Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2002/09/25 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, September 25, 2002 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Hall, Commissioners Castaneda, Cortes, O'Neill, Madrid, Hom Absent: McCann Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager Patricia Beard, Sr. Community Development Specialist Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Hall APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) to approve minutes of August 14, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-05; Proposed private recreational facility within Neighborhood 8: requesting interpretation of inconsistencies between the adopted Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan and PC District Regulations. Staff recommends that this item be continued to the October 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (4-0-2) to continue public hearing to October 9, 2002. Motion carried. -...-....---......--...--. ..' '---'-_..'-~ _.._._--,--_._--~-- Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 25, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-84; Conditional Use Permit requesting four 10- foot diameter satellite dish antennas and a 40-foot antenna tower to the existing Chula Vista Cable facility. Staff recommends that this item be continued to the October 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-22; Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600 sf satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at 1210 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street. Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner reported that the proposal is for a Precise Plan and an appeal to the Planned Sign Program for the addition of a new 6,600 sf satellite retail building to be located within and as part of a modernization of the existing shopping center, which includes the Target department store. On August 19, 2002 the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the Precise Plan. In addition, the DRC approved a Planned Sign Program that would require a single pylon sign in lieu of an existing free-standing pole sign. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the reduction from the required 15 ft. landscape buffer to 10ft. along Broadway and Oxford Street and recommended approval to reduce the parking space requirements in order to allow the outdoor patio seating for the proposed Starbucks Café. The revised elevations address the Design Review Committee's concerns with respect to having the new satellite building complimenting the existing in-line building. The applicant is also requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Design Review Committee's decision on the Planned Sign Program in order to retain the existing 50 ft. free-standing pole sign on Broadway as well as the 30 ft. double pole sign on Oxford Street. The Planned Sign Program will allow the existing Big Lots and Payless Shoe Source sign board to be retained. Staff recommends that the DRC's decision be upheld for the following reasons: · The proposed pylon sign would be similar to the one that will be installed at Target, which will replace the existing three-sided pole sign. This would enable the landlord to include additional tenants of the shopping center. · There have been numerous sign code violations and signage installed without permits. · The Precise Plan request provides the most appropriate time to implement the ___...__n__ .__..._____~~__ Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 25, 2002 Planned Sign Program as the value of the requested addition and improvements are much greater than the cost of removing or replacing the existing pole signs. The 70 ft. three-sided Target sign will be replaced by two 35 ft. pylon signboards before the end of the year, making the 50 ft. high "lollypop" sign the tallest pole sign within the vicinity of the south Broadway corridor. Non-conforming pole signs are being removed on a regular basis as part of a City policy to rely more heavily on the Design Manual guidelines. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission uphold the Design Review Committee's Notice of Decision being appealed by the applicant with regards to the Planned Sign Program, and approve Resolution PCM 02-22 that recommends the City Council approve the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the City Council Resolution. Public Hearing Opened 6:30. Dan Malcolm, 1206 Seacoast Drive, Imperial Beach, applicant's representative, stated that initially the project started out as the development of a 6,600 sf building, which later turned into a redevelopment of the entire shopping center, increasing substantially the cost of the project. Mr. Malcolm explained that the problem with the sign program is that the property owner has a contractual lease obligations to the two tenants, which prohibit the landlord from modifying the signage in any way; to do so would be to open himself to litigation. Therefore, the Design Review Committee has placed a condition on this project that the applicant cannot legally comply with. Mr. Malcolm suggested that perhaps a way to accomplish this might be to have the City require the tenants to remove the non-conforming signs. Mr. Malcolm urged the Commission to reach a compromise on the sign issue taking into account the overall benefit that will be derived to the entire shopping center with the enhancements that are proposed. He further stated that if a compromise on the signage issue cannot be reached, then the project will not move forward because the applicant/landlord will not subject himself to a law suit. Commissioner O'Neill asked how many years are left on the Pic N Save lease. Mr. Malcolm responded that they have three more years left with two five-year options. Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney clarified that at this time the signs are legal non- conforming, therefore, they only become an issue when you add to the site, at which time it is required that the site be brought up to code, however, without the project, +--....+ --------_._.-.-~---~--~ Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - September 25, 2002 the signs remain legal non-conforming. John Ziebarth, 800 W. Ivy Street, San Diego, CA, architect gave a brief overview of the project's design. Public Hearing Closed 6:55. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Castaneda reminded the Commission that in a recent workshop staff presented the Broadway revitalization program, which at its crux involves the removal of the legal non-conforming signs along this commercial corridor. He further stated that the issue he struggles with is how to achieve one of the core strategies of the revitalization program and at the same time balance it with being able to be flexible enough to work with an applicant such as this who is proposing substantial improvements and redevelopment to a commercial center. Cmr. Castaneda proposed that the project be condition to require the removal of the "Everything $5" sign and to sunset the Pic N Save lollypop sign to go concurrently with the life of the existing lease, which expires in approximately 3 years. Commissioner Cortes stated that as a resident of the southwest area he is committed to keeping at the forefront the revitalization of this area and believes that the enhancements that the applicant is proposing, along with the establishment of a Starbucks will create synergy, which is vital to the success of any commercial center, therefore, he is supportive of a compromise as it relates to the signage issue surrounding this project. Commissioner O'Neill stressed the need to stay focused on the vision planned for the revitalization along Broadway. He expressed concern with the precedence that would be set for this project, however, recognizing the overall benefit of redeveloping the center, he reluctantly would support conditioning the project to include a sunset clause stating that at the end of the present lease (approximately 3 years) the Broadway pole sign will be removed and brought into compliance. MSC (Castaneda/Cortes) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission continue this item to October 9th directing staff to revise the sign requirements to specify the removal of the Oxford pole sign now, and allow the Broadway pole sign to remain for a period not to exceed three years. Motion carried with Commission Horn abstaining. ---- -- -- ---.--.... .n.....____ --- ._----~._-- Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - September 25, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 02-04; Amendment to Chapters 19.04, Definitions, and 19.48, PC Planned Community Zone of Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities. Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that the Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) is unique to the Planned Community District and is intended to provide sites for public facilities such as churches, day-care and other similar uses. Currently the ordinance requires developers to provide 1.39 acres of Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) land per thousand populations. The CPF facilities and requirements are not related to park requirements, which are a totally separate requirement. Additionally, no land use receiving CPF credit will be eligible for park credit, and vice versa. The first component of the amendment concerns the definition of a CPF. CPF is a land use designation, which allows for non-profit and certain for-profit uses considered to be of community-wide benefit. Currently the definition lists both all of the typical uses, which can qualify into these provisions, as well as referencing another section, which also delineates in more detail all of the possible uses which could be considered. Staff is recommending that the definition be shortened by eliminating the list of typical uses within the definition section and only referencing them in another section. The second component of the amendment provides provision for allowing interim uses when a CPF use is not presently available for a site. The Code provides that after a minimum of five years of non-use of a CPF site, the developer may file a request for a conditional interim use. Staff is recommending reducing the waiting period from five years to three. In addition, a new finding is being recommended which requires that if a structure is designed as a permanent building, the building design is to be planned as a conceptual component of a permanent permitted CPF use. The third component involves a recommended expansion of the allowance for recreational uses to include certain facilities by a HOA. Staff concludes that such facilities as common usable open space could qualify for CPF credit subject to recommended findings regarding minimum parcel size, which contains minimal recreational amenities. Recreational uses are limited to 35% of the overall CPF acreage provided and can only be allowed after a CPF master plan has been prepared. Staff believes that the City can accommodate the amount of regular CPF uses on 65% of the required CPF acreage and that the remaining 35% can be used for a number of different types of recreational uses including HOA provided facilities such common usable open space areas. As one of the major uses currently allowed under the recreational use provision is for ball fields. Staff notified the local Little League regarding this amendment and invited them to attend this meeting. ___+_ __ __ _". _.__ "._____._ ..-._ ...."_.._._..0--.--'--,..-..-,...·,- _'·"·_____u.__ __._.~.__~_..___..__.._ - -_._-"---------------~-----_.~---- Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - September 25, 2002 The adopted ordinances and proposed amendments allow master developers to work with non-profit organizations such as Little League, day-care providers and other community groups to provide amenities and services which have been deemed appropriate for the community. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend that Council adopt the amendments to the Municipal Code Chapters 19.04 Definitions and Chapter 19.48 P- C Community Zone. Commissioner O'Neill asked if an interim use is allowed, how or who decides when its time to transition from an interim use to a CPF use. Mr. Steichen responded that interim uses have to be granted by the City Council and is typically for a period of five years. There's also a provision which states that if an imminent CPF proposal is submitted, its at the discretion of the City Council to give a one year timeframe notice to the interim use that it will need to be discontinued. Public Hearing Opened 9:10. Charlie Martinez, 360 Oxford Street, Apt #4., Chula Vista, stated he is the little League Baseball District #42 Administrator, which encompasses the area south of Highway 54. He stated that four years ago he proposed to start a new little league in Eastlake. He address his request to The Eastake Company stating that as new development comes into the City, they are bringing in more kids who have no place to play because the league cannot support any more participants and there are no more fields available to play in. He further stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission commissioned a fact-finding study, which indicated that the community's foremost desire is to have more sports fields. Mr. Martinez expressed concern that consideration of other uses, as proposed in the amendment, could potentially reduce the opportunity for ball fields to be made available. Public Hearing closed 9:30 Jim Sandoval reminded the Commission that about a year ago, the CPF Ordinance was amended to allow Little League fields to be built and for the developers to be able to receive CPF credit for those fields and that isn't changing with this proposed amendment. Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner stated that this ordinance amendment was crafted to supplement the previously adopted Little League ball field portion of the CPF ordinance. The Eastlake Company has since built a Little League facility in Eastlake Trails, which has been very successful. Subsequently, the Eastlake Company also requested that the Planning Commission and City Council increase the percentage of the CPF acreage from 25 to 35 acres, which resulted in one additional 4 acre site in Eastlake III and is now --_...~ -"~.---- "-~--_._- -- -_.._.__._~-- Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - September 25, 2002 pending construction. Under the proposed amendment, there are two sites that are targeted for CPF credit; one is the small half-acre site., which in order to qualify for CPF credit must have the following: · One multi-purpose hard court (basketball, etc.) · Children's play area · Community gather facility · Outdoor cooking facility, and · Lawn area In addition to all of the above stated requirements for the small site, the larger l-acre sites are required to add one of the following items: · A tennis court · A swimming pool, or · A fu II size court field (soccer or baseball field).] Mr. Hernandez further stated that the latter requirement is at the determination of the Zoning Administrator. He, therefore, suggested that Mr. Martinez work hand-in-hand with the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission to lobby against any project that does not address the desires of the community to provide sports facilities. Commissioner Hall asked what would be the means by which Mr. Martinez could obtain the information which identifies land that can sustain sports facilities. Mr. Hernandez suggested that Mr. Martinez get in touch with the master developers. Secondly, Planning staff can assist him in identifying all of the CPF sites that are available and, thirdly, City staff can place him on a list to be notified whenever a developer submits a request for a Conditional Use Permit to have a CPF site converted for credit. Commissioner Hall stated he is passionate about this subject and firmly believes that it is long overdue for the developers, City staff, and community leaders such as Mr. Martinez, to sit together and discuss in layman's terms what the developers need, and what overwhelming desire of the community is with respect to having more sports facilities. MSC (O'Neill/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.04 Definitions, and Chapter 19.48 P-C Community Zone of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Motion carried. 