Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/4/27 (4) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 27, 1994 Page #1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-23: Modification of the Precise Plan Guidelines for Otav Industrial Park for Specified Lots Along Energv Wav - Citv-Initiated A. BACKGROUND 1. During the hearing process which resulted in the approval of a text amendment to allow automobile auctions in the I (General Industrial) Zone as a conditional use (PCA-93-0l), the question was raised about which paving standards should apply to the Energy way uses. Upon review, it was determined that if the paving standards were applied as they now exist to the auto auctions and auto dismantlers along Energy Way it would pose an undue financial burden on uses which currently have only a 13 year life. Therefore, it was determined that the Precise Plan for Otay Industrial Park should be reviewed (PCM-79-20). 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is a Class 8 Categorical Exemption from environmental review as an "action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment" pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council approve PCM-94-23 based on the findings and subject to the provisions contained in the attached draft City Council Ordinance. C. DISCUSSION 1. Pavement Standards for Private Vehicular Areas In 1972 the Planning Commission adopted paving requirements for off-street parking on private property within the City. There are three standards based on the permanence of the use: for temporary uses (up to six months), semi-permanent uses (maximum of five years), and permanent uses. The specific standard of paving required for each category of use are described in Attachment "A." These are the standards from which auto dismantlers and auction businesses along Energy Way may vary if the proposed modification is approved. 2. Modified Guidelines for the Otav Industrial Park Attachment "B" is the Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park. Highlighted on the first page is the section proposed to be added to the Guidelines, and at the end of the document is a locator map showing the parcels along Energy Way to which the added guidelines would be applicable. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 27, 1994 Page #2 3. Zoning and Land Use: Site North South East West Zoning I-P A8 I-P Otay Ranch I-P Land Use Mixed Industrial Uses Otay Landfill Mixed Industrial Uses Vacant Mixed Industrial Uses 4. Existing Site Characteristics: At present, the Otay Industrial Park contains a mixture of industrial uses, from auto dismantlers to trucking companies to metal fabrication to contractor's storage yards. For the most part, these uses have existed along Energy Way or Nirvana Avenue for a number of years. On February 28, 1979, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PCM-79-20 approving the Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park (Attachment "C"). 5. Necessitv for Modifications Recently, a number of special use permits have been approved by the Redevelopment Agency for the continued operation of auto dismantlers along Energy Way for a period of approximately 12-13 years. These uses were originally approved in 1973 under a master CUP and have never been required to comply with the City's paving standards for permanent uses. In some cases, this would require paving consisting of two inches of AC over a four inch base over an area of two acres, and in a few cases over 10 acres. This seems unjustified based on the fact that they have never had permanent paving and have been approved for continued operation for a limited period of 13 years. 6. Implementation of the Guidelines Pursuant to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, any use listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in Chapter 19.46, I (General Industrial) Zone, requires special use permit approval from the Redevelopment Agency. Over the last two years, a number of auto dismantlers have applied to the Redevelopment Agency for special use permits. As part of the approval process for these permits, site plan approval is required, and as the owners of these properties come in for this approval, staff will ensure that the guidelines are implemented, as applicable. In the case of any site plans that were previously approved, it was decided not to strictly enforced the permanent paving standards until the outcome of the paving issue. Assuming the modified paving standards are approved, then, no changes will be necessary to the already-approved site plans and the status quo will remain, so far as paving is concerned. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 27, 1994 Page #3 D. ANALYSIS When these uses were approved in 1973, the only permanent paving requirement that was enforced at the time was for the customer and employee areas, leaving the storage and periodic customer parking areas as temporary paving of decomposed granite (DG). Initially, there were concerns that auto dismantling uses were polluting storm water and that a more substantial pavement would be required to address this problem. However, staff discovered that the auto dismantling businesses and other open storage uses are required by State law to be enrolled in the Statewide General Industrial Activities Storm Water Discharge Permit program. This program requires that the operators, through a third party, monitor storm water runoff from their properties on a regular basis and submit samples of runoff to a lab for testing. After reviewing this program, staff is satisfied that the program addresses any environmental concerns. Since the majority of uses along Energy Way have been operating without permanent pavement and have a limited life, and since there is no proof that the storm water is being polluted from this area by these uses which would require more stringent paving standards, staff supports modifying the precise plan requirements for Otay Industrial Park to include revised paving requirements for these uses. It should be noted, too, that even though the precise plan guidelines are being modified, not all of the requirements contained therein are still applicable to Otay Industrial Park. This is because the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan supersedes the Guidelines in those cases where there is a conflict. Where the Redevelopment Plan is silent on a particular issue, the wording of the Guidelines, if applicable, is enforced. Paving is not directly addressed in either the Plan or the Guidelines, and rather than modify the Redevelopment Plan, the issue was focused on the Guidelines and specifically on those parcels fronting on Energy Way, but excluding any parcels on Nirvana Avenue. Parcels fronting on Nirvana A venue are being specifically excluded for several reasons. First, there are no auto dismantlers or auctions on Nirvana. Secondly, recent development trends along Nirvana encourage a higher standard of development than along Energy Way. Thirdly, the uses along Nirvana are more permanent than the uses along Energy Way. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the modification as proposed. F:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\EWPPGL\9423PCC .RPT PAVEMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE VEHICULAR AREAS Areas upon private property which are required to be paved per the various City regulations, or pursuant to conditional approval of the Planning Commission shall be paved in accord with the requirements contained herein and with the standard specifications of the City. Such requirements shall apply to all areas to be paved for the IIOvement, parking or storage of vehicles except as specifically noted. 