Loading...
10/01/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1. 1992 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on October 1, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Jim Sims, Vice Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner STAFF: Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maria Muett, Associate Planner Moniquejaune Pearson, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner (until 7:55 P.M.) PLEDGE: Moire Huss, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:36 P.M. The Director announced that the sign program for Stater Bros. was approved. She has a report for City Council asking for 50% subsidies. If the subsidies are approved, the existing tenants will have one year to use the money available. If the subsidies are not approved, the alternative is for one year. She has accepted a sign program from the landlord, explaining that the existing can signs are acceptable, however, the tenants must be in compliance with the official sign program with channel letters at the end of that year. Staff is in agreement with the color scheme of Stater Bros., with the same six-month period condition, and the subsidy negotiations will continue here also. She was very pleased with this accomplishment. She explained to the Commission the reason why the public hearing on the Retirement Hotel was canceled. It was because even though there was an advertisement in the newspaper, staff could not prove there were students living on the premises. Prior to the advertisement, an application had been submitted for L coop housing for students and seniors. Staff returned the application because the title report revealed that they were not the owners of a 40-foot easement which is a large portion of the parking lot. Staff could not process anything until the parking issue was resolved as they were in violation of the original Conditional Use Permit. After conferring with the City Attorney, it was decided that there was no parking problem, therefore, there was no case. The Retirement Hotel could be found in compliance with 32 parking spaces, even if the adjoining owner decided to build a fence. The Planning Director continued by mentioning to Commissioners Wilson and Huss about their APA packet. She mentioned there were several complaints regarding the Inland Timber project which is on the agenda tonight. Material showing how many, and summarizing the comments of the complainants was provided. Commissioner Van Gelder announced there was still no corner unit ashtray in the Town and Country Plaza. The Planning Director said she had talked with Bob Hardesty before she went on vacation. He agreed to the suggestion and would do it. She will give him a call and remind him. Vice Chairman Sims inquired about the shelving problem at the Village Wine and Deli. The Planning Director replied that the owner does not care. The lock on the window is broken as a result of the burglary. She has not decided how to handle this. Staff has called him and also written to him with no results. The City Attorney advised that doing a Code Enforcement action inside a person's property involves additional complications. Recent information reports he had plans to move to another suite. If this occurs, perhaps the next tenant will relocate the windows giving more visibility inside and adding to the outside appearance. Chairman Buchanan asked if the property management and Stater Bros. agreed to a color for the signs. The Planning Director answered affirmative, not the one seen here. It is the one Stater Bros. prefers, the light cream color with grey, which is more of the Stater Bros. standard colors. Commissioner Wilson asked about an anticipated time frame to complete that portion of the rebuilding. The Planning Director replied that each tenant is submitting their plans for tenant improvement by review of the Health Department, where applicable. Next week after the City Council meeting, they will know whether subsidies are available. If so, then it is time to apply for signs. It should be soon, a month or month -and -a -half. Vice Chairman Sims asked if the subsidy was only available to the refurbished portion. The Planning Director clarified this. She included everybody in the sign program. This is not mandatory, it is voluntary for one year, with the average cost per tenant being $790.00. Staff collected several estimates from various sign companies to produce creative solutions and help decrease the cost of the channel lettering. 2 THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES The Planning Director asked for a motion to continue Planning Commission meeting minutes to the November 5, 1992 meeting. MOTION PCM-92-56 Vice Commissioner Sims made a motion for the continuance of the Planning Commission meeting minutes to the November 5, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Munson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-56 Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. The Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 16, 1992, August 20, 1992 and September 17, 1992 are continued to the November 5, 1992 meeting. ITEM #2 E-92-11 INLAND TIMBER COMPANY TOM MULLINS 21850 MAIN STREET GT AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF INSTALLATION FOR A RESAW AT A WHOLESALE LUMBER COMPANY IN THE MR ZONE DISTRICT Chairman Buchanan suggested for purposes of the staff report, discussion, and keeping the actions separate, that the Planning Commission be concerned with the 3 Site and Architectural issues contemporaneously, and present the motions one at a time. The Planning Director agreed and summarized the staff report. The property is located in an industrial area surrounded by residential communities with the exception of the western portion. The City inherited this problem from the County who approved this use. At the time of this approval, there were no requirements for landscape buffer zones between residential and commercial. The new owner, Tom Mullins, has followed many of the past recommendations by paving the yard and installing a dust collector bin. According to the applicant, Inland Timber Company has spent approximately $500,000.00 on improvements to mitigate pollution and noise. However, there are still many concerned citizens who, through their complaints, have expressed the major issues confronting the Commission tonight. At first there were only four complaints and it has grown to 22, most of which came in this afternoon. There was no time to evaluate them so we assembled them so the Commission could have a record. The Planning Director continued by explaining the project is the installation of a new resaw. There was confusion from the residents as they thought the project was to move or relocate the existing resaw. This project is to install a new resaw. In accordance with the environmental review process, installation of small equipment on an existing facility is exempted from environmental review. The Planning Director proceeded with an informal administrative review with one resident representing other neighbors, who are adjacent to the property. A review such as this is at staff level and does not require any further notices. At this meeting which was different from other meetings with neighbors and applicant, no satisfactory agreements were reached and she could not guarantee there would be no possible impact in this sensitive area. Under these circumstances, there had to be a Negative Declaration and a public hearing. She also mentioned the mailing list was taken from the required 300-foot radius and was expanded on the east side to 1,100-foot radius. The Planning Director summarized the three major issues of concern, found on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Noise Levels Staff received communications of concern from surrounding property owners that this project may cause additional noise problems more than what presently exist. Dust Control Dust problems have increased recently according to some of the surrounding property owners. 4 Hours of Operation/Noise Related Problems Concerns were expressed by the property owners that the hours of operation associated with the Conditional Use Permit for the dust bin and filter collector should be the same for this project. Additionally, concerns were expressed that recent noise -related problems were from diesel trucks parked on Main Street waiting to enter in the early morning hours, landscaper working on the weekend before 7:00 a.m., employees making noises at the job site. The Planning Director stated there were minor responses from the reviewing agencies, the City's Engineer's Office and the County Fire Warden's Department. She read the Conditions of Approval from number 6 to 16. Commissioner Van Gelder said 14 of the complaints are relative to existing conditions. She stated that several of the conditions appear to be recommendations as opposed to conditions. She referred to the expression "may be" located in Condition 7-b, and felt "may" is not the right word to use. The Planning Director explained that staff wanted to leave it open for the applicant, to tell staff, as consultants, what is more efficient. When staff mentioned to the applicant to obtain a block wall, the applicant responded that it was financially impossible for them to acquire one at this time. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to Condition 10 which recommends the monitoring of noise caused by diesel trucks. She wanted to know "who would do the monitoring and what will be done with the results of the monitoring." The Planning Director said no solution had been offered for the trucks, and there was no other location for the trucks. She suggested the Commission question the applicant on this issue. Commissioner Van Gelder inquired about Condition 12, where it suggests the employees could extend personal courtesy toward the residents. She felt this was a vague situation and thought it would be nice for the employees to do this, but what would be the end result. The Planning Director replied that the suggestion came from the residents at the informal meeting and staff included this. Commissioner Van Gelder said this is still a recommendation, not a condition. The Planning Director said the Commission has the right to rewrite this, since staff wrote this when there were only four complaints, but now there are more things to consider with the increased number of complaints. Commissioner Sims admitted he had problems with some of the conditions but his major concern was that staff was asking for a noise level study, assuming everything is operating, including the new resaw, what does the clause "prior to final inspection" 5 do for us here if it went over the decibel readings. The Planning Director stated that the applicant is asking for approval to operate a new machine and this cannot be allowed to operate until the final inspection is completed. She compared this to a Certificate of Occupancy for a house, the final inspection has the same meaning. Commissioner Sims asked that until the company passed the final inspection they could not operate. The Planning Director acknowledged affirmatively. She said they need to provide mitigation measures to pass the final inspection. Commissioner Sims stated he agreed with a lot of things Commissioner Van Gelder said, a portion of this seems to be subjective to some extent and put a burden on the applicant, who may be a little bias on wanting to do these things." Commissioner Huss asked about the noise level restriction. The Planning Director answered this is in the General Plan, and on the noise element 60 DBXs close to a residential area. They met the noise levels in a 1991 study, Associate Planner Maria Muett and the City Inspector Virgil Barham. The noise study was conducted by a consulting firm hired by the applicant, with City staff present. Commissioner Munson asked "if the applicant withdrew his application for a resaw, we would not be here tonight, right?" The Planning Director answered in the affirmative, there were no complaints prior to today other than the four mentioned. Commissioner Wilson wanted to know who has the control of the dust bin, was it the City or State monitoring system. The Planning Director said she thought it was AQMD, but she was not sure. We need to ask the applicant. Commissioner Wilson continued by saying that the main issues are centered around repairing the dust bin to handle the extra load to avoid any additional dust. The Planning Director said yes, also the dust bin has some leaks they have not been able to find, so in the last few months, there has been more dust. However, the dust bin has the capacity to accommodate one or two more saws. Commissioner Wilson asked what does staff have on file for public scrutiny that will confirm this. "Are there manufacturing specs?" The Planning Director stated this information is from the applicant and the previous Conditional Use Permit. Because this happened some time ago, she did not have the complete details and suggested talking with the applicant. Staff could provide information from the files. The way it stands now, it was inspected by the City and by all of the reviewing agencies. All of this equipment was installed according to the Code, it has leaks so it is possible it does not operate according to the Code. Commissioner Wilson understood this could be the same situation with the decibel rating of the sound if the machines are not operating the way they were at that time. However, the major issue concerning the Commission is the addition of a resaw. Commissioner Wilson asked to clarify the location where the DBA requirement is retained, the front, back, or inside of the house. The Planning Director replied the backyard should be 60 DBA's and inside the house was 40 DBA's. Commissioner Wilson asked if he were a day sleeper, would there be something to control the 60 DBA. The Planning Director said yes, in the Ordinance there is no fixed control, but if a neighborhood is complaining about the noise, this becomes a nuisance, allowing Code Enforcement to be enacted. Commissioner Wilson asked about the applicant supplying information that would be available to the public for their scrutiny to compare the combined noise factors for all three resaws. The Planning Director states that one of the conditions asks to conduct a noise test and present the results to staff, and get in contact with the property owners during this time. There is one on file similar to this. Commissioner Wilson suggests this be done for an updated results of what the three saws can do. The Planning Director agreed affirmatively. Chairman Buchanan added he was not familiar with this type of expansion, footings etc., but investing $300,000.00, more or less, surely the applicant would want to know if he was going to pass the noise test, otherwise all of this expensive equipment is sitting in the yard. The applicant assured staff the resaw would not increase the noise factor. Chairman Buchanan stated he understood the term "grandfathered in", as a situation inherited from the County. Relating to some instances, if a grandfathered use is changed, the old rules no longer apply and the project has to meet current requirements. He wanted to know what is staff's position with regard to the installation of a rather large additional piece of machinery in this type of operation. "Is this a sufficient expansion of the use giving the City the ability to require compliance with current requirements throughout the project including the buffer zone between the project and residential zone." The Planning Director replied it would only justify a portion of it. She explained when there is a transition between residential and commercial, the developers of sub -divisions need to participate; in this case, require from the lumber yard everything missing there for many years. She agreed that a certain amount of setback area could be required, however she did not feel it justified to require a 20 foot setback with full landscape and block wall for a resaw. The applicant says that will not increase the current noise levels. Chairman Buchanan stated that he understood that the main concern is to authorize the addition of a new resaw. No one can guarantee the noise level would not increase or blend in with the other noises; however there is more sawing with the additional saw and would produce one-third increase in dust. The Planning Director suggested asking the applicant because technology is such that if the dust collector can support five resaws, perhaps the dust going out should be at a certain level. Staff is requesting noise tests now as a standard procedure. We need to talk about what kind of test should be done to measure the dust. Chairman Buchanan recalls the last time this project was brought before the Commission was the approval of the dust collection system. The selling point for that expansion of the project was the old system was allowing too much dust to escape, and this new technology was going to make a significant reduction in the dust 7 impact. The dust is obviously a major concern from the neighbors and this new dust system has not eliminated the dust problem. It apparently improved for a while then got worst again when it ceased functioning properly. His concern is whether the dust collection system is theoretically capable of handling four or five resaws. It cannot handle the two that are existing. The dust problem has gotten worse, because this new efficient system is sucking more dust out of the operation and leaking it out into the atmosphere; adding a third saw to that is not feasible. He notes that staff has conditioned the project on completion of the dust and filter collector system, prior to the final approval. This could be satisfactory, providing the dust collection system showed a significant reduction in dust when and if it ever did operate correctly. The Planning Director replied that the residents said the dust problem had improved in the last year. Other people said they personally called AQMD. AQMD reported that they were doing the best they could do; if they saw a layer of dust that was deposited, there are specific requirements for the amount of dust and film. AQMD has very strict regulations, but it appears that the very fine dust circulating in the air has no classification in their dust levels. The Planning Director suggested staff would invite AQMD to present their comments concerning the dust levels. Chairman Buchanan agreed that it would be difficult to isolate the source of dust to one specific facility because the dust is coming from numerous sources: from the applicant, surrounding industry, people driving on dirt road. He inquired if AQMD was one of the reviewing agencies on this project. The Planning Director said not at this time for small equipment, but they were for the dust bin. Chairman Buchanan recalled that AQMD supported an improved dust collection system at that time which also seemed logical to the Commission. Chairman Buchanan mentioned that he realized that staff is trying to be careful in conditioning other items not directly related to the resaw. He wanted to know if the applicant had given staff any feedback of the Conditions of Approval. The Planning Director said to her knowledge the applicant is accepting all of them. They committed themselves to take the noise test to meet the 60 DBA's before operation. The written documentation is good, but when you hear from neighbors the issue becomes very difficult. Commissioner Van Gelder stated the major consideration of the Commission is the new part of the project, not any pre existing conditions, that might be objectionable; however, in the Conditions there are three items that are mentioned relating to pre- existing conditions. The Planning Director replied she tried to get the City Attorney's input on this. Even though it is a resaw, it is an extension to the facility. Staff felt it was correct in putting in conditions pertaining to the current operation as far as they are agreed upon by applicant. As of today, there was no feedback from the City Attorney. The lumber company is expanding by asking to install this equipment, staff cannot say there will not be an impact, so these Conditions were included. Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned the monitoring of the diesel trucks, business hours, and the landscape person weekend mornings had no affiliation with the existing proposal. The Planning Director said that could be true but staff interpreted this in two ways: 1) just as the resaw; and 2) an expansion to the company. She continued saying a lot of these conditions came from the administrative review, because staff was trying to achieve an agreement between parties. In doing so, this meant to address concerns of the neighbors to allow them to expand. She feels that unless the applicant says differently this is an expansion to the company. Chairman Buchanan agreed with the Planning Director that it was clearly an expansion, revolving around the hours of operation, truck noise related to increase or decrease deliveries. He mentioned the landscaping and loud speaker are tangential, but definitely an expansion to the company. The Planning Director stated the applicant said he does not have a loud speaker, so it could be from another site. Commissioner Wilson asked about traffic considerations. He understands the nature use of the business, the equipment takes a piece of lumber that is finished, brushes up the surface to look roughsawed or resawed. This process generates saw dust and the equipment also creates noise. The applicant indicated this is the intent of taking care of a seasonal workload. He also asked if the applicant had mentioned which season. The Planning Director replied no. Commissioner Wilson mentioned that the two issues of traffic and the workload season should be addressed. The Planning Director agreed. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:40 P.M. ITEM #2 E-92-11 INLAND TIMBER COMPANY TOM MULLINS 21850 MAIN STREET GT AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF INSTALLATION FOR A RESAW AT A WHOLESALE LUMBER COMPANY IN THE MR ZONE DISTRICT Chairman Buchanan stated E-92-11 is the Environmental Review process and SA-92- 12 is the Site and Architectural Review process. These are technically different hearings, but there was no cause for everyone to have to repeat the same thing over and over. Don Stobaugh, Manager of Inland Timber, represented the owner, Tom Mullins, who had a previous engagement and could not attend the hearing. Mr. Stobaugh has been with Inland Timber since February 1991. He stated that he has been working with the Planning Director for some time. He suggested the best way to start is by 0 answering the Commissions' questions. Commissioner Wilson asked if the sound study of all three pieces of equipment was available for the public to see. Mr. Stobaugh replied he had not brought it with him. The study was done by an independent firm monitored by the City with Maria Muett, Associate Planner, and Virgil Barham present. He said that Inland Timber Company wanted to work, mind their own business, and not cause problems with the neighbors. He confirmed that they are trying to do everything that should be done. Commissioner Wilson said the sound study being referred to is the existing condition. Mr. Stobaugh replied yes. That was done in relation to installing a new dust collection system. Commissioner Wilson asked if there was information available that can do a concept projection of a sound impact with all three pieces of equipment in operation. Mr. Stobaugh said they would have to do that. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that Inland Timber could easily solve restricting hours of the landscape people. Her concern was what type of proposal would the company offer about the diesel trucks' early morning parking. Mr. Stobaugh explained about the landscape problem. It is not landscaping. Since the company had done paving a year ago, they have hired a professional sweeper to come in early Saturday morning to clean up, which blows quite a bit of dust. Then a company employee comes in with a hand blower that blows the dust out for the sweeper to get. About three or four months ago, on a Saturday morning, he was blowing dust in the back of the property near Pico Street. A neighbor came out and there were words between them. Mr. Stobaugh addressed this and it has not been repeated. He was not aware of the truck problem until the informal hearing a few weeks ago. Because of early deliveries as far as Ventura, trucks are building up air pressure before 7:00 A.M. He found out it was not Inland's drivers, it was the drivers delivering lumber to the company as early as 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M., who park on Main Street and were running their engines to use the air conditioning. Most of them were sleeping until they opened at 7:00 A.M. Mr. Stobaugh has since then suggested they park in the area of Iowa and Main Streets where the tractor distributorship is and no homes are there. He assures this will be remedied. Commissioner Huss stated the noise problem has been an on -going issue, and asked if the company had built any block walls. Mr. Stobaugh said the company has not, but some neighbors have. He continued by stating the company has been there for 22 or 23 years. He understands there were many problems and that neighbors had real complaints resulting from the occupancy of the other company, who abused the hours and did not control the noise, but since Inland Timber has been there, they have tried to be aware of neighbors and be responsible to them. He felt that Inland was taking the blame for things that occurred before they came in. Commissioner Huss asked if there was an existing block wall. Mr. Stobaugh replied that business is tough and they are not anxious to spend money for a block wall if they can avoid it. The results of the discussion were that some neighbors had built block walls, but 10 not the company. Commissioner Munson inquired if the dust bin and filter collection system broke down. Mr. Stobaugh said after installation, it worked fine, then about four months ago, a neighbor called about some problems she was having. We found out it had developed a leak or two, here and there. The manufacturer said there were no leaks, but some did exist. The leaks were so minor the AQMD could not find any amount to issue a complaint; however, it is a nuisance and it is not what it should be. He said it was not a defective or inadequate system, and they have been experimenting with water in a barrel that collects dust. Only yesterday, did it collect a small amount of dust. He felt that the problem could still be there, but they have not found it. Even if the new resaw produces more dust, they have more than enough capability to handle it. Commissioner Munson asked if the new reaw would be a primary resaw or an additional saw. Mr. Stobaugh said it would be a primary saw restrcting the use of an existing saw. He answered Commissioner Munson's concern about