2004 RES R-129-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Colton Municipal Code, §18.38.020(A) provides that the "height of any screening shall be measured at sidewalk grade for street -abutting property lines, and at the highest elevation of adjacent finished grade for interior property lines." Thus, given that the Proposed Southerly Fence is constructed atop a landscaped berm, it's overall height is approximately 13 feet measured from the highest elevation of the adjacent grade. C. However, Colton Municipal Code §18.52.040(D)(2)(a) provides that for large processing facilities of the type proposed by the applicant, processors will operate "[W]ithin an area enclosed on all sides by masonry wall not less than eight feet in height and landscaped on all street frontages." (Emphasis added.) Thus, this regulation is different than the regulation contained in §18.38.040(C), even though both regulations apply. D. In addition, Colton's prior zoning regulations for fences, walls and hedges, in effect prior to 1992 and prior to the adoption of Section 18.38.040 above, noted that the "minimum height shall be ... 8 feet..." for storage or industrial operations. (Emphasis added.) (See Ordinance No. 1602, §18.04.080(B)(3) —Table A.) No maximum height is established in this section of the prior code for industrial uses. E. Further, research conducted by staff shows that some nearby communities permit walls and fences in industrially -zoned areas to exceed 8 -feet in height. (See Victorville §18.41.100; Chino §20.13.050(B)(2) —Table 20.13.2 & Hesperia §16.16.585(A).) F. Thus, it is reasonable for the City Council to determine and conclude, based upon the ambiguities created in the application of both §18.38.040(C) and §18.52.040(D)(2)(a), by City's prior fence and wall standards and based upon the reasonableness of permitting taller fence heights for industrial uses, as reflected in the zoning regulations of other cities, that the standard contained in existing Colton Municipal Code §18.38.040(C) noting that "the height of screening for all storage areas or industrial operations shall be eight feet for all zones" is intended to be minimum height requirement and not a maximum height requirement. G. It is appropriate for the City Council to interpret its own regulations when there is an ambiguity. In this case, it is not entirely clear whether Section 18.38.040(C) is meant to be both and minimum and maximum standard or just a minimum standard. H. In making this interpretation of Section 18.38.040(C), the City Council further finds that it is reasonable and consistent with prior case law including, but not limited to, Trancas Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Malibu (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1058; Kirkorowicz v. California Coastal Commission (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 980; Communities for a Better Env't v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1089. SECTION 4. Notwithstanding the findings contained in Section 3, above, should a court find that that the City Council's interpretation of its wall and fence requirements for industrial property is arbitrary, capricious and wholly without merit, the City Council, based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, including the staff report, the attachments to the staff report and EIR (including the addenda), makes the following findings pursuant to Section 18.58.040 of the Colton Municipal Code and California Government Code, §65906 concerning the major variance for an overheight wall (8 -foot wall on a 5 -foot berm) on the southerly portion of the Subject Site: A. Special circumstances exist that are applicable to the Subject Site, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of which deprives the Subject Site of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. RVPUB\MXM\684167.1 - 4 -