1. TEf4IORARY USE (maximum of one year). Temporary pavement shall consist of two (2) inches of compacted decomposed granite, the top one inch of which has been treated with SC-250 asphalt road oi1 to form a water-resistant and dust free wearing surface. Penetrants shall be applied at such rates or a sufficient number of times to produce the specified wearing surface. A weed killer shall be applied in accord with the manufacturers instructions to the entire area to be paved. 2. SEMI-PERMANENT USE (maximum of five years). Semi-permanent pavement shall consist of two inches of asphalt concrete pavement with seal coat placed upon native soil. Asphalt concrete shall be Type "8" per Section 8 of the Standard Specifications except that it shall be permissible to use 40-50 penetration grade asphalt binder as an alternate to 60-70 penetration asphalt binder. A Type "A" seal coat per Subsection 8-08 of the Standard Specifications shall be applied to the entire paved surface. Native soil to receive pavement shall be graded and compacted prior to installation of paving material. A weed killer shall be applied in accord with the manufacturers instructions to the entire prepared native base. 3. PERMANENT USE. Permanent pavement shall consist of a minimum of two inches of asphalt concrete pavement with seal coat, as described under "Semi-Permanent Use" above, applied over a four inch aggregate base (Class 2A) per Section 7 of the Standard Specifications. Native subgrade shall be graded and compacted prior to application of the structural section. Permanent areas for the storage only of passenger type vehicles may be paved as specified under semi-permanent use. This reduction shall apply only to the specific storage areas and does not include areas designated for parking or movement of vehicles. 4. DRIVEWAYS FOR ALL SINGLE-FAMILY, ATTACHED AND DUPLEX RESIDENCES. Driveways for all single-family, single-family attached, and duplex residences shall be paved with a minimum of four inches (4") of concrete of a five sack mix. The Director of Planning may authorize the use of other "permanent pavement", as specified above, when it can be determined that concrete paving would be unnecessary or impractical. Guidelines for such variance would be: Attachment "A" . ,. a. In an area where asphalt drives are used exclusively or predomi nantly. b. Where lots are 1 arge or unusually deep setbacks prevail. the cost of using concrete may be unreasonable. c. Driveways .rtth sufficient slope to pernrlt good run-off. than 12$. (Resolution PCM-72-9. 7/18/72) but less , GENERAL CONDITIOIIS In all instances. pavement grades shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent ponding of water upon or adjacent to the paved surface. Pavement shall be maintained in serviceable condition at all times. Patching. sealing and/or repenetration shall be undertaken as necessary to maintain a usable surface. . Materials and construction methods shall be adequate to accomplish the intended life and purpose of the specified class of pavement. The City Engineer shall have the authority to deny final inspection and utility approval for any property upon which such materials and methods are inadequate. These specifications establish minimum acceptable standards. Higher quality materials as approved by the City Engineer may be substituted in all cases. DESIGN FOR UNUSUAL CIRCU!~STANCES Special design efforts are justified in all cases where: 1. Native soil is expansive. poorly drained or has a high clay content. 2. Traffic vol urnes are high. 3. Unusually heavy vehicles are expected to utilize the pavement. Relative to the paving of multiple. commercial and/or industrial properties. the City Engineer may require the submission of a pavement design to accOII'I1Iodate any unusual circumstances. Upon approval of the design by the City Engineer. such design shall supersede the blanket requirements contained herei n. WPC 3529P PRECISE PLAN GUIDELINES FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK Mav. 1994 1. Fencin!!: Fencing shaH consist of the following: a. All fences visible from the street shall be of a view-obscuring wood design or block wall construction. Block wall colors shall complement or match building colors, and wood will be limited to natural or stained in opaque or semi-opaque. b. Perimeter fencing - minimum 8 feet high wood on west property line of subdivision; minimum 6 feet high wood adjacent to Otay Valley Road; minimum 6 feet high chainlink elsewhere. c. Interior fencing: Front: 6 feet high wood or block. Side: 6 feet high chainIink, dark colored metal or wood. Slats for screening may be required depending on adjacent land use. d. Gates - Slatted chainIink or solid wood (minimum 6 feet high). 2. Parkin!!: All parking areas visible from the right-of-way shall be screen planted in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. a;.' ........\~;~:~~~:r~~=~~:i~=h~~~~:~,r:e-!im: IiI - ~ ~t::.: 4. T Jlndscanin!!: All periphery areas adjacent to the public right of way shall be IlInrlo;r.aped and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan for the Otay Industrial Park and the Chula Vista Landscape M~. Irrigation plans shall be required concurrent Attachment "8" Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park Page 2 with the submission of building or development plans. Interior slope banks which have been stabilized with native ground cover may require additional tree planting and irrigation. "Skinned" or barren slopes will require planting in accordance with the approved plan for Otay Industrial Park. 5. Architecture a. Block buildings shall be constrUcted of slumpstone, split face, and squeeze joint styles of block in whites, plain, tan, browns, ochres, and gray green colors. b. Pinks, pastel greens or other loud, garish colors are not acceptable. In no case shall block buildings be painted in gloss colors. c. Pressed steel buildings shall adhere to the aforementioned conditions and are encouraged to be two-tone or tri-colored. In no case shall gloss paints be used. d. Fences, walls, and strUctures shall be color coordinated on each site. e. Corrugated metal buildings are specifically prohibited. f. Commercial coach trailers may be authorized as permanent office space by the Zoning Administrator subject to: (1) Compliance with uniform building code as a Group "F" occupancy. (2) No more than one double-wide coach shall be located on each lot. (3) Each coach must have two exits, providing an approved landing and porch area (minimum 5 feet any direction). (4) Units shall be fully skirted to the ground. 6. Loadinl! Docks Whenever possible, loading docks shall be located at the rear or side of buildings. 7. ~ a. No billboard or outdoor advertising will be permitted. All sign frames sha11 be of standard design and sha11 be designed as an integral element in the architectural design of the facility. b. Design standards - (See Exhibit A) Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park Page 3 c. Wall signs - Maximum area of 10% of the wall area on which the sign is mounted. d. In addition to wall signs, each lot may install either a pole or ground sign based on the following: (1) Pole signs - Maximum height 12 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq. ft. (2) Ground signs - Maximum height 5 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq. ft. (Sign may be attached to fence.) 8. Zoning Administrator Authorization The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve industrial developments in the Otay Industrial Park where such industrial developments involve no building containing more than 5,000 sq. ft. Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park Page 4 EXHIBIT A OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK TENANT SIGNING Suggested materials: 6" X 6" re-sawn redwood integral frame and posts 5/8" re-sawn redwood ply woodlifed Suggested letter style/color: Helvetica - Black Placement/location: In front of or behind fence, near entrance, within SO feet. Copy: All copy to be kept within specified margins. Copy limited to: Name, address Hours Phone number Logo Proprietor's name Logo type and logo style permitted All signs are single faced. All supporting copy shall be helvetica, medium black Sizes of modular sign face are flexible to the needs of the tenant. Possible examples: - --~- - - ---- -- - - -. -- - -- OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK PRECISE PLAN GUIDELINES -_._--------~ /' .