additional noise saying if they are allowed to install the new saw, the person who is installing it said it would be quieter than any of the existing saws. Most of the noise comes from the blower system. Vice Chairman Sims asks was he satisfied with the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. He responded he preferred the 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., but they would accept the 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Sims inquired about the results of his con ersation of the diesel trucks with the other company. Mr. Stobaugh replied he was hoping the truckers would comply to his request; if not, the neighbors would call him. Vice Chairman Sims asked as an option could the new resaw be enclosed to decrease the noise. Mr. Stobaugh said it could be. He knows that they are going to meet all of the City's standards and work within the standards of the noise. He understood that all standards had to be met before operation. He mentioned there would be an enclosure before a brick wall and Inland Timber is prepared to do this. Vice Chairman Sims asked for a description of the noise study. If it included one test or multiple tests. Mr. Stobaugh answered one was done with the machines, the other at the closest house to the dust collector system area of the property line where the major concern was. Vice Chairman Sims asked for the results of the test. Mr. Stobaugh replied he did not know, but it was within the limits. The Planning Director added the results of the test showed 60 to 62 DBAs. The Planning Director asked about the traffic as it was not included on the environmental evaluation. Mr. Stobaugh said there would be no increased traffic. The Planning Director asked for a more detailed explanation concerning the expansion of the business revolving around the minor equipment addition. Mr. Stobaugh reminded everyone that the economy is hurting in the lumber business too, 11 and he estimated about a 20% increase in business. The company has restrictions now which have created problems with customers, but the new saw will allow them to work with larger pieces of lumber to remedy this problem. He referred to the noise by employees, this has been solved at the threat of disciplinary action mandated by the Union. Chairman Buchanan asked about the paging loud speaker. Mr. Stobaugh said the ABC company who vacated the premises four or five months ago had one, and the company next door has one, but Inland Timber does not. There was only one complaint in the past year where there was sawdust in a woman's pool. Inland Timber had the pool cleaned twice, but it is a nuisance for her. With the other dust bin system, there was numerous complaints. The company has worked with these complaints because they want to get along. It will not be perfect, but they are trying. The Planning Director asked about the seasonal working time. Mr. Stobaugh explained that seasonal refers to the summer when home building is more active. The Planning Director asked that the increased capabilities of the new resaw would the company cease to use other equipment. Mr. Stobaugh answered they may, but hoped they had enough business to operate all three. Chester Easter 21963 Tanager GT Mr. Easter stated he had appeared before the Commission on other matters, the last being the dust collection bin. He said the County of San Bernardino approved the tract located north and east of the company in 1962 and the homes were not built until 1965. In the same year, his neighbor was installing the dry wall in his home, the grading of the company was being done. They were moving from Rialto to expand. At this time, we were a Municipal Advisory Committee, known as the Area of Grand Terrace, considered a part of Colton. There had been several meetings at that time concerning the growth of the area and it affected Inland Lumber which ran a timber mill. He mentioned the meetings included Tommy Thompson, the primary person in charge of Inland Lumber; the Mayor, Tony Petta, and progressed later with Hugh Grant. The primary responsible party that caused a lot of grief was Modern Materials who operated 24 hours a day. He and Dan Butterfield, the closest to the noise, inquired about the noise ordinance with other cities since Grand Terrace did not have one and relied on the County. In the process of assembling the information and providing it to the City, Palm Springs and Orange County responded. Orange County made reference that most of their noise -producing saws, which included a sizer, a large plane of most saws, were enclosed. This material was presented to the City and petitioned the City to employ a noise ordinance. He established his knowledge of the noise ordinance by 12 saying: several meetings followed with Tommy Thompson and at one final City Council meeting, there was a compromise of the wording contents, but no upgrade since then. He also said he was the primary person responsible for the noise ordinance being installed in the City. The County provided the decibel meter for a noise reading. It was installed in his backyard, quite a distance from the mill. The County notified Inland Lumber Company, not Inland Timber, that this was scheduled and mysteriously, the saws were broken for a week. Therefore, the results were positive. Immediately after the equipment was removed, the saws were repaired, and the noise started. The County would not return for another testing and the City did not want to pay for it. The cost continued, so much that one could not recognize the paint on their car. It was always in bad repair and had never been upgraded to modern standards. He praised Inland Timber for upgrading the equipment; however, they did not approve of the location because it was too close to the residents. In 1981, Inland Timber moved it and inherited the problems of Inland Lumber. They did not know about all of the hostile people living next door to this situation. Later, Mr. Stobaugh and Mr. Thompson provided materials for the neighborhood to replace the broken fence at the end of the street. The next problem came with the trucks which are not a quiet piece of equipment. While the drivers are moving the equipment with the lumber from saws to storage to trucks to deliver the materials, the drivers have radios turned up louder than the machinery which interferes with the residents listening to television. The residents would appreciate it if the drivers would be more considerate and not have the radios so loud. This remains a continuing problem, even though Mr. Stobaugh has worked on it. Concerning the landscaper, he blows the dust out from underneath the timber out into the traffic pattern areas. There is a problem with this also that has never been mentioned. The wind is coming from the southwest to the northeast at a constant speed, picking up the dust and lifting it into the houses. The combination of the wind and the noise from the blower is not what one wants to be greeted with on a Sunday morning. He suggested the employees use hand brooms, rather than blowers which aggravate the dust. He distributed 150 flyers today to encourage the neighbors to attend this meeting and was pleased at the representation. He stated there are 150 homes affected and their concerns go beyond what is being discussed at this hearing. He understands that they will not impact much of this; however, it is important to them (the community) to appeal to the Commission and staff about what the situations are. The dust and health problems are the worst problems. 