5. Public Hearing: PCC 02-32; Conditional Use Permit to add a Citgo gasoline service station in front of an existing Seven/Eleven convenience store at 4300 Main Street, SW corner of Melrose Avenue. -.-.-_......._-_.. --.-'.-. - m' "_........____ _._-.-"'___.._m______._._.______.___ Planning Commission Minutes ·8- September 25,2002 Commissioner Madrid stepped down from the dais. Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner, reported that the Seven-Eleven Corporation is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add a gasoline service station to an existing 7-11 convenience store. Although Main St. is know for the many industrial uses, there is a mixture of multi-family residential and commercial land uses surrounding the proposed site with a condominium complex to the south and west, and apartments to the north. The proposed parcel for the service station will be partially improved and is adjacent to a natural draining course. The applicant proposes to construct a 26 x 78-ft. canopy covering three gas dispenser. The existing Seven-Eleven monument sign will be removed and replaced by a single monument sign that incorporates the 7-11 and Citgo logo. There will be 18 parking spaces and additional landscaping and a block wall will run along the length of the service station adjacent to the condominium development to the south. The site is currently divided by chain-link fencing and buganvilla. At the Design Review Committee meeting concerns were raised by neighbors about the proximity of the service station to the adjacent condominiums. As a result, the DRC recommended that the decorative concrete masonry block wall be extended west beyond the proposed service station area to the top of the west-facing slope along the south property line on the undeveloped portion of the property. Since this issue was not brought up until the public hearing, the DRC made their recommendation without detai led information about the slope on the site. Staff bel ieves that an alternative in order to provide adequate screening for the condominiums would be to install a 6 ft. high chain-link fence with landscaping or a solid wood fence along the top ofthe slope. This would eliminate the need to require additional grading beyond the service station proposal. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution DRC 02-35 and PCC 02-32 approving the findings and conditions of the Design Review Committee and subject to conditions and findings contained in the Planning Commission Resolution. Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with the I itter trap that the space between the two fences would create. If, in fact, the slope belongs to the upper property, conditions can be added requiring its maintenance and response to any concerns of the HOA may have. ....._....,..-~.~..... ~ -------~~---- Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - September 25, 2002 Public Hearing Opened 7:25. Richard Arden, 1720 Melrose #33, Chula Vista stated he opposes the project because it will devalue the surrounding properties. He urged the commission to deny the project. Steven Rettke, 1720 Melrose #10, Chula Vista stated he opposes the project because there already is a saturation of gas stations along Main Street. In addition, the 7-11 store is not a good neighbor because they allow groups of people to congregate late at night who are simply loitering and drinking, creating an unsafe environment for patrons. He urged the commission to deny the project. James & Teri Van Den Brock, 1720 Melrose #32, Chula Vista, stated they oppose the project because property values will decrease due to the extra traffic congestion created by the gas station, potential health and envi ronmental hazards, and because there already is an over-saturation of gas stations in close proximity to this area. They urged the commission to deny the project. Aura Quecan, 1720 Melrose #5, Chula Vista, stated she opposes the project because of concern with potential leaking from the underground fuel storage tanks, environmental pollution from gas and diesel emissions, and the devaluation of property value. She urged the commission to deny the project. Bill Rigsby, 1720 Melrose #45, Chula Vista, stated he opposes the project because of noise impacts the project will create with vehicles pumping fuel at all hours of the day and night. He is also concerned with the littering behind the fence and graffiti that the fence will attract. He urged the commission to deny the project. John Schmitz, Principal Planner, clarified that the project does not include diesel fuel dispensing. Homero Eufracio, 1720 Melrose #7, Chula Vista stated he opposes the project because it can potentially attract and increase the level of crime (theft) the neighborhood is already experiencing. The neighborhood has a lot of children and he would be concerned with their safety. He urged the commission to deny the project. Christine Alonso, 1720 Melrose #14, Chula Vista stated that as a former president and member of the board, she is very much aware of the problem created by the lack of maintenance of the area surrounding the convenience store and on several occasion had to call the City to request enforcement of its maintenance. She also stated that as one of the original owners, they were told that at some point in the future there would be a strip mall developed on that vacant property. She is concerned with the added traffic congestion and vagrancy. She urged the commission to deny the project. .