~ --- .- ------ -~. --- .- -- -- - -- ------...--- - . . I ~ D OTAYINDUSTaW..ARK ti:" SPECIAllECULA11ON5IELATED d'&%.. to'AVlNCiAPPUCABLf " .. .. CBULA V 1-8 T A PLANNING DEPARTMENT C!) A"LlCANT:Ot! of Cbula Vista .IIOJECT DEICIIIPTION:. Parks " RecreatiOD Dept. Otay IDdultril1 Park Precise ADDIIESI: OTAYINDV!rI'IUALPABK PlaD GaideliDeI ICALE: FILE IIUMIEII: .. NORTH 1'1.800' PCM - 94 -%3 . .- RESOLUTION NO. PCM-79-20 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLAN GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN DTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE I-P ZONE WHEREAS. Ordinance No. 1451. adopted by the City Council on March 7. 1973 established the zonin9 of approximately 200 acres located on the north side of Otay Valley Road. east of Brandywine Avenue. as I-P. and WHEREAS. a subdivision ..p was approved on July 1. 1975. to allow the develop- ~nt of a 25 lot industrial subdivision on approximately 98 acres within the I-P zone. and WHEREAS, it was deemed necessary to establish appropriate development 9uide- lines to encourage development of the industrial park. and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing to consider proposed 9uidelines. and notice of the hearing. together with its purpose. was given by the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. 'at least 10 days prior to the date of said hearing. and WHEREAS, a hearing was held at said time and place. namely 7:00 p.m.. February 28, 1979. before the Planning Commission, and said hearing was thereafter c1osed. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVEO THAT THE City Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Zoning Administrator to approve industrial developments in the Otay Industrial Park where such industrial developments involve no building containing more than 5.000 sq. ft.. and establishing the attached 9uidelines for development within the Otay Industrial Park. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista. California this 28th day of February. 1979. by the following vote. to-wit: AYES: Commissioners O'Neill. R. Johnson. Williams. Stevenson. Smith. Pressutti and G. Johnson NOES: None ABSENT: IIone ~ kJ~,~ ATTEST: ~--fL.~ ~l' ~~ d e.~ cretary Attachment IIC" GUIDELINES FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK 1. Fencing shall consist of the following: a. All fences visible from the street shall be of a view-obscuring wood design or block wall construction. Block wall colors shall complement or match building colors, and wood will be limited to natural or stained in opaque or semi-opaque. b. Perimeter fencing - minimum 8 feet high wood on west property line of subdivision; minimum 6 feet high wood adjacent to Otay Valley Road; minimum 6 feet high chainlink elsewhere. c. 6 feet high wood or block. 6 feet high chainlink, dark colored metal or wood. Slats for screening may be required depending on adjacent land use. d. Gates _ Slatted chainlink or solid wood (minimum 6 feet high). Interior fencing - Front: Side: 2. Parking All parking areas visible fro~ the right of way shall be screen planted in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Lancscape ~~nual. 3. Landscaping All periphery areas adjacent to the public right of way shall be landscaped and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan for the Otay Industrial Park and the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Irrigation plans shall be required concurrent with the submission of building or development plans. Interior slope banks which have been stabilized with native ground cover may require additional tree planting and irrigation. "Skinned" or barren slopes will require planting in accordance with the approved plan for Otay Industrial Park. 4. Architecture a. Block buildings shall be constructed of slumpstone, split face, and squeeze joint styles of block in whites, plain, tan, browns, ochres, and gray green colors. b. Pinks, pastel greens or other loud, garish colors are not acceptable. In no case shall block buildings be painted in gloss colors. c. Pressed steel buildings shall adhere to the aforementioned conditions and are encouraged to be two-tone or tri-colored. In no case shall gloss paints be used. d. Fences, walls, and structures shall be color coordinated on each site. . 2. e. Corrugated metal buildings are specifically prohibited. f. Commercial coach trailers may be authorized as permanent office space by the Zoning Administrator subject to: (1 ) (2) (3) Compliance with unifonn building code as a Group "F" occupancy. No more than one double-wide coach shall be located on each lot. Each coach must have two exits, providing an approved landing and porch area (minimum 5 feet any direction). Units shall be fully skirted to the ground. (4) 5. Loading Docks Whenever possible, loading docks shall be located at the rear or side of buildings. 6. Signs a. No billboard or outdoor advertising will be pennitted. All sign frames shall be of standard design and shall be designed as an integral element in the architectural design of the facility. b. Design standards - (See Exhibit A) c. Wall signs - Maximum area of 10% of the wall area on which the sign is mounted, d. In addition to wall signs, each lot may install either a pole or ground sign based on the following: (1) Pole signs _ Maximum height 12 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq. ft. (2) Ground signs - Maximum height 5 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq. ft. (Sign may be attached to fence.) 7. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve industrial developments in the Otay Industrial Park where such industrial developments involve no building containing more than ~,OOO sq. ft. , . EXHIBIT A OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK TENANT SIGNING Suggested materials: 6" X 6" re-sawn redwood integral frame and posts 5/8" re-sawn redwood ply woodlifed Suggested letter style/color: Helvetica - Black Placement/location: In front of or behind fence, near entrance, within 50 feet. Copy: All copy to be kept within specified margins. Copy limited to: Name, address Hours Phone number Logo Proprietor's name Logo type and logo style permitted. All signs are single faced. All supporting copy shall be helvetica, medium black. Sizes of modular sign face are flexible to the needs of the tenant. Possible examples: i - - 0' . I 0\ ( 11 1 I j ~ <<> ~ ~ . It) ~ ~ ~ @ ..... ~~ o ~ nf!:o ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~(Qf;~~ \ ~ ~';;j: '~~ ,- rnm ~ = d~ ; Uti H ~ )' ~ ~;I :J 9 ~~ ii ~ <M) f@ I: ~ ii ~ ~ '); \ :i.; \ 'i~ \ .<~ , II I I;' " ., 0, I' I -, 1:. '" -- , , " 1i ;1 i' \, \ I ! '';:; .~, '. ~!' ..{~ ..': \:~ '.< ,- - ., ., 'I'; -" ~. . ,. ~ ... .1'" .~ .t..~:~~:.:\-Y,..$~ -7":::S;;oi',_,: !.~_~. ,1":; C ':'" ~. -.... ~ ':~'~;.(:f'1~4: t~~~~~'7-f:.~~." ~~'..-. ", .~. .. ~u \C~ -._-.-. ~_7~~_ - --. . -----.- ~-.-- - -----:... -'. ---. =-7:'::"::'::.::. __--'__'_ ._.-:=-~-=-=-~-::. ~ ---.- "---..-. -"-'.--:.. -",::,-..;.... - -- --'---::- -- -- .- ._-~ - .------ ----- . --- - - - .-..::-- --=---=-:~::.=-- ---:. ::-:-:"=:':.- '- .. -.. - --"" --..-----. -- --' .:-'-' . .. -:.:...- . . - .-- ._--- -;':':~.:: -... .... --'- .- - --- ---- --:~.~ -::---=-'::.:.-._':':':-'~~ "-.:'~ ,'-.O~:~:.'_~. ~~/2 :.~=- _~;~: ~~-::_ -::-:-:=.. -.- .'~"'T.:I___ -".'---. _. ~,..; :...-- -. "---. ...:. - --==- - .- - -.' - --- .:-.._-- -, --.:: .--:: .'" -- -- -.-- ---. ..---.- - -- ----:::--.~.~. --_. ----==-=-~- --- - ,--- .----- -- -' - - ....-.- -.--- .- --~ ~-:'-':-'"",,:-. -"' .. . ~_:",;:-=.:.=--==.-- . -.----. ---. -'--- --.--.. ._- ----"'.-.- - -- "--::---- --- -:=-'- ---- - - ..-- ------ .'- _. ! ~ \ I I I , I I I ." 