PC 10/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Responding to Commissioner McGuirk, Mr. Thomas advised that the applicant has made arrangements with the shipping company to make deliveries at a regularly scheduled time. Commissioner McGuirk commented that he feels it is odd that a large store would be expected to operate without the use of the rear doors for delivery. Mr. Swift advised that the original development plan had no access to the back of the building at all. The existing access was made by a condition of approval for access by the City. Mr. Levine concluded by saying Mr. Thomas is also opposed to the front door delivery because of its impact on the other tenants in the center. Mr. Levine urged the Commission to view their proposals as very minor modifications with little impact on the neighbors (Le., deliveries made to the rear door by an electric hand cart), and he feels this proposal is beneficial to all parties--the neighbors, the adjacent businesses, and Color Tile. Commissioners McGuirk and Barker stated for the record that they were contacted by Mr. Thomas by phone. James Miller, 3633 Camelot Court, is opposed to the unloading activity and the use of hand carts behind the building. He feels California Burgers should not have been approved because of Measure X, and they have become a nuisance with the smoke fumes. He advised that gates were promised at the time of Measure X approval, and they are now just getting installed. Mr. Miller stated there are people behind the buildings at all hours, people sleeping behind the buildings, and noisy parties. Mr. Miller stated the neighbors want peace and quiet behind their homes. Henry Hatton, 3963 Fairlands Drive, stated the intent of Measure X was that the rear of the building would be landscaped, and that Condition 31 stated there would be public easement for City and/or emergency use. The speaker questioned how delivery activities could be allowed in this area. He also believes that the use of the electric hand cart will cause the asphalt to crack even further than it has already with no traffic on it. Mr. Hatton is also concerned that, if approved, the other tenants will want to use this area for loading purposes, and he is concerned about the noise of the delivery trucks negotiating the area, braking, idling, etc. Mr. Hatton presented signed petitions which retract his neighbors' previous approvals of this project. Mr. Hatton also advised there could be a potential for lead acid poisoning to the neighbors from the recharging of the lead acid battery of the hand cart. Daniel Campizzi, 3655 Camelot Court, stated his opposition to the application. Mr. Levine noted the gates were not a condition of approval, they were an oral commitment made by Mr. Thomas, and the gates were installed as of this date. Mr. Levine also clarified that Measure X included a condition stating the City may modify Measure X by adding or changing conditions, providing nothing is done to inhibit or stop the project as intended. Measure X does not preclude the modifications being proposed, the question is whether the modifications are reasonable. There has been a consistent minor use of the rear for deliveries, and Measure X does not state the rear area cannot be used for deliveries. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 12, 1994