hour operation is approved, the operators are aware the City has concerns regarding noise during late night hours. Mr. Steele said his Office preferred not to include a "fudge factor" because the dispute then becomes what's an emergency situation? The Commission's enforcement mechanism is revocation/modification of the CUP. Regarding Condition #5, Chevron would like the hours amended from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Sharp said he would like to see a condition in place regarding the rear doors because noise could disturb area residents. He suggested, "The two rear doors of the service bays shall be closed between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. II. Commissioner Law said she would like a sign to this effect posted. Mr. Fiscus said all workers will be made aware of all the City's conditions. . . . Page IS . Seal Beacb Planning COUlllli~~ion Minutes of November 3. 1993 Vice Chairman Soukup asked if many repairs were done at night? Mr. Fiscus said no, only as a convenience to customers who's cars have broken down. The mechanics quit by 7:00 p.m. There are no tow trucks working out of that station. Commissioner Sharp withdrew the 8:00 p.m. time. Add Condition #8 to read, "The applicant shall be required to conspicuously post these Conditions of Approval in a location to be approved by the Director of Development Services". Mr. Fiscus said the renovation would begin with obtaining building permits at the end of November and construction in early December. Sol John * 330 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. John said he goes to this station often and they run a clean station. The mechanics leave about 5:00 p.m. There is noise from people playing their radios. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve CUP #93~13 and direct staff to p.oepare a resolution with t.he amended Condit.ions of Approval and ret.urn the resolution t.o the Commission at its next meet.ing. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0~1 Sharp, Law, SOUIUlP, Campbell Dahlman *** VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (9: 15 p.m.) Mario Voce * 730 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Voce said he wanted to give the Planning Commission an out, to allow the Commission an opportunity to look at the Unocal proposal again, before it resulted in being heard at the City Council. Unfortunately the Commission didn't review it again. He asked if Unocal approached the City or vice versa? Mr. Whittenberg said the City does not seek applicants or applications and in this case, Unocal applied to the City. Mr. Voce said he felt the City should take care of the citizens first and everything else second. If the Commission had denied the Unocal application, Unocal would have had to pay any appeal fees. Mr. Steele explained the Planning Commission is charged with making a decision on land use issues based on the evidence before them. The Commission has no business making any kind of decision based on who's going to pay the appeal fee. . . . .. Page 16 . Seal Beacb P1aDnin!: Commis.~ion Minules of Novcmbcr 3. 1993 Mr. Voce said if the City needs the money from this project so badly, why don't we have a pipeline put into Leisure World and take some of their golf course land and put a processing plant there? Commissioners Sharp and Law explained that Leisure World has it's problems too, from the DWP and Edison power stations. Vice Chairman Soukup, referencing adverse planning decisions, said environmentalists are responsible for protecting the Gnat Catcher to the degree that the Fire Department could not clear the brush in the canyons around Laguna Beach. That decision created the components for the raging fires we just had. There is a balance between the two and it's not a simple matter. VIT. ST AFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg said there are no items scheduled for the November 17, 1993 Planning Commission meeting and staff would recommend that meeting be canceled. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to cancel the November 17, 1993 meeting and adjourn this meeting to December 8, 1993. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Shat.p, Law, Soukup, Campbell Dahlman *** VIIT. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. XI. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Soukup adjourned the meeting to the December 8, 1993 meeting at 9:23 p.m.. Respectfully Submitted, ~Oo:+."I_. .....O'-r-. Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROV AL: The Planning Commission Minutes of November 3, 1993 were approved by the Commission on December ~, 1993.~