'II . RESOLUTION NO. PCM-94-23 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING PCM-94-23, A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR CERTAIN USES ON SELECTED PARCELS ON ENERGY WAY ADDING WORDING RELATED TO PAVING STANDARDS WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista initiated an amendment to PCM-79-20, Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park to add a section related to paving for certain uses on selected parcels along Energy Way; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that this project is a Class 8 Categorical Exemption from environmental review as an "action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment" pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said modification to the Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 27 , 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project is a Class 8 Categorical Exemption from environmental review as an "action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment" pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council approve the attached draft Resolution No. PCM-94-23 which approves the minor modification to the Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park related to paving standards for select parcels and uses along Energy Way. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 27th day of April, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Thomas A. Martin, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary D R AFT RESOLUTION NO. PCM-94-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PCM-94-23, A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR CERTAIN USES ON SELECTED PARCELS ON ENERGY WAY ADDING WORDING RELATED TO PAVING STANDARDS WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista initiated an amendment to PCM-79-20, Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park to add a section related to paving for certain uses on selected parcels along Energy Way; and WHEREAS, the application of permanent paving standards for auto dismantlers and auction operations along energy are overly burdensome; and WHEREAS, subject uses have operated for many years with temporary paving and have exhibited a history of complying with State of California stormwater requirements; and WHEREAS, subject uses are limited in their life span by special use permits issued pursuant to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan to approximately 12 to 13 years; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that this project is a Class 8 Categorical Exemption from environmental review as an "action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment" pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee held a public hearing on April 25, 1994 and voted _-to-_ recommending that the City Council approve the modification to the Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 27 , 1994 and voted _-to-_ recommending that the City Council approve the modification to the Precise Plan Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May 17, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the City Council, the Council has determined that the project is consistent with and implements the General Plan of Chula Vista in that it complies with Section 19.56, Modifying Districts, of the Zoning Ordinance: and WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the City Council, the Council has further determined that the project is consistent with and implements the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan in that no portions of that Plan are being modified and the modification does not conflict with said Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: SECT. I. Based on the recommendation of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council hereby acknowledges that subject project is a Class 8 Categorical Exemption from environmental review as an "action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment" pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECT. II. Pursuant to the requirements for the imposition of a Precise Plan Modifying District ("P Modifier") under the Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.56, auto dismantlers and auctions located along Energy Way present unique circumstances whereby usual and effective paving standards are inappropriate, and in order to achieve a fair and beneficial balance between time limited uses and future area redevelopment, a modification to the existing Precise Plan Guidelines for Otay Industrial Park is justified. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby approve PCM-94-23, the modification to the Precise Plan Guidelines for Otay Industrial Park (Exhibit "A"). Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney F:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\EWPPGL\9423CC.RES PRECISE PLAN GUIDELINES FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK Mav. 1994 1. Fencin!!: Fencing shall consist of the following: a. All fences visible from the street shall be of a view-obscuring wood design or block wall constIuction. Block wall colors shall complement or match building colors. and wood will be limited to natural or stained in opaque or semi-opaque. b. Perimeter fencing - minimum 8 feet high wood on west Jlrupeity line of subdivision; minimum 6 feet high wood adjacent to Otay Valley Road; minimum 6 feet high chainlink elsewhere. c. Interior fencing: Front: 6 feet high wood or block. Side: 6 feet high chainlink, dark colored metal or wood. Slats for screening may be required depending on adjacent land use. d. Gates - Slatted chainlink or solid wood (minimum 6 feet high). 2, Parkin!!: All parking areas visible from the right-of-way shall be screen planted in accordance with the City of Chula Vista J Jlntlor.ape Manual. l;jl::i:;~:~l~~~l~~fIlJ~t:~<Uli.~~.~f.ilBifjm - 4. , ~nd~nin2 All periphery areas adjacent to the public right of way shall be l"ntlor.aped and JI'I"int"in"'<l in accordance with the approved landscape plan for the Otay Industrial Park and the Chula Vista t Jlntlor.ape Manual. Irrigation plans shall be required concurrent Exhibit .A" Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park Page 2 with the submission of building or development plans. Interior slope banks which have been stabilized with native ground cover may require additional tree pJllntil1g and irrigation. .Skinned" or barren slopes will require planting in accordance with the approved plan for Otay Industrial Park. S. Architecture a. Block buildings shall be constrUcted of slumpstone, split face, and squeeze joint styles of block in whites, plain, tan, browns, ochres, and gray green colors, b. Pinks, pastel greens or other loud, garish colors are not acceptable. In no case shall block buildings be painted in gloss colors. c. Pressed steel buildings shall adhere to the aforementioned conditions and are encouraged to be two-tone or tri-colored. In no case shall gloss paints be used. d. Fences, walls, and strUctures shall be color coordinated on each site. e. Conugated metal buildings are specifically prohibited. f. Commercial coach trailers may be authorized as permanent office space by the Zoning Admini~tor subject to: (1) Compliance with uniform building code as a Group "F" occupancy. (2) No more than one double-wide coach shall be located on each lot. (3) Each coach must have two exits, providing an approved landing and porch area (lninimum S feet any direction). (4) Units shall be fully s1drted to the ground. 6. Loadinl! Docks Whenever possible, loading docks shall be located at the rear or side of buildings. . , 7. Si&m a. No billboard or outdoor advertising will be permitted. All sign frames shall be of standard design and shall be designed as an integral element in the architectural design of the facility. b. Design standards - (See Exhibit A) Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park Page 3 c. Wall signs - Maximum area of 10% of the wall area on which the sign is mounted. d. In addition to wall signs, each lot may install either a pole or ground sign based on the following: (1) Pole signs - Maximum height 12 feet; mnimllm sign area, SO sq. ft. (2) Ground signs - Maximum height 5 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq. ft. (Sign may be attached to fence.) 