2022-01-06 Windward Exh B (PL-SPP-2021-000005)

Home

trying to store paint in the facility, and they stop me, right. So, like Mr. Pipan said they're going to have mitigation in place to protect the community, to protect hazardous materials from being in there, whatever the policies are, and I will not support this motion. Just want to share that with the Commission, I've used facilities like this, and I support it. I think this is an appropriate Special Use permit. So, if no other Commissioners. You know what, Mr. Pipan I will allow you to speak but can you just make it really brief because we are in the discussion part of it, but please go ahead. PIPAN: Yes, thank you Commissioner Au, Chair Au. Just wanted to speak to the criteria that the Planning Department is employing when evaluating a Special Permit. Is it unusual? Yes, they fell on the recommendation that this was an unusual use of agricultural land. Is it reasonable? This one is the very nebulous. They're citing the potential hazardous materials that we've been discussing over and over again, as the unreasonable aspect that would kick it out of consideration for a Special Permit. Is this really productive Ag land? No, of course not, not really. Is this impacting any of the surrounding neighbors? We can't say that it is. No one is saying that it's going to harm them. There are additional protections outside of the Zoning Code for installations like this. The Building Code has requirements for self-storage facility, and they relate to fire suppression. The Fire Department has their requirements for systems that aren't served by County water, such as this one. We're providing adequate water and Fire department connections for any fire that may arise. Just to wrap up, thanks for the latitude. We're perfectly amenable to deferring action, re- engaging, doubling our efforts to reach out to the community, maybe reducing the storage proposed use to a smaller facility. I think if you're open to that we're definitely open to exploring our options and really getting the most community feedback we can. Thank you. AU: Thank you, Mr. Pipan, thank you for those comments, and we still are in discussion with our commissioners, and it seems like Commissioners already know their vote. I do have a question for Mr. Darrow. So, what are the rules with this property because they got a permit back in 2012. They revoked it. The Planning Department agreed to revoke it in 2018 and now they're coming back again for a Special Permit. Whatever happens today if it gets denied or approved, I'm assuming they're going to be very creative. They want to develop the property which I know they probably want to do, because they keep coming back. Are there any rules against that or because they can come back for another Special Permit? Is that correct? DARROW: Correct. They can revise and come back in. There's been talk that a certain aspect of their request seems more appropriate than another aspect. They can revise as John mentioned the possibility of minimizing the amount of self-storage, I don't think that the Planning Department is going to change their position in regard to self-storage. I know that there are some criteria that can go either way. Is this area appropriate for ag uses? It's not the greatest ag area, obviously, but people are doing ag there, but the bigger issue is this request going to change the essential character of the area. Well self-storage in a rural area is definitely not the same as rural character. It's going to change and alter the essential character of the area. But the main 2 that we're focused on is the CDP and the General Plan(GP) and again as Mr. Clarkson mentioned, we do have 2 examples that we had brought up that met those criteria for self-storage and a Special Permit action. They did meet those two criteria. They were located in areas identified 16 EXHIBIT B