13 The main objection to the dust collector bin is the location being so close to the homes. Also, he felt this was an opportunity for the company to expand their operations which he is against. Mr. Easter then referred to the second meeting with the Commission on the issue of the dust bin, the hours of operation were moved back from 10:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. As he was leaving this meeting, the gentlemen that was with Mr. Stobaugh had a consultation with Mr. Easter on the stair steps and Mr. Easter was shoved lightly down the stairs. He made a complaint about this to Commissioner Hargrave. He felt this was uncalled for as everyone went through a democratic process to achieve these accomplishments and the Commissions' decision had to be made. He could not attend the administrative meeting, but there was a gentlemen present who provided him with valuable information, about the involvement of the operation. The aftermath of the meeting was not good. This resident, who works with a competitor company of Inland Timber, was called into the office of his company and told if he interfered with the Inland Timber business, his job was history. He refrained in mentioning the resident's name at the resident's request. Mr. Easter requested that the Commission and staff deny the equipment to Inland Timber. But if in fact the decision was made to allow the equipment, he suggested the following: 1. Make it mandatory to enclose the equipment. The sizer puts the other equipment to shame. 2. When the testing is done, have the sizer on at the same time. He felt the sizer would exceed the 60 decibels. 3. To choose the hours from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. and for all operations to stop at 9:00 P.M., including trucks, traffic, everything. He also stated that he was told after the second meeting when the dust bin was approved, if he thought it was noisy then, just wait until they got through with him. The next day promptly at 7:00 A.M. timber was stacked directly behind his house until 10:00 A.M. and mysteriously the truck disappeared for the rest of the day. Laurie Robinson 22110 Tanager Street GT Ms. Robinson said she does not open her windows because of the noise. She does not know if there is a PA system or not, she does not want to open her windows anymore. She is not sure if it is Inland Timber or another company. There is dust 14 in the air and there is noise. She already has an Oleander fence. She is located on the corner of Tanager and Michigan and if there is any more noise, she doesn't know what they will do. She understands there is growth in Grand Terrace and that progress is natural, but there is a limit to all of this. Chairman Buchanan asked "with respect to this piece of saw equipment they want to put in, assuming it does not create additional noise or additional dust, do you have any specific objection to this." Ms. Robinson replied she objected to the noise, it is more noise than she likes, it is upsetting. She did not know about any previous meetings and without the flyer attached to her door, she would not have known this meeting. She came to support Mr. Easter who had circulated the announcement. Tom Hawkins 22130 Tanager Street GT Mr. Hawkins stated that there is a tremendous odor of diesel around 6:30 A.M. He had not noticed it before, but he has started walking again and this odor takes one's breath away. He asked if there was a way to help people in the room understand what the level of 60 DBA is. "Can we hear that, and would you like to sit next to that all day long?" Chairman Buchanan said there was no method he knew of that could semi -accurately produce that kind of noise level. Mr. Hawkins said if some of the people in this room lived next to it, they would have a different opinion than what they have now. Neil Hampton 21964 Tanager GT Mr. Hampton stated a number of residents have moved away because of acute bronchitis. He has had it since 1958. He is one of the original crew that finished the houses. He said the dust created by Inland Lumber, was about one-half inch thick when he did the first overlay. Since AQMD is required to be involved with demolition of houses, they should be involved with this situation. There is too much dust, too much noise, and the forklifts make too much noise. He does not feel this is permissible. Chairman Buchanan said assuming the Planning Commission makes a determination that the scope of our inquiry is limited to the construction of the new resaw, and there is no additional dust or noise, "do you have any specific objection to this project." 15 Dave Martin 668 Main Street Hargrove The trucks had parked right in front of his house, but this man has cleared that up and he is happy with the situation now. Rodney Alt (couldn't understand tape) 12786 Royal Avenue GT He has lived there for about nine years and at first the noise wasn't too bad, but the last couple of years, it has been so bad they can no longer leave their windows open at night because the noise in the morning will wake everyone up. The dust problem had gotten better after the dust bin collection was installed, but it is getting worse again. Applicant then stated that Inland Timber actually qualified to compete for the "Good Neighbor" award with the AQMD, so you can see they have made some headway. Also he wanted to clarify that they have never worked on Sunday, he's been there since 1981 and they have never worked on Sunday. 8:55 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. Commissioner Huss noted the test that was done a year and a half ago showed a rating of 60-62 dbs. That put it over the limit then. The Planning Director responded that was because the test was taken close to the backyard of residences and that this area is considered an industrial area. The charts shows between 60 and 63 dbs as acceptable. Chairman Buchanan clarified Commissioner Huss' question as: do we have the right to do random testing, without notice to the applicant, at various intervals of time. The Planning Director said that is not possible, because the applicant has to do the testing with staff present. She had asked the City for funds to purchase the testing equipment, but the budget wouldn't allow that. She added that when the last test was done, the City Engineer, as well as the Associate Planner, were present. They tested with one machine running, both machines running together, it was a very long test. She suggested we might be able to get a County noise expert to be present the next time, not to do the test, but merely to observe. 