8. 7.nninl! Administrator Authorization The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve industrial developments in the Otay Industrial Park where such industrial developments involve no building cont~ining more than 5,000 sq. ft. Guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park Page 4 EXHIBIT A OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK TENANT SIGNING Suggested materials: 6" X 6" re-sawn redwood integral frame and posts 5/8" re-sawn redwood ply woodlifed Suggested letter style/color: Helvetica - Black Placement/location: In front of or behind fence. near entrance. within SO feet. Copy: All copy to be kept within specified margins. Copy limited to: Name, address Hours Phone number Logo Proprietor's name Logo type and logo style permitted All signs are single faced. All supporting copy shall be helvetica, medium black Sizes of modular sign face are flexible to the needs of the tenant. Possible examples: -..' ." - -.- . OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK PRECISE PlAN GUIDELINES ------------r- /' . -~ ---- ,.- ---- - ,-- .- -~. ',. -- - -- - - ------------ - . . I ~ D OTAYlNDumJAl.AlK P'ht;. SPEOAllfGUu.TION5 eu.TED """":,,,,_ TO PAVING APPUCAlLl . ... CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT (!) A"LlCANT: Cit! or Cbul_ Vista 'ROJECT DElCRIPTION: . Parks " ReueatiOD Dept. Otay IDdUJtriaJ Park Precbe ADDIII-I: OTAYINDVS'I'IUAL'AJU( PIaD GuideliDa ICALE: FILE NUMBEII: NORTH 1" - 800' PCM - 94 -23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY pLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA 7:05 p.m. W..nnesdav. October 27. 1993 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Fuller. Moot (7:06), Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director lee, Principal planner Griffm, Associate Planner Miller. Associate Planner Reid, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pI EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Martin, followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Martin reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 7-0 to accept the minutes of October 13, 1993, as submitted. ORALCO~CATIONS-No~ Commissio~r Fuller asked that she be excused from consideration of Item 1 because of a conflict of interest. She bad at least $250 business with the Country Club during a year. ( \. PC Minutes -22- October 27, 1993 Commissioner Ray responded that there was also a responsibility to help the City's fi outlook; the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission had discussed the po al build-outs; the economics outweighed the problems, which Mr. Ray believed could orked out. Fiscally, the applicant could not occupy the facility with only a two-year usa e would vote for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Moot indicated that in two years, he may vote for the re al of the conditional use. He thought the City's logic from a land use planning point view was solid. If that presented problems, that was a landlord-tenant issue. Commissioner Tarantino was frostrated because the Co . sion had a very narrow purview. He commended everyone for attending and making feelings known to the Commission, but it did not enter into the scope of the Planning C . sion's decision. Mr. Ru I' also confmned that the front page, Item No.1, of the resolution would read: ideration in five years to determine if the development of the surrounding area. .. " giving e for attending; he was proud of the teachers; both Chairman Martin applauded the young schools were outstanding. VOTE: At Commissioner Ray' uest, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf confmned that the verbiage of Item 1 on page 2-6 read: "The permit is approved for a period offive years until October 27. to periodic review. " ITEM 3: PCA-93-01; CONSIDERATION OF ADDmONS TO AND AMENDMENTS OF PORTIONS OF TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AI.LOW AUCTIONS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT IN THE I-P (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - City of Chula Vista Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, and stated that a letter had been submitted that evening by Ms. Rebecca Michael, attorney for the McCormack family who were property owners in the area, which suggested alternate wording in the conditions. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the project would have no significant environmental impacts, and adopt Negative Declaration IS-93-42 and the Addendum thereto, and that the planning Commission recommend that the City Council add to and amend portions of the Municipal Code as shown in the draft City Council ordinance. l PC Minutes -23- October 27, 1993 ~ Commissioner Ray asked staff's recommendation regarding Ms. Michael's suggestions on Items E, F, and 1. Mr. Miller replied that in discussions with Ms. Michael and Mr. McCormack prior to the meeting, they indicated Items F and 1 in the attacbment to her letter could be left as staff recommended. They proposed that Item E would read "All areas sbaII be properly 'screened and improved' to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer and the , Jlntlorape Architect, dropping out the words 'paved and striped,'" This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Rebecca Michael, 530 B Street #2300, San Diego, CA 92101, representing June and Jim McCormack, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for expanding the definition of "auction." The defmition was acceptable to them. The McCormacks had a special use permit granted by the Redevelopment Agency, with the condition that they have a landscape plan and a parking plan. They were concerned with the loud speaker, which was an added expense and which they wanted to oppose, but they would go along with that. Regarding parking ratio, the *' IS-acre site would have to provide 380 spaces, which they felt was high. However, if the spaces did not have to be paved and striped, the IS-acre site would be sufficient. They felt stripe and pave was overkill. Ms. Michael felt the deletion of the words "paved" and "striped" would be satisfactory. The "improvement" could be some kind of decomposed graphite instead of asphalt and paint. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the change in wording to "merchandise" was a problem. Ms. Michael answered negatively. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff if the use of decomposed graphite or some other material less expensive than paving was at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. How did the word "improved" work? Assistant Plarming Director Lee said there was a specification in the Standards which provided for a decomposed granite with a road oil mix that was good for one year which was an interim-type paving which bad been used. For the size parcel being considered, the standard paving might be difficult; staff bad no objection to looking at the use of the decomposed granite and oil mix only for a one-year period, to be reviewed to determine the frequency of the use and how it was working. It would have to be renewed on a yearly basis, but might be the best solution, given the size of the parcel and location. Principal Planner Griffm stated, that under the "improved" umbrella, staff could make that interpretation, and the applicant could probably take issue with it as well. Commissioner Tuchscher concluded that it was the Zoning Administrator's decision to make that determination, and if the Zoning Atlmini~tor and the applicant came to a conflict, then it could be appealed. Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, Assistant planning Director Lee said that decomposed granite, or something less than paved, would have to be renewed on a permit basis annually. The material itself is only good for a one-year period, as authorized by Code. The applicant l PC Minutes -24- October 27, 1993 would have to formally reapply and receive approval from the Zoning Admini~tor. The concern that the City Attorney had was that the Planning Commission was looking at arI ordinance as part of the Code and trying to define a paved surface. The proposed amendments had just come in that afternoon, and staff bad not bad time to digest them. Mr. Lee recommended contim1ance of the item to review the changes and come back with a recommendation. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if arI applicant could come forward with a variance to allow them to use the decomposed granite and oil road mix. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively, adding that it would be on a one-year basis, subject to review on a yearly basis. Commissioner Fuller questioned why it needed to be paved with decomposed granite, since it was out by itself arId properly screened; why couldn't it be bladed and rolled and left dirt? Mr. Lee said it could be a consideration of the variance; it got back to City standards and how far the Planning Commission WarIted to drop those standards in consideration of the location. However, this was one operator, and although the circumstances may not be identical, arIother operator would use that as precedent setting. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich stated that one reason for paving would be to cut down the erosion in the area. The area was somewhat hilly. Commissioner Ray asked if the applicant was opposed to continuing the item. Ms. Michael was concerned with a continuance because the SUP that was granted by the Redevelopment Agency gave them a 6-month period to conduct the auctions and after 6 months they must cease if this amendment did not happen. She felt that a continllanr.e would probably put that in jeopardy. Since this was a Code amendment and needed to go to City Council, they would accept the wording as it was and work with staff before the Council meeting. Commissioner Ray did not WarIt to put the McCormacks at a disadvantage because they were the first. He asked the City Attorney to give them some legal guidelines to leave the issue open in terms of the paving and the definition. By the same token, he wanted leave the City some options. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the applicant was willing to take the risk that it could be worked out before going to Council. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Tuchscher did not want to continue the item; the applicant's needs were different than the ordinance allowed; he was willing to support the changes suggested by the applicant regarding No. E with the word "improved"; he knew that created problems for the City Attorney but he felt they could be worked out with the applicant. l PC Minutes -25- October 27, 1993 Commissioner Tuchscher stated that was a motion, and Commissioner Ray seconded. Commissioner Ray confirmed that only No. E was being changed as it was worded on the letter from Peterson & Price to eliminate "paved and striping" and simply say "and improved to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer and Landscape Architect. " Commissioner Ray said what was meant by "improved" would be defined by staff. Commissioner Moot asked if the issue of it being paved was different from the issue of providing parking? He bad beard the applicant suggest that maybe paving for 300 cars was not reasonable, but possibly paved parking for 15 or 20, and the requirement that the rest of it could then be "improved." He suggested that may be a way out of their dilemma. Chairman Martin felt that should be covered in the motion. Commissioner Ray stated that would be covered under "improved to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. . Commissioner Salas asked for a restatement of the motion. Commissioner Ray suggested the motion be withdrawn and a new motion made. Commissioner Tucbscher withdrew his motion. At Commissioner Ray's request, Chairman Martin reopened the public hearing. Ms. Michael said they were willing to focus just on the paving and striping with the hope that they could convince the Planning Commission to direct staff that leaving it just dirt would be appropriate, or something far less than paving. They had taken another approach regarding the ratio, by calculating not on the net lot area of 18 acres, but on the sales area. That was a much smaller area than the 18 acres, and if that ratio were used as a criteria, they would probably already meet it. They already bad 15 spaces that were paved and striped. They had not done the calculations on that but that would alleviate their concern with the paving, if they could provide for a lot less spaces. Commissioner Ray asked if the sales area varied based on the type of equipment and the kind of deal they got on that equipment? Ms. Michael replied that Mr. McCormack can talk to that. Commissioner Ray thought heavy equipment would take up a lot more sales area. Mr. McCormack stated that they got only a few pieces of large equipment, and there was a limit as to bow much they could handle in one day. They normally took up about 4 acres with the sales area. And that's very loosely put so they can be removed without having to shuffle them l PC Minutes -26- October 27, 1993 around. He said they had paved parking in their main parking lot, which is in front of the building and the sales area; but they had a large parking lot which was only opened on sale day, and it is decomposed granite and gravel mix, which is known as Class 2 road base. It was an all-weather surface. Commissioner Tuchscher thought the applicant had acquiesced on number 1. Ms. Michael said she acquiesced before she heard it would require a variance, and her client had already spent a lot of time and money pursuing the SUP and the amendment. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that with the amendment to Lot E, they would not require a variance. The Zoning Admini~trator could make that determination. That's the process? Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that, as he understood what staff was proposing, the ordinance would have requirements which would be capable of being subject to a variance. Whoever heard it, the Zoning Admini~trator, the Planning Commission, or the Council or all three, had to make the fmdings for a variance, and those fmdings were very difficult to make. He was very uncomfortable with that requirement being in the ordinance. He did not think staff was prepared to give a good solid complete analysis of the pros and cons of those options. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Rudolf what would lead him to the conclusion that the Planning Commission would not grant a variance, given the discussion they had heard during two meetings? Mr. Rudolf answered that they would be getting legal advice from him that they must have facts in the record that would establish the fmdings that were required to be made under the Code and the State law, and those were difficult to find. Commissioner Ray questioned whether this property would not fulfill those requirements? Mr. Rudolf stated that one of the requirements was that there had to be'something peculiar about the property itself. Commissioners Ray and Tuchscher asked if location was not one of those? Or size? Mr. Rudolf said there had to be something peculiar about the property, and maybe they were not going to be able to meet that finding. Commissioner Ray asked who defined what is I"""nliar? Mr. Rudolf answered that they were the fact finders. Commissioner Ray noted that the Plannil1g Commission had two options. 1bey could continue the item or vote on it with just "improved." He would go either way. l PC Minutes -27- October 27. 1993 Commissioner Moot suggested that the Planning Commission move on PCA-93-01 as drafted, and let the staff during the time before the City Council meeting analyze the suggestions made by the applicant in E, F, and I, and then let the City Council determine whether those were appropriate changes. The applicant could move the item along. Assistant plAnning Director Lee concurred. Chairman Martin closed the public hearing. MS (MootIFuller) that based on the Initial Study, the PI..nning Commimon make a rmding or no significant environmental impacts and adopt a negative declaration; adopt the resolution recommending the City Council add to and amend the portions or the Municipal Code as shown in the draft or the City Council ordinance with the recommendation that the applicant and the staff, during the time berore City Council meeting, attempt to work out the language proposed by the applicant in their October 27th letter and re-raise the issue with the City Council at that time. Associate Planner Miller asked if that included the addendum to the Initial Study? The answer was affumative. Commissioner Ray felt it put the applicant at a very big disadvantage by leaving the wording the way it was. The City should not be allowed to force the issue on something that had been there for many years. He had a problem with the fact that the Commission had gotten a letter that showed three significant issues for the applicant. Chairman Martin said that speaking as one person who was going to vote for this motion, he felt that it was probably the most pragmatic thing to do. Staff received the letter that day and had not had a chance to analyze it, there were some serious questions, the applicant was willing to cooperate in a number of areas; it was obvious that they hadn't discussed it, but he did not feel it should be continued. Commissioner Ray stated there were still a lot of questions, and he would vote for a continnance . Commissioner Tuchscher thought item had been properly flagged so they could get it worked out prior to the Council meeting. VOTE: ~1 (Ray against) ~ *' Assistant Planning Director Lee noted ee was on November 10 at 7:00 p.m. The item on the agenda was the amendment to the Olymptc A l MlNlJI'ES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF 11iE c:rJY COUNOL OF 11iE c:rJY OF aruu. VISTA Tuesday, JanulU}' 11, 1994 5:00 p.m. Council Clambers Public Services Building CAIl. TO ORDER 1. ROlL CAIl.: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Pro Tem Honon ABSENT: Mayor Nader John D. Goss, Oty Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Oty Attorney; and Beverly A. Aumelel, Oty Oerk ALSO PRESENT: Counc:il met in dosed SessiOD at 5:04 p.m. to discuss: InstruclioDS to negotiators punuant to Government Code Seclion 54957.6 -Chula VISta Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), International Association of Fire Fighters (lAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. · · . Council reconvened at 6:05 p.m. . . . 2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. Sn.ENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUl"ES: January 4,1994 (Oty Council Meeting) and January 4,1994 (Joint Meeting of me Oty Council/Redevelopmenl Agency) MSC (MoorelRindone) to approve me minutes of January 4. 1994 (Council) IIIld January 4, 1994 (Counc:il/RDA) as presented. Approved 4-()'1 wim Nader absent. 4. SPEQAL ORDERS OF 11iE DAY: a. Oam of Office: Jorge F. Castillo - Cultural Ans Commission. The oath of office was administered by Oty Oerk Authelet, the Certificate of Appointment was presented by Councilmember Moore. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: Sa, 5b, 6, 7 and 9) BALANCE OF 11iE CONSENI' CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCLMEMBER RINDONE, rading of the teXt was waived, passed and "t'I"u.....i 4-0-1 with Nader absent. 5. WRrI"mN COMMUNICATIONS: a. (]aims against the Ory: Oaimant Number 1 . American Bonding Company, C/o George Spa em, Esq., Buchaller, Nemer, Fields & Younger, Attorneys at Law, 333 Market Street, 29m Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105.2130; Oaimant Number 2 -Elizabem Jackson, c/o Undsay R. Brack. Attorney at Law, 11440 West Bernardo Coun, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92127; Oaimant Number 3. Big 7 Motel, C/o Transameric:a Insurance Company, Jeanne Murray, Oaims Representative, 2141 E. Highland Avenue, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85016. It is recommended mat me claims be denied. Pulled from the Consent c.tendar. Minutes January 11. 1994 Page 8 . ) techniques, the concern was there, the information was available, and staff was available to discuss it one on. one versus a public arena and hold up a lot of business. That might help the individual get more t e by being on television, but if they were after getting corrective action the best way was one-on-on .th staff. Mr. Tierney stated he had something further to contribute and he had more time questioned if he was being denied. surrendered the balance and speak, but under the usted. RESOLlmON 17359 OFFERED BY MAYOR PRO 'mM HORTON, reading of the ten was aty Anorney Boogaard stated that once a person left the dias to speak he norm of his time. Council had granted great latitude in allowing people to come b aty's procedures once the dias was surrendered the time limit was deeme Mr. Tierney stated he had been there when the Council had set ecedent in the past with many individuals. If the Council was going to deny him, they were t providing equality in all areas of government. He questioned if the Council was denying him. He ad for the past year tried other avenues and tried to deal with staff regarding other areas of accessib" in the aty to no avail. It was nol for television and he took exception to the remark and request an apology. Councilmember Moore felt the way the statement was ade he would nol get an apology. Mr. Tierney recommended that Councilmember M re consult with the aty Anorney regarding threatening to coerce and intimidate an individual. Councilmember Moore stated the way he red it, il was nol derogalory in any way. ) Mayor Pro Tem Horton questioned if r. Tierney had any additional comments directed toward the item being discussed. Mr. Tierney stated he wanted e Mayor and Council 10 know he had taken the aty of Chula Vista on as a New Years resolution. ved 4-0-1 with Nader absenL VOTE ON ManON: 10. PARCEL of the s 31-00. reoo SEWER SERVICE OiARGES FOR 1010-1016 BROADWAY, ASSESSOR'S ER (APN) 618-110-31-00 - On 12/14/93, Fredrick Schnaubelt inquired about the accuracy service charges assessed to his shopping center located at 1010-1016 Broadway, APN 618-110- directed by Council, staff is submitting the report in response to Mr. Schnaubelt's inquiJy. Staff ends Council accept the repon. (Director of Public Works) PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLtmONS AND ORDINANCES 11. PUBUC HEARING PCA-93-01 CONSIDERATION AND ADDmONS TO AND AMENDMENl'S OF PORTIONS OF TI11..E 19 OF 1HE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUDW AUcnONS SUBJEcr TO APPROVAL OF A aJP IN 1HE I-P (GENERAL INDUS'J1UALIPRECSE PIAN) ZONE - The project is a aty.i1Utiated text 8Dlendment to portions of the zoning ordinance to allow auctioning of vehicles, heavy machinery, and equipment upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 12/14193. ) Minutes January 11, 1994 Page 9 l ORDINANCE 2584 ADDING SECJ10NS 19.04.015 AND 19.58.055 TO, AND AMENDING SECJ10NS 19.46.040, 19.58.070 AND 19.62.050 OF, 11IE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO AlLOWING AUCJ10NS IN 11IE I-P ZONE SUBJECI' TO APPROVAL OF A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT BY 11IE PLANNING COMMISSION (first readulIl) Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, reviewed the Resource Conservation Commission minutes of 5/10/93. The Commission voted 4-2 to not recommend approval of the Negative Declaration. Councilmember Fox suspected the Commission was not told that as a result of the agreement that was executed in November.. the City was required to process the text amendment to allow those types of auctions. Mr. Leiter stated he did not believe that detail of information was presented to the Commission. They were mainly presented the environmental issues. The Planning Commission was given a more detailed report on the land use issues and they voted to support the proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Horton stated Council was commined to the process, but was not commined to approve it if thai was Council's desire. City Anorney Boogaard stated that was correct. The consequence of not granting it would give the right to set aside the Siroonian settlement agreement. Council did nol have to grant full auction rights, the contract only created lbe set aside right if Council did not give a lien sale of impounded vehicles use in the particular parcels involved in the Siroonian settlement. Councilmember Moore stated the CUP was aulboriz.ed years ago when it fIrSt opened up as lbe Chula Vista Industrial Park. Over lbe years lbe CUP ran oul routinely and lbe City failed to recogniz.e that and it came up lbat lbey did not have a CUP. The action had been going on for a number ofyean. Therefore, he would support the staff recommendation. ~ Mr. Leiter stated the cup's had previously been granted for auto dismantling uses and the auto auctioning started happening wilbout benefit of a CUP. This being ,the time and place as advertised. the public hearing was declared open. . Rebecca Michael, 530 B Street #23000, San Diego, CA, representing June & Jim McCormack, stated their interest in lbe text amendment was lbat the first draft was limited to the lien sale contract related to the Siroonian agreement. However, the McCormack's had been operating auctions that were beyond just a lien sale contract. They requested lbat lbe texl amenelment include auctions and were satisfied wilb the text amenelment language. One of lbe remaining issues was what type of paving would be required.md ~ staff had responded to lbal issue by proposing lbey do a precise plan modification for Energy Way which 7r would be separate from lbe current issue. Therefore, they supported the staff recommendation. . A. Robert Tiemey. 466 D Avenue #B. Coronado. CA, stated he was against the issuance of the CUP because the City was bound under Title 11 of the ADA not to provide any service that did not comply in its entirety of the presentation of goods, services, or programs for full accessibility. The effect of unavailability of technical assistance under the ADA did not predispose that it allowed the City to go ahead and do things without making themselves aware of what the laws were. People with disabilities were entitled access to restrooms, under California Title 24 and ADA, and the proposed area did not have accessible restroom facilities for the disabled. He requested that until such information was provided, in writing, for that program that the item be withdrawn or he felt the Council would be in direct conflict with the ADA. City Anorney Boogaard questioned if there was any issuance of a permit involved in the proposed action. Minutes January 11, 1994 Page 10 . ) Mr. Leiler responded there was not, it was suictly a code amendment to allow the City in the future to issue conditional use permits for that particular use. City Anomey Boogaard stated the staff reports were available to the public in case they wanted to review the actions being taken by the Council for the meeting. He questioned when the reports were available to the public. City Oerk Authelet responded that staff reports were available to the public on Friday mornings. City Anomey Boogaard stated if there was any question as to what the item was, Mr. Tierney would be able to review the reports as early as Friday morning. No permits were being proposed to be issued. Mr. Tierney requested Council take his comments into consideration before issuing a permit. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared dosed. ORDINANCE 2584 PlACED ON FIRSJ' READING BY COUNCD..MEMBER MOORE, reading of the ten was waived, passed and approved 4-CH with Nader abseot. . A. Robert Tierney, 466 D Avenue #B, Coronado, CA. stated the video company providing services in the Council Chambers had a very deuimenlal effect and did not comply under California Title 24 or ADA. He had uied to present papers to the Oerk and had difficulty due to his disability getting aroun e camera and almost fell. He requested that by the next Council meeting that all dear and a ssible pathways in the Chamber be kept as such. Cables should be hidden and not just covered over carpet as that did not comply with accessibility standards at Stale and Federal levels. He furthe quested that signage related to, but was not limited to parking, communications, and stall sui' be augmented immediately within the City services such as City Hall, Police Department, etc. uch dates for those changes had come and gone. He also requested, for immediate viewing (tomo w), a copy of the Chula Vista Accessibility Compliance Transition Plan as required under Section 22 e use of California Relay Service (CRS) did not comply under Title II, Section 248. He requesled t the mainlenance department remove a section of the chairs from the self.rising seats so persons th disabilities could enler and sit without drawing anention to themselves and putting themselves' a deuimental position. ) AcnON rrE.MS APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WJIH 1HE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEJIlJ' OF OiANGE TRAFFIC SIGNALS IMPROVEMENT AT INl'ERSTATE ROum 80S AND AlTI1iORJZE 1HE MAYOR TO EXECl1re SAID AGREEMENT. The California nation (Calrrans) has completed a project report for the subject interchange traffic signals improv ent. CaltraDS is now prepared to enter into a cooperative agreement with the City to encumber s to design and constnlct the proposed project. The constnlction of the project is scheduled to com c:e in July 1994. The project report is the backbone for the cooperative agreement in determining wo 0 be done, design specifications, and constnlcUon and associaled project costs. Staff recommends roval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) ) April 15, 1994 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission / .; ;';/ Bob Leiter, Director of Planning //~r{; (j Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force FROM: SUBJECT: On April 12, 1994, the City Council authorized the establishment of an "Eastlake Planned Community Affordable Housing Task Force," and directed staff to solicit nominations of individuals to serve on this task force. The purpose of this task force is to work with representatives of the Eastlake Development Company and City staff to develop an overall affordable housing implementation program for the Eastlake planned community. The composition of this task force will be as follows: 1) residents of Eastlake ( 2 members) - Eastlake I Community Association and Eastlake II Community Association Board of Directors each to nominate a representative (either a Board member or other interested resident); 2) Eastlake Development Company (2 members) 3) Planning Commission (1 member) - Planning Commission to nominate a representative 4) Individuals versed and knowledgeable in affordable housing (2 members) - Community Development Department to solicit names from local or regional housing providers; 5) City staff - 2 non-voting members. It is anticipated that this task force would meet approximately six times, over a two month period, beginning in May and ending in July. We would appreciate it if your Commission would nominate an individual to serve on this task force, for final approval by the City Council in early May. Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter. (F6\elafford,m)