Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/09/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 15, 1969 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date beginnin9 at 7 p.m. with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: Member Rice (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Lettieri, Planning Draftsman Casias, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley APPROVAL OF MINUTES Referring to the minutes of August 18, 1969, Director of Planning Warren explained that approval was withheld until this meeting in order to allow time for the City Attorney and the Chief Administrative Officer Pro Tempore to submit summaries of their comments concerning the amendment to the ordinance establish- ing a R-l-5 zone. Since same had been solicited and none received, the Director submitted a brief summary which he recommended be approved. City Attorney Lindber9 stated he still feels the minutes do not reflect the dialogue between himself and the Chief Administrative Officer Pro Tempore, but that it was insignificant at this point, and he has no further objection to the adoption of the minutes. Member Macevicz commented it would be difficult to get a dialogue between two people unless it was taken verbatim from the tape. As long as the salient points were recorded, he sees no objection to the minutes. Director Warren discussed the problem of recording the minutes in detailed form as against a digest of the action. Chairman Hyde noted that a record of the tape is available should a verbatim transcript be desired. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Approval of the minutes of August 18, 1969, with the correction as summarized. Tape of the minutes is available for a verbatim transcript. In the minutes of September 3, 1969, Member Chandler requested that his motion relating to the R-l-5 zoning include the word "density". MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of the minutes of September 3, 1969, with the correction as noted by Member Chandler. Subdivision - Final Map of Locdel Estates, Unit #1 Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map noting that the subdivision is located south of Oxford Street, west of Nolan Avenue. The 2.3 acres will be subdivided into 12 single-family lots. The staff recommends approval subject to the requirement outlined by the Division of Engineering. -2- 9/15/69 MSUC (Changler-Putnam) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. Subdivision - Final Map of San Simeon, Unit #2 Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map of Unit #2 which includes 44 lots. The original tentative map had a total of 86 lots. This subdivision is located east of the proposed Interstate 805, bisected by East J Street. The map conforms with the tentative, and the staff is recommending approval subject to the requirement as outlined by the Division of Engineering. Mr. ~arren added that landscaping plans for the slopes were required from the developer. They did submit one plan which did not meet the criteria, and he is requesting that the Commission stipulate that the final map will not be sent to the Council for approval until the landscaping plan is approved. The Commission discussed the number of lots in this unit (44)as against the original tentative that showed 86 lots. Member Macevicz felt the Commission should be aware of this~developers making small changes to the original map, adding on, etc., and soon they end up with the undesirable portions of the terrain for which the developer then files for a variance in order to develop,also, there is the problem of getting the public improvements. Chairman Hyde declared that this does bring up the problem of getting the public improvements for major thoroughfares serving a subdivision that is done in piece-meal fashion. He compared this with the Princess Manor subdivision. Mr. Mel Kirk, associated with Eugene Cook Associates, engineers for this project, stated the subdivider originally set up the area as one unit with 86 lots; he now proposed to subdivide it into two units--the design is the same. City Attorney Lindberg stated there is no way to force anyone to develop their land in any particular way; it can be done in a piece-meal fashion. The Commission's concern is in the design of a subdivision--are they going to develop one portion of a property at the expense and detriment of the balance that remains. In that case, the Commission could conceivably deny a subdivision map. Member Stewart discussed the problem of getting the public improvements for Princess Manor #6 and felt this occurs when a tentative map expires. -3- 9/15/69 Director Warren commented that the Commission is allowed to grant two exten- sions on a tentative map. He added that in approving a tentative map which calls out the units in sequence, and in filing the final map, they wish to vary from that, the Commission would then have the prerogative of approving or disapprov- ing that change, depending on the effect it would have on the overall development. City Attorney Lindberg added that a tentative map is kept alive only on the request of the subdivider and not the insistence of the City of trying to hold them to that final map. The Commission can say that they believe the design that is most acceptable to the surrounding area was the one they originally approved. Chairman Hyde directed the staff to re-examine this matter and bring back recommendations to the Planning Commission for their action, if needed. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following conditions: 1. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements,deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. 2. The final map shall not be submitted for Council approval until such time as landscaping plans for the large northerly slopes have been submitted to the staff for approval. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ - 430 Broadway - R-3 to C-T - Leo D. Wells Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property fronting on Broadway is zoned C-T (100' x 120') presently being used as a used car lot. The applicant's second parcel is contiguous to the rear of this one and is zoned R-3 (165' x 150'). He is requesting that this lot be rezoned to C-T. The staff recommends approval of this request subject to parcel map being filed consolidating the two parcels in order to insure coordinated development of the parcels and eliminate the land- locked parcel. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Leo Wells, 578 J Street, Chula Vista, discussed the channel on his property circling both the north and west edge. He stated he needs the rezoning to make a logical building site. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request and concurred that the request was a reason- - able one in order to give the applicant sufficient depth for a commercial use. -4- 9/15/69 RESOLUTION NO. 590 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Adams-Putnam) to City Council the Change of Zone for Property at the Rear of 430 Broadway Findings be as follows: a. Sound zoning practice dictates that commercial zoning be of a usable depth. The 120' depth of commercial zoning on this property is not sufficient to develop most contemporary business establishments with today's parking and floor area requirements. b. The adjacent property to the south has the same commercial depth as that requested. c. The Commission and Council have, in the past, granted extensions of the commercial zoning on Broadway in similar circumstances. d. Since the property is landlocked and has its only access through a relatively narrow commercial property, its value as R-3 land is considerably diminished. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 430 Broadway - Request for reduction of rear yard setback from 15' to 0 - Leo D. Wells Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting this was the same property as just previously considered. The applicant proposes to construct a building which would abut the rear property line now separating the two parcels. There is presently a 15' setback in the C-T zone. The staff is concerned about this point and hesitates to recommend approval of the variance until the property to the rear is rezoned. The applicant was informed by the staff that a variance would not be necessary if the parcel to the west is rezoned; however, he preferred to file for the variance request in order to expedite the project. The staff recommends that the variance be filed without prejudice. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Leo Wells, 578 J Street, stated the reason he filed for both the rezoning and variance requests was the matter of time--he felt he could get a variance faster than a rezoning. Director Warren commented that there was no assurance that the rear parcel would be rezoned to C-T; if it remains R-3, it is questionable as to where the building will be placed on the site and where the setbacks will be. Mr. Warren then questioned the applicant as to how he proposed to use the rear lot, not having exposure to Broadway. Mr. Wells indicated it would probably be used as a parking lot. -5- 9/15/69 City Attorney Lindberg discussed the applicant's problem stating he could get a building permit today, if he wished to observe the 15' setback; however, he needs a variance to eliminate the lot line. If the applicant files a parcel map to eliminate the lot line, there would be no problem with a variance. As to the drainage channel, it should be recognized that this is a matter that has been before the Council and the Council has participated in the reconstruction of the channel. They did this to increase the tax base by giving the applicant more land to make full use of it. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed what action to take on the variance. Director Warren remarked that one alternative would be to continue it beyond the Council's first reading on the rezoning. In the meantime, Mr. Wells could file his parcel map. Mr. Wells stated he would be willing to do this. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, indicated that the Division of Engineering would probably approve the parcel map regardless of the zoning placed on the property. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) The variance be continued to the meeting of October 20, 1969. PUBLIC HEARING - (Continued) - 399~ Palm Drive - Request permission to develop four lots, two to be served by a 25' wide easement - Daniel Green Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question. This was continued from the September 3 meeting to allow the staff more time to study the problems associated with this request. The staff met with the applicant and also visited the site. They also called the County Flood Control about the condition to the northeast of this site, since it was stated at the last meeting that a flooding problem occurs here on this easement during the rainy season. The County Flood Control District stated that no serious problem existed to their knowledge aside from the possibility of infrequent flooding. The situation will not be aggravated by the development of these proposed four lots. The staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to several conditions. Mr. Warren then reviewed and discussed each condition, noting that a parcel map creating the new lots and eliminating the existing lot lines will have to be recorded, and the easterly two properties shall be connected to a sewer at the owner's expense immediately upon the availability of same. Since these conditions obligate future owners, Director Warren asked the City Attorney's comments on them. City Attorney Lindberg stated it could be put into the deed, or they can enter into an agreement that would be binding upon the future owners, heirs, successors, etc. This would be recorded. -6- 9/15/69 Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated they agree with the recommenda- tions of the Planning Department. Referring to the condition whereby a 44' wide strip of land is to be dedicated for street purposes, Mr. Gesley stated that this conforms to their standards for a two-way hillside local street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Daniel Green, the applicant, stated he discussed the conditions with the Planning Director and agrees on all points. Mr. Don Smith, 4191 Palm Avenue, stated he objected to the request at the last meeting; however, he visited the site and viewed the home to be moved there, and now has no objection to the architecture of the house. The Commission agreed that it was a very difficult piece of property to develop, but with the conditions outlined by the Planning Director, the development will be a reasonable one. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed for Calle Mesita on the applicant's property, in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. The owner shall also grant an easement for sewer purposes to the City of Chula Vista to provide for the construction of a sewer to serve the adjacent property to the south. 3. The applicant shall offer for dedication a 44 foot strip of land traversing (north-south) the approximate center of the property for future street purposes. The exact location of this strip shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. 4. Aside from garage requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, two additional paved parking spaces shall be provided for guest parking on each of the four lots. 5. A percolation test conducted by soils engineer to determine the ability of the easterly two properties to accept the effluent from a private sewage disposal system shall be filed prior to the development of these two parcels. 6. The applicant shall agree to participate in the cost of paving the easement, when and if such an opportunity arises. Such an agreementshall be included in any deeds of sale. 7. The easterly two properties shall be connected to a sewer at the owner's expense immediately upon the availability of same. 8. A parcel map creating the new lots and eliminating the existing lot lines shall be recorded. -7- 9/15/69 Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Westerly two parcels--To provide the street frontage required by the Zoning Ordinance would necessitate the construction of a cul-de-sac which would only serve the two parcels created. A turn around area would serve the same purpose without the unnecessary expense of constructing a full cul-de-sac. Easterly two parcels--There is no way these parcels can be served by a dedicated street, since no such street exists in the area. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The very difficult topography of the subject property precludes the normal development of these 3-1/2 acres. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. With the conditions imposed no apparent detriment to the area is evident. The density of development proposed is equal to or lower than the surrounding area and the method of development is compatible with the neighborhood. d. The General Plan would not be adversely affected by the approval of this variance. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - Southwest corner Kearne~ Street and Church Avenue - Reduction of setback from 20' to 0 and request to construct b' high fence o Stanley Monroe, M.D. Director of Planning Warren stated he received a call from Mr. William Bauer, attorney for the applicant, requesting that this matter be filed. Mr. Bauer felt the conditions, as recommended by the staff, would make it infeasible to develop. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Variance request be filed. Request for approval of a temporars building - 540 Third Avenue - R. M. Reed Director of Planning Warren stated this was a request to put a metal building adjacent to the B-J Ranch Mart at 540 Third Avenue. Ordinarily, this would have gone to the staff for approval under the site plan and architectural review, but the staff was apprehensive about it, so it is now before the Commission. The - building will be 6' x 10' and will be used as a key shop. The applicant has indicated he will paint the building the same color as the Ranch-Mart store. Mr. Warren added that one of these buildings in a location might not be objectionable, -8- 9/15/69 but there is always the question of starting a precedent. The building is to be temporary, and if the business proves to be successful, the applicant would replace it with a permanent structure. Mr. R. M. Reed, the applicant, 109 Alvarado Street, explained the construction of the building and the amount of window space he plans to put in. Member Stewart commented that most of the major shopping centers do have facilities such as this, and if placed on a temporary basis and painted the same as the store, he sees no objection to it. Member Macevicz questioned the applicant as to how he would locate a permanent structure on this location should the business prove successful. Mr. Reed indicated he would comply with the building restrictions on this--stucco the building, or whatever would be necessary. Member Adams expressed his dislike for having the building protrude 3'; he felt it would look more pleasing if it was flush with the front of the arcade, especially if they were going to have a permanent structure there. MSC (Chandler-Purnam) Approval of the temporary building to be located at 540 Third Avenue for a period of one year, subject to the following: 1. Approval is given for a one-year period of time. 2. The temporary building shall be placed flush with the arcade front. 3. Approval is based on the plans submitted at this meeting with the condition that the building will be painted to match the B-J Ranch Mart building. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Putnam, Stewart, Hyde, and Adams NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: Member Rice City Attorney Lindberg, noting the number of people in the audience appearing for item 12--nursery home for retarded children--stated that the matter is not a public hearing and not open to testimony at this particular time. Anyone wishing to be heard should appear at a public hearing in regard to the matter. The Commission has two alternatives: recommend as an emergency ordinance, or have the Council set hearings in the normal course of events. -9- 9/15/69 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Modifications to lot size provisions in R-1 and R,2 zones and modification of procedures in R-2 zone Director of Planning Warren reviewed this amendment which was continued from the previous meeting. He discussed the changes made as recommended by the Commission, and said he did receive subdivision maps from American Housing Guild where they are building on 5000 square foot lots. Diamond Point, on Otay Mesa, for instance, has lots varying from 5,000, 5,200, 5,800 and larger. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Rod Stevenson, General Manager of American Housing Guild, stated that in creating this new lot size (R-l-5), a developer can lay out his subdivision and strike a minimum lot size for a pad. He briefly discussed the FHA requirements, which he indicated were more restrictive than the City's. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Hyde asked for a motion in regard to the modifications in the R-2 zone. Director Warren remarked that item relating to two single-family dwellings on one lot was eliminated, as recommended by the Commission. - RESOLUTION NO. 591 Resolution ~f the Planning Commission Recommending to MSC (Adams-Macevicz) City Council Modifications to lot size provisions and Modifications of Procedures in the R-2 Zone. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Macevicz, Stewart, Hyde, Putnam NOES: Member Chandler ABSENT: Member Rice Member Hyde then asked for a motion concerning the modifications to lot size in the R-1 zone. Member Chandler asked that a provision be included which would require that the R-l-5 zone be applied only where the resultant density would be compatible with that of the adjacent area. Chairman Hyde agreed that the provision should be more precise. One of the conditions should be that the granting of this lot size would not create a density which would be incompatible with the residential character of the surrounding area. Director Warren commented that it would be difficult to determine just where that would be; there are some areas in the older parts of the city that are on level land that would lend themselves to the 5,000 square foot lots which have 7,000 _ square foot lots adjacent to it. -10- g/15/69 Member Stewart felt the older areas would be most likely to go into R-3 develop- ments. He agrees that something should be printed into this ordinance relating to the density being compatible with the surrounding area--this would give them a better tool to work with. This request will be most prevalent when people want to annex. Member Adams felt this R-l-5 provision should not have all the guidelines put into it, as being discussed here tonight. Member Putnam agreed, declaring that the Commission has ample control in approving a subdivision map. Member Adams felt this R-l-5 provision should not have all the guidelines put into it, as being discussed here tonight. Member Putnam agreed, declaring that the Commission has ample control in approving a subdivision map. Member Adams referred to the phrase "such zoning will also be restricted to those areas where adequate public park land is provided or other open space in the form of natural canyons or hills will be provided to accommodate the recrea- tional needs of families living in such areas." He felt this would be objec- tionable to the developers as they would not be able to get the full yield of the 5,000 square foot lots because they would have to give up some of this land for this recreational purpose. The Commission discussed having open space. Member Stewart commented that the Commission adopted the policy of having recreational areas adjacent to schools and this might take care of some of the concern that the Planning staff had in placing this sentence in the ordinance. He added that it implies that a developer must provide public park land and he is in favor of taking it out. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that the Commission has been discussing, for a number of years, the requirement of dedication of open space, park sites, and school sites in subdivisions. They are trying to work out a formula that would be equitable, and this problem is hindered by (1) the development of a park plan that they can really tie down, and (2) the city of Walnut Creek is presently on appeal with their ordinance and it remains to be seen what the courts will decide--this will determine to what extent they can impose such dedication requirements. Member Stewart remarked that this open space requirement should refer to all subdivisions and not just single out the R-l-5. Member Macevicz questioned the areas next to a public park, such as next to Rohr Park. As long as these people have adequate open areas within walking distance, then, as he reads the ordinance, the R-l-5 can go in. Director Warren stated he was apprehensive about this condition and cited an example of a city meeting all of their park needs according to the national standards--if this was true, then all land would be in walking distance from neighborhood parks. This particular wording should, perhaps, be changed. Chairman Hyde suggested that this wording be changed to: "due consideration will be given to the approximate availability of adequate public park land or other open space in the form of natural canyons or hills which will be provided to accommodate the recreational needs of the families living in these areas, and provided that the density of the development will be compatible with adjacent properties." -ll- 9/15/69 City Attorney Lindberg suggested this not be put into the ordinance, but instead be made a refinement of the General Plan in defining the method of application of the various residential zones in terms of open space, density of the entire community area, etc. That would be the time and place to establish these policies. The guidelines for application of zoning is best suited to the General Plan. Director Warren indicated his feeling would be for the Commission to adopt a resolution establishing this policy, rather than make the ordinance too stringent. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) This proposed ordinance be referred back to the staff and City Attorney to bring back a resolution and ordinance for the next meeting. Chairman Hyde added that this ordinance is a departure from the standard R-l, 7,000 square foot lots, and the Commission should be quite careful in making sure that it is not misused and not be a detriment to the surrounding area in general. Member Stewart asked that the resolution point out that the 7,000 square foot lot is still the basic lot size and that this is an unusual situation in granting the R-l-5. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Amendment to Administrative Procedures Section Director of Planning Warren briefly reviewed the changes made in this section to the ordinance. One change would be that in the case of variances, only those not exceeding 20% of the requirements in the ordinance would go to the Zoning Administrator and the others would go to the Commission or the Zoning Board of Adjustment. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that if these changes are the concensus of the Commission, he will prepare the ordinance in final form and submit it to the Commission prior to their next meeting. This would expedite matters in getting it to the City Council. The Commission would not have to reopen the hearing. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams stated he was satisfied with the entire body of this procedure with the exception of the findings as pertaining to the variance. He felt the old findings were much more valid in that it had "exceptional circumstances" in place of the word "hardship" as used in this procedure. Also, in reference to the statement that "a previous variance can never set a precedent .... each case has to be considered on its own merit." He felt the Commission should be able to refer to other similar decisions they have made and other such variances which they have granted. Mr. Adams felt this sentence was too restrictive. City Attorney Lindberg stated he did not draft the ordinance and concurs with Member Adams' statement in using the old language in the findings for a variance. The issue is not so much that the Commission should never look at their precedent but that the precedent should not become a weapon in the hands of an applicant citing the fact that he should also be granted a variance. -12- 9/15/69 Director Warren discussed the findings and felt the first two (a) and (b) should be combined since they are redundant. He asked that the matter be continued so the staff can rewrite it. City Attorney Lindberg agreed, adding that they understand the comments made by the Commission and will rewrite it bringing back the alternative in written form. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Procedural Section be referred back to the staff and City Attorney to be rewritten in final form with the suggested changes made by the Commission. Requests for extension of time; A. Conditional Use Permit - South of Quintard Street between Hilltop Drive and First Avenue - Robinhood Homes, Inc. B. Variance - 282 Madrona Street - Bettye L. Peters C. Variance - 581 Vance Street - D. Lively D. Conditional Use Permit - 374 H Street - Robert W. Farmer Director of Planning Warren stated that since there have been no substantial changes of conditions, the staff recommends each of the above requests be approved for a - one-year extension of time. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) The requests for extensions of time be approved for a period of one year. To be set for public hearing - Ordinance establishing Home for Mentally Retarded Children in the Unclassified Zone, subject to Conditional Use Permit Planning Director Warren explained that presently, these homes are permitted in the R-3 zone subject to no restrictions. At the last meeting (September 3) the Commission directed the staff to prepare a revision to the ordinance which would remove these homes from the R-3 zone and place them in the Unclassified Use Section, subject to a conditional use permit. City Attorney Lindberg commented that it should also be recognized that there is a request for a permit pending to operate another one of these homes in the R-3 zone. He would suggest the Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of an emergency ordinance placing this use in the unclassified zone, and then go ahead and schedule the ordinance for October 6. In this way the applicant would have to come to the Commission for the approval of a conditional use permit. The Commission can then hold a public hearing in due course. If the people here tonight are allowed to testify, it would jeopardize the ordinance. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Recommend to the City Council that an emergency ordinance _ be adopted and set the ordinance for hearing for the meeting of October 6. ~13- 9/15/69 To be set for public hearing - Sign restrictiOns in "D,.zone Director of Planning Warren stated that when the new Zoning Ordinance went into effect, they were left with no sign regulations in the "D" zone since it was intended that the signs would be regulated by the individual zones. In order to set up the standards on an interim basis, an emergency ordinance was passed. This ordinance automatically expires in 90 days; the staff is recommending that the Com- mission set this for hearing. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Ordinance regulating sign restrictions in "D" zone be set for hearing for October 6, 1969. Request for Waiver of Public Improvements - Third Avenue, north of C Street Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the request. The applicants have been granted a permit to increase the density in this area for multiple-family units. One of the conditions of approval was the street improvements for North Third Avenue. At this time they are requesting a waiver of the installation of these public improvements. Since there are no plans for development of the street at this time, the Division of Engineering is recommending a deferment, rather than the waiver. The staff concurs with this recommendation. MSUC (Stewart-Adams~ Approval of a deferment of the installation of public improvements subject to the posting of a bond or lien in the amount specified by the Division of Engineering to insure the future installation of these public improvements. Written Communications Director Warren noted the letter received from Mrs. Helen Baxter in reference to the Estes Nursery Home for Retarded Children. The Commission received a copy of this letter and it will be reviewed at the time the ordinance is heard. A second letter from a Mrs. Susan Jensen concerns a pedestrian crosswalk adjacent to Halecrest Elementary School. This does not involve any Commission action. Absence from Meetin9 Member Stewart asked to be absent from the next meeting of the Planning Commission (October 6). MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of the absence of Member Stewart from the meeting of October 6. -14- 9/15/69 - Hom~. OFcupation - 109 E Street Member Macevicz questioned a business being conducted at 109 E Street, which seems to be currently under expansion. Director Warren explained that the home owner applied for a Home Occupation Permit and this was approved, upon review, by the Planning Commission. However, he will have his staff look into any expansion. Workshop Director Warren remarked that a workshop meeting will be set up for next Monday evening, if this is agreeable to the Commission. It will be a dinner meeting. The main subject will be the General Plan revisions. Chairman Hyde suggested they also discuss the R-l-5 ordinance. Community Planning Commission Meeting Chairman Hyde spoke of the interest of the neighboring communities in getting together for a meeting of the Planning Commissions. The Commission discussed several topics that could be discussed at this joint meeting, such as: development of the Bay, matters relating to the General Plan, matters relating to LAFC, street plans where one community abuts another, etc. MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Chairman Hyde to make all arrangements pertaining to the joint meeting, and to invite the following cities: Imperial Beach, National City, Coronado, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of September 22, 1969, at 6 p.m. at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch, Bonita. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~a~ Fulasz