___,.___.. __ _________. __ _____ _____."__"__.__ _~.. ~..__'._." __ n______ __ ",..__.________._. _ __ .___ -- -----~_.._._-- ---..-..,.- ------------------- Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - September 25, 2002 Cmr. Castaneda asked if the association ever made an attempt to contact the store management to file a formal complaint. Ms. Alonso stated that they have corresponded with them and pointed to an incident where there was a chemical seeping from the 7-11 wall that abuts the complex carport and it took them over a year to have them take care of it. Additionally there was a hole in the fence, which they did not repair and since the restroom inside the store is off-limits to the public, they would come out through the back and then go through the fence to relieve themselves. The complex had to, as a last resort, repair the fence. Maria Bailon, 273-D Rancho Ct, Chula Vista stated she opposes the project because she is concerned with vandalism and also in case of an emergency (explosion), egress from the area she lives would be cut off. Ann Skains, 1720 Melrose #16, Chula Vista stated that as a former employee of a conven ience store, she was told by her employer that it is considered to be a dangerous place to be when there is a convenience store and gas station in close proximity to a freeway, which is the case for this project. She is also concerned with the safety of children because this creates a perfect setting for kidnapping. Paul Masca, 1702 E. McNair, representing the applicant clarified that there will be no diesel dispensing at this facility and stated thatthe facility will be in full compliance with the California Air Resource Board requirements, which include double-walled containment tanks and piping. He further stated that his client is receptive to conditioning the project to include landscaping along the fence i.e. bouganvilias to deter graffiti. He emphasized the 7-11 has a corporate-based crime prevention program implementing such measures as security cameras, and there will be additional lighting within the canopy. He also clarified that this is an independent franchise, not a corporate facility. There is also a "1-800" number posted on the front door that anyone can call with concerns and a representative from the maintenance department will respond to the calls. Helen Chism, Field Consultant for 7-11 stated they advise their franchisees that their store policy is that there is to be no congregation of people outside their stores and they are to call the police whenever this occurs. Commissioner Hall asked it they have considered hiring a security guard. Ms. Chism responded that they prefer not to because the presence of a guard gives a negative image and people are less likely to patronize their store. Commissioner Hom inquired what was the response time from when someone calls the "1-800" number. ...-.---.--- ._._."..__.__.~----_..~ ---- Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - September 25,2002 Ms. Chism stated that an outside company monitors that number and whenever a call comes in they will contact a Field Consultant, such as herself, within an hour of the call coming in; in her case, she will get the call on her cell phone. Cmr. Hom inquired if there are any studies that support the premise that by adding a gas station it will increase the customer base. Judy Sober, Manager of the Gasoline Department for 7-11 stated that they are in the gasoline business to make a profit and studies show that their merchandize sales do not go up simply because there is a gas station. They are there to service their clientele-base; they can buy their Slurpee or coffee without having to go across the street to pump their gas. Public Hearing Closed 8:20. Commissioner Cortes stated that it is inconceivable to him to believe that these neighbors who are in such an uproar with complaint after complaint against the store, and yet the corporation seems to be unaware that any problems were occurring, giving testimony that there are checks and balances and policies in place to address any type of concerns from the patrons. Ms. Chism reiterated that the system that's in place is designed to avoid having to go through layer upon layer to ultimately reach resolve or response to a concern. She indicated it appears the complaints have been improperly channeled and instead have been going to the sales associate or the franchizee. Commissioner Cortes asked if the applicant had any type of outreach program such as going to a homeowners board meeting or canvassing the neighborhood asking for their input on concerns and for their support. It seems obvious to him that making a good- faith effort to be a good neighbor would go a long way. The Commission collectively felt that in addition to the concern with having a gasoline station abutting a high density residential location, there are too many complaints from the surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the applicant's lack of sensitivity to their neighbors, who demographically ought to be their best clients, weighs heavily on their decision. MSC (O'Neill/Hail) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission deny PCC 02-32, a Condtional Use Permit to add a Citgo gasoline service station in front of an existing Seven/Eleven convenience store at 4300 Main Street. Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Hall) (5-0-1-1) that staff be directed to bring back a resolution of - ..-----..-- _. ._._-~--_._---_._---".__.....- -- .----.- -- -. ------...----- - - - ----------+--. - - --- n'_' --'--'-' --- -'-"--'--'-~"-"-~-'-~' -~-- Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - September 25,2002 denial for PCC 02-32. Motion carried. 6. ACTION ITEM: PCM 03-09; Determination of development standards for Eastlake III relating to exterior sideyard setbacks and allowable stories within a single family residence. Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that Section 11.3.3.2 states that a 10' setback is typically required between the residence and the exterior side yard property line. Under normal circumstances, the property line is also the ROW, however, in some instances there is an open space lot separating the residential lot from the street. In these cases the Zoning Administrator recommends that if an open space lot with a minimum width of 10' separates the residential lot from the street ROW, the setback could be reduced to 5'. Section 11.3.3.2 states that the maximum allowable height is 28', however, a total of only 2 stories are permitted within certain land use district, while in other districts, up to 2.5 stories are permitted. The Zoning Administrator reviewed Chapter 19 and other PC District Regulation and found them to consistently allow for 2.5 stories with a height restriction of 28'. The SPA document contains no language to clarify why there is ambiguity regarding the allowable number of stories, therefore, due to the lack of clarity as well as staff's analysis, the Zoning Administrator believed that allowing only 2 stories is a clerical error. Furthermore, staff recommends that if the Planning Commission concurs that the omission of .5 story is an oversight, Eastlake Should be required to amend the PC District Regulations accordingly. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution regarding the interpretation of development standards for exterior side yard setbacks and allowable number of stories within a single-family residence in accordance with the findings contained therein. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Madrid expressed concern that the height issue could be open to interpretation depending on how one manipulates measuring the pitch of the roof. Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner clarified that the issue is not the actual height, but rather the interpretation of what a 2 and 2.5 story residence. Most of the residential neighborhoods allow 2.5 stories, but for some reason two of the neighborhoods in Eastlake III were left out of the 2.5 stories. Staff believes that this option will not increase the bulk of the building primarily because their will still be limited to the 28' height and the FAR. This is not something that is being added, but rather its an interpretation that ---_.~-_..- ." -----..--.,.---.,-..--.....- --,,----...- - ---- ----- ----- -.-.--.--....--- _.,."_.._-,,.__._._~-_._-~-- --- Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - September 25, 2002 these two neighborhoods should be brought to par with the rest of the neighborhoods in Eastlake and other master planned communities. MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt resolution regarding the interpretation of development standards for exterior side yard setbacks and allowable number of stories within a single-family residence in accordance with the findings contained therein. 7. REPORT: Report on the Feasibility Study for the redevelopment of Energy Way in the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project Area, as part of an Agency initiative on open storage uses in redevelopment project areas Background: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager stated that staff's is seeking the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency that they accept the report and provide staff direction to proceed with the presented action planning strategy, including bringing back for Council consideration of an Open Storage ordinance. MSC (Cortes/O'Neill) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommends that the Redevelopment Agency accept the report and provide staff direction to proceed with the presented action planning strategy, including bringing back for Council consideration of an Open Storage ordinance. Motion carried. Business: Commissioner O'Neill was nominated to be the representative to the General Plan Steering Committee. ADJOURNMENT at 9:35 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2002. ~y~ - Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission ----_._-_.._---_._.__._----.~_.._---_._- ---'----'-"'-- ----.-.,.- -..-.-------------- ---......~-,-~-