Planning Commission directs staff to draft hybrid site plan for Central Coast Smog after years of nonconforming outdoor storage

The El Paso de Robles City Planning Commission on May 27 directed staff to prepare a final site plan to amend Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 87‑006 for Central Coast Smog / Otto at 639 Creston Road, after prolonged nonconforming vehicle storage, the installation of a six‑foot perimeter fence without approvals, and repeated attempts by the owner to bring the site into compliance.

City planner Darren Nash summarized the staff position: the site’s original CUP (1987) authorized a limited auto‑repair use within a defined footprint, but grading, expanded vehicle storage and a new perimeter fence have created a nonconforming outdoor storage yard that is not permitted in the C‑2 zone. Nash said staff prepared an alternate site plan to reduce the fenced area, add parking and landscaping to improve neighborhood compatibility and meet parking and setback requirements.

Nash told commissioners the Design Review Committee reviewed both the applicant’s as‑built site plan and the staff suggested plan on March 17 and recommended the staff approach as the better path to conformity. Staff said the alternate plan would accommodate required parking (staff calculated 16 spaces for the proposed building expansion), relocate fencing to the dashed line shown on staff plans, and require landscaping and irrigation by a licensed professional.

Applicant Christian Mercado said he had called city staff before erecting the fence and was told he did not need a permit; he said he built the fence to screen vehicles and keep the front clean. "So then after she told me that, then I went ahead and built it," Mercado said. He said the masonry wall at the rear was completed in October 2023 and reinspected in April 2025. Civil engineer Josemar Ramos described parking calculations for the proposed expansion; the applicant said the fenced area generally stores vehicles overnight for a few days while awaiting parts or service and that towing activity requires room for a truck and trailer.

Commission discussion focused on two competing priorities: reducing outdoor storage to conform with the C‑2 zoning and allowing the business room to operate without pushing vehicles into public view. Commissioners praised the applicant’s community ties and the commission’s history of working to keep the business open, but several members said the existing as‑built condition had exceeded what the 1987 CUP intended. Commissioners discussed multiple options: (1) accept the applicant site plan, (2) adopt staff’s reduced‑storage site plan, or (3) direct staff to prepare a final site plan based on alternative direction from the commission.

After extended discussion the commission voted to approve a motion directing staff to prepare a final site plan reflecting a hybrid approach. Key direction (as recorded in the motion) included moving the perimeter fence inward along Walnut to align with a landscaping strip; relocating the fence to allow 13 striped parking spaces between the building and the fence; completing a continuous perimeter fence; requiring a clear drive approach to the trash enclosure during business hours; prohibiting overnight parking outside the fenced area; adding conditions that tie any outdoor storage allowance specifically to active repair operations for this business (not a general vehicle storage yard); and a height restriction that stored items not extend above the fence. Commissioners set a 120‑day deadline for staff to return with a draft site plan.

Commissioner Marlowe made the motion to pursue option 3 with the described conditions; Commissioner Roden seconded. The roll call vote was unanimous (6-0). Nash said the draft site plan will return to the commission for a formal amendment to the CUP; any final approval of an amended CUP will require findings of neighborhood compatibility and will become part of the formal permit record.

The commission and staff repeatedly emphasized that vehicle storage as a primary use is not permitted in a C‑2 zone and that the action is intended to produce a narrowly defined, site‑specific solution that allows the business to operate while reducing impacts to nearby residents.

No changes to municipal code were adopted; the motion directs staff to prepare a site plan and bring the CUP amendment back to the Planning Commission for formal action within the set timeline.