16 Chairman Buchanan asked if the County's Environmental Health Department was one of the reviewing agencies that was provided with the package. The Planning Director said no. This time it just went to the Engineering Division and Building Engineering and Fire. We could have sent it to AQNM again, but we already have their approval for the facility so it was not required. Commissioner Wilson asked if the City has a right to have a noise expert there and asked that all machinery be turned on at the same time to see just what the level is then. The Planning Director responded yes, the City has the right to require anything it feels would be sufficient to prove they meet the noise ordinance. That can be one of the conditions of the permit. Commissioner Hargrave noted that both applicant and the residents have rights in this issue. The correct decibel rating needs to be established before anyone goes any further. The residents in the area have the right to know whether the noise level is considered acceptable; the gentleman who runs his business in this industrial site has the right to run the equipment, he's within the framework of the law. The Planning Director said the project tonight is the proposal of the applicant to install the resaw. He is committed to operate the resaw only within standards. He needs the Commission to accept his data and reports before he upgrades that machine. If the residents have a complaint, that is a Code Enforcement issue and revocation of CUP. That would be the logical way to go about it. He is very committed to this project and if they cannot meet the noise level, they will enclose the machines, and if that doesn't take care of the problem, they will put up block walls. Commissioner Wilson felt that part of the decision tonight is to review an existing nonconforming condition in relation to whether our decision will aggravate or contribute to an already bad situation, regardless of how it was left in our hands. He asked the Planning Director if the applicant could provide a test that could verify the fact that the existing condition is in compliance and thereby establish a starting point, so that we can then establish whether we will be adding to the problem or not. If we don't know now where we are, it will be very difficult to know if we are contributing to the problem, or possibly reducing the problem. The Planning Director said the applicant is willing to do anything necessary to meet the noise ordinance. She doesn't feel that we can put a condition to stop operations of the facility. We are here to decide on the resaw addition. We can put conditions on the installation of the resaw, but not on the operation of the facility. 17 Chairman Buchanan stated that if there was some evidence that since the last test a year and a half ago, something had happened to make them fall out of compliance, he would have no problem with procedurally requiring a present sound analysis because I don't think this Commission is under any obligation to consider the expansion of a project that is in violation of its existing Conditional Use Permit. He hadn't heard any reason to question the March 1991 noise analysis. Chairman Buchanan continued stating that the Conditional Use Permit and approvals relating to the dust collection system condition be maintained in a clean and functional manner in accordance with goals and objectives and it's apparently not. The existing dust collection system is apparently not presently working. There are two ways of approaching that: (1) to say that we are not going to do anything until it's fixed; (2) the approach that staff took, which is we will go ahead with this project, but you can't get your final approval and start operation until it's fixed. His concern is that we do not want to aggravate an existing bad condition. The scope of this project is fairly limited. The applicant wants to add another tool to the yard. If the addition of that tool creates no additional dust, creates no additional noise, and the project is otherwise in present compliance, and there has been nothing else identified that the saw would impact other than dust and noise, then the applicant is entitled to go forward with the project. What we are faced with is: how do we make sure they are in present compliance, do we do it now or do we it before they get final permits, as staff has recommended. How do we make sure it doesn't create additional dust and additional noise. Is the Planning Commission willing to let the applicant take the risk of non-compliance, giving them until final inspection to demonstrate that their present compliance with their current requirements, or do we make them demonstrate compliance before they can proceed. Or, we determine this project is not appropriate and deny the project. If we deny the project, that does nothing to improve the situation as it is now. If the expansion is controlled so that it does not make the situation any worse, may make it better, there is no basis for denying the project. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the applicant goes ahead and installs the resaw, and a noise test is done with all the equipment running and in use, and it turns out to be 60 or 65 (within the limits), could we still require them to have enclosures for the equipment. The Planning Director responded yes with putting on conditions. The dust problem now is because the machine is not working properly and you can't find them in violation because of that. It is a temporary problem with mechanical equipment. Chairman Buchanan agreed that breakdown of equipment would not constitute a violation of a CUP condition. However, if a piece of machinery breaks down you stop everything connected with that piece of equipment until it is working properly. If the dust collecting system is hooked up to certain pieces of equipment to control IN the dust output, if the dust collecting equipment is not working, then the equipment it is hooked to should not be working. The Planning Director said they can't find any leaks in the system, so it has to be something minor. Chairman Buchanan said that the testimony he had heard from neighbors tonight has been that the dust problem had cleared up, but that lately it is bad again. His inclination is to approve the application with some conditions and let the applicant take the risk. Before final approval is given, the dust collection system and noise levels should be thoroughly tested in a manner that makes sense. The Planning Director suggested that a neighbor be present when they do the noise test. Chairman Buchanan agreed, perhaps even a test committee. Commissioner Hargrave said he has not seen or heard any evidence that would convince him that this would not have an detrimental effect on the health and welfare of the area. It may not cause any harm but there is no evidence to substantiate that, based on the hearing, and the factual information. He would like a continuance so that he could get more factual information to give some comfort that: (1) it is possible to give them a running jump at this because there is a 90% probability will not cause any more noise, nor will it increase the decibel levels. Commissioner Huss would like to ask that this particular resaw be enclosed and that the noise levels be within a 55 decibel to get it down a little bit lower than currently stated. She is not comfortable with the 60-62 report. That company has been there for a long time, maybe the previous owner left a situation to fix and they dumped it on Inland Timber. She asked if there had ever been any walls built, it wouldn't be approved as it exists now. Maybe trees would help the dust problem. MOTION PCM-92-57 E-92-11 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion for a continuance of E-92-11 to a date to be determined in the future to continue the hearing. Commissioner Munson second. Chairman Buchanan has a problem with the motion because of no definite date. The Planning Director informed them the date of the next Planning Commission meeting is November 5, 1992. She also asked if they had any questions for the applicant. Chairman Buchanan said the applicant is probably wondering what he is supposed to be doing between now and the next meeting. 19 Commissioner Hargrave amended the motion for continuance to November 5, 1992. Commissioner Munson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-91-57 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0 Chairman Buchanan said it would probably be helpful for applicant and staff to have some idea of what we are looking for at the November 5, 1992 hearing. Commissioner Hargrave would like to know what is the industry rating on the decibel of this new piece of equipment. Commissioner Wilson would like to know what is in the plant now and what the decibels are, and what decibel rating the new equipment will have and an evaluation from somebody as to whether or not there is going to be an impact. Commissioner Munson would also like to hear more about enclosing the unit, as far as what it would cost, and what it will do to decibel readings. The Planning Director asked that the applicant be given the opportunity to ask questions or something. Chairman Buchanan agreed and suggested the applicant have his sound engineer take a look at the literature and make at a minimum a preliminary analysis. One question is: if this machine only produces 45 decibels, but you add that into a situation that is already producing 60 or 62, is there an increase or does that just blend in with the background. Applicant stated that it was his understanding that they were only to be concerned about each individual piece of equipment, that it meets the 60 to 63 or 64. Chairman Buchanan said it was the Commissions' concern of the cumulative impact. If they were running every piece of equipment that is going to conceivably be run at the same time, what noise is being produced. Applicant said that is where they have a professional company come in and help with the noise levels. Chairman Buchanan stated that a lot of the Commissioners are reluctant to go forward in approving this project without some input from that professional. Applicant told him they have done that before; that is how they expect to do it again. They want somebody that they can count on and if someplace down the road, they 20 have a problem with OSHA, they will have that to say we are certified, we are within the limits. Chairman Buchanan told applicant to bring the professional with him to the next meeting, then added that wasn't an order, he doesn't have to bring him to the next meeting. Applicant said he didn't like the idea of talking about the other equipment because that maybe is not part of the package, forklifts are certainly not a part of what we talking about. They all make the same kind of noise, if you take care of them properly. Chairman Buchanan pointed out that the Commissions' concern involves the cumulative effect of the addition of this new piece of equipment. That is what we are looking to you to provide us with some expert information on. Applicant assured the Commission he would get the information. Commissioner Huss made the comment that there is a difference in the noise when a machine is just turned on and when it is in use. Chairman Buchanan also said the dust issue needs more information on what to do to correcting that. Applicant should be prepared for the next meeting by having additional evidence that this piece of equipment will not add to any of the noise or dust problems that the neighbors are complaining about, as well as anything to improve the conditions, whether related to the resaw or not, are obviously helpful in showing that this project as a whole will improve rather than negatively impact the situation there. Applicant wanted to make sure he understood about the neighbors and the decibel levels. He doesn't feel they should be required to come in at a 50 level when the law allows 60 or 63. Chairman Buchanan wasn't sure how big of a concern that is. Hopefully, staff and City Attorney will be able to contribute some input on that. We can't come in and change the rules as far as your existing operation goes to any great extent, only to the extent that your expansion project here, additional equipment, impacts the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED. 21 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED. ITEM #1 SA-92-12 INLAND TIMBER COMPANY TOM MULLINS 21850 MAIN STREET GT AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF INSTALLATION FOR A RESAW AT A WHOLESALE LUMBER COMPANY IN THE MR ZONE DISTRICT MOTION PCM-92-58 SA-92-12 Commissioner Hargrave moved for a continuance to November 5, 1992. Commissioner Munson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-58 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED. THE OCTOBER 15, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5,1992. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 10-01-92:bs 22 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission