Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/06/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 19, 1972 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Stewart, Rice, Adams, Chandler, Macevicz, Rudolph and Whitten. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, Associate Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Blick and Assistant Director of Public Works Robens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Rice called attention to a statement on page 5 of the minutes of June 5 which referred to Chairman Rice and should have read Chairman Stewart. MSUC (Macevicz-Whitten) The minutes of the meeting of June 5, 1972 be approved as corrected. The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. PUBLIC HEARING(Cont.): a. Report to City Council on C-V Zone for property at h6rthwest quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita Road b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - NW quadrant of 1-805 Bonita Road - Construction in Flood Plain District and location of service station in C-V zone -Bond, Ltd. c. Consideration of precise plan for development of property at NW quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita Road Associate Planner Lee recalled that at a previous hearing the Commission had recommended placing this property in the A-8 zone until January, 1974, with the zoning to be changed after that date to C-V-P upon approval of a Precise Plan following the guidelines approved by the Commission. Following that hearing the City Attorney determined that time limitation zoning in this manner was invalid; therefore it is necessary to reconsider the zone change application. Mr. Lee pointed out the location of the property and noted that rezoning to C-V would bring the property into conformace with the General Plan which designates visitor commercial use at the freeway intersection. He further advised that the C-V zone should not become effective on the western portion of the property, presently zoned R-l-15, until a parcel map is filed consoli- dating that property with the parcel owned by Bond, Ltd. and a precise plan is approved for the development of the entire property at the northwest quadrant of the freeway interchange with Bonita Road. The applicant has not submitted a precise plan and it is recommended that the public hearing for consideration of the conditional use permit and the precise plan be continued to the meeting of July 3, 1972. The public hearing was opened but the applicant was not present and as no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-72-G-(1) from C-C-D-F to C-V-P-F for property at the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita Road, and -2- 6/19/72 change from R-l-15-F to C-V-P-F for the adjoining lot subject to the filing of a parcel map consolidating the two properties; setbacks to conform to C-V zone standards, and the Precise Plan to conform to the following guidelines: (1) Only one curb cut for ingress and egress to Bonita Road shall be per- mitted and it shall be located directly opposite the intersection of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive. (2) Two additional curb cuts allowing for ingress, with egress (right turn only) located further to the west and east, may be considered based upon the proposed Precise Plan layout. (3) Joint access shall be required between the two parcels included in Area A to allow for joint use of the single egress curb cut. This easement shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. (4) The location of the underground box culvert shall be indicated on the plan. (5) The Precise Plan shall also include architectural concepts and circulation plan. (6) The Precise Plan shall be designed so as to accommodate only one service station on the north side of Bonita Road. (7) The ultimate improvement width for Bonita Road will be 82 feet (100' right of way). This will include an 18 foot median and 64 feet of travel lanes. The applicant shall include these considerations in his Precise Plan design. PUBLIC HEARING: R~ZONING - 9~}0 block Industrial Avenue, I to I-L, Carlin Construction Company Associate Planner Lee indicated the location of the property between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5, south of L Street, and noted the adjacent zoning and land use. The staff recommends approval of the requested zone change since this would conform to the General Plan, all of the existing land uses are permitted uses in the requested zone, and the property is both too small and too close to residential land uses to consider its development for general industrial types of land uses. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Carlin, partner in Carlin Construction Co., 3672 Liggett Drive, San Diego, commented that the staff had done such an able job in presenting the request he had nothing further to add unless there were questions. Member Whitten asked if there would not be a need for some type of barricade along the freeway onramp as a safety precaution. -3- 6/19/72 Mr. Carlin reported that when the freeway is completed there will be a fence around the west and south boundary of his property. He also advised that if a portion of the property is leased, as anticipated, the curb and sidewalk will be extended along the eastern side of the property. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Chandler-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone RESOLUTION PCZ-72-M from I to I-L for approximately 3~ acres on the west side of Industrial Boulevard, south of L Street. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to require enclosures for trash containers in commercial zones Director of Planning Warren reported that after further consideration of the proposed amendment and from comments received from merchants in the business zone, it was felt this requirement would be impractical and impossible to administer. The staff recommends that the proposed amendment be filed without action. In discussion the Commission expressed the opinion that the problem of unsightly trash containers should be further pursued, perhaps at a workshop session, before attempting to amend the ordinance. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) The proposed amendment to require enclosures for trash containers in all commercial zones be filed witnout action. Request for 2 sear extension on variance and conditional use permit for service station'at §outheast corner of~Bonita'Road and Bonita Glen Drive - Shell Oil Co. Director of Planning Warren reported that a conditional use permit for location of a service station at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive was approved several years ago. An extension of time has been granted a number of times at Shell's request to await the opening of the freeway interchange. The Planning Department is in agreement that the service station should not be constructed until the freeway is there, and therefore recommend approval of the extension requested on the conditional use permit. Since the Zoning Ordinance now contains provisions to control signs and the required setbacks have been included in a zone change, the staff finds the variance no longer valid and rec- ommends that the request for an extension of time for the variance be filed. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) The request for a 2 year extension of time on the conditional use permit for a service station at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive be approved. Request for c~ass~ca~o~ of Pawn Shop~ Associate Planner Lee reported that Western Jewelry Company has requested a -4- 6/19/72 determination of what zone a pawn shop would be permitted in~ the ordinance presently does not specify this use in any zone. The applicant has requested permission to locate in the C-B (Central Business) zone on Third Avenue. Both the City and County of San Diego list pawnshops in the same zone that permits the sale of used goods, and this is not permitted in our C-B zone. The Downtown Association had formerly raised objection to this request but have since submitted a letter stating they do not object to such use if 75% of the merchandise is new merchandise. The staff recommends approval of the request to locate in the C-B zone as long as the merchandise does not include over 25% of used merchandise. The Chairman called upon the applicant for a clarification of their operation. Ernest J. Addleson, 5660 Bromley Way, San Diego, reported that he has owned the Western Jewelry and Loan Company at 302 F Street, San Diego for the past 7 years but will have to locate his business in the near future. He emphasized the point that there is a vast difference between a high class loan office and a secondhand shop. He asserted their principal business is money lending, a~d checking their past records reveals that redemptions run 75 to 80% of the amount of the money loaned out, thus leaving less than 25% to retain for resale; other merchandise in stock for sale would be new merchandise. He would hopeto'have 75 to 90% of the stock as new merchandise, all luggage and binoculars would be new merchandise. Used stock would consist of cameras, tape recorders and hi-fi equipment and this would be of high grade quality. 75% of the firearms handled would be new, and there would be no clothing or shoes handled, either new or used. If necessary, he sells used merchandise in bulk to dealers so the store will not become cluttered with unclaimed merchandise. The Commission discussed the problem of controlling the amount of used and new merchandise in stock, and the type of operation that is anticipated here. It was felt this particular shop might not be objectionable but they hesitated to clas~fy all pawn shops as a permissible use in the C-B Zone and felt they should be placed under special uses subject to a conditional use permit in any commercial zone. The Assistant City Attorney advised that such a classification would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. MSUC (Rudolph-Whitten) Classification of this use be deferred until an amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance is adopted placing pawn shops in Unclassified Uses subject to a conditional use permit. Consideration of revision of R~ing standards for concrete driveways single famil9 dwellings and du@l. exes Director of Planning Warren noted that the City Council had directed the staff to proceed with whatever Code provision was appropriate to require concrete driveways in new single-family subdivision, single-family homes outside of new -5- 6/19/72 subdivisions, and duplexes. He reported that in nearly all subdivisions the driveways are constructed of concrete as these have proven to be more maint- enance free. It was found that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would not be required since paving standards were adopted by the Planning Commission by resolution and all that is required is a change in these standards. Mr. Warren felt that the only hardship which might result from such revision to the standards would be in the case of exceptionally long driveways for single family residences. The staff has proposed a revision to the standards which would require concrete driveways except that the Director of Planning would be allowed to authorize the use of "permanent pavement" for driveways with a length of 30 feet or more. Mr. Warren felt, however, that prior to adopting this revision some definition of the conditions which would qualify a driveway to be installed with asphalt paving should be established. The Commission concurred that this question be deferred to the meeting of June 26 in order that guidelines may be submitted for consideration. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of land use alternatives for Chula Vista Bay Front Study Area as recommended by Sedway/Cooke Director of Planning Warren advised that the consultants have reached the phase in their study where they have presented land use a alternatives for the consider- ation of the City and the Port District. Prior to this the consultants had asked the City and Port to consider recommended policies which would be used for their future planning. These policies as approved by the City included: Preservation of the Sweetwater River marsh in its natural state; protection and promotion of shoreline areas for public use and enjoyment; good pedestrian and vehicular access between the Bayfront and the areas of the City east of the freeway; and that primary uses be limited to public recreation, commercial activities such as hotels, motels and restaurants, and small-scale water-related industrial activities which would contribute to waterfront interest and character; limited residential development; and no major industrial development. Mr. Warren acknowledged receipt of a report concerning industrial park development prepared by the Stanford Research Institute for Santa Fe land Company but noted that he would comment primarily on the land use alternatives as presented by Sedway/Cooke. Mr. Warren then referred to the display showing the three options for land use alternatives, noting that in each option they have acknowledged the industry that is already there, namely, Rohr Industries, the San Diego Gas and Electric plant, and some smaller industries, and propose that these facilities be retained. They have also acknowledged the marina or small craft harbor that has been nearly completed; they recommend that this be retained and that additional marina -6- 6/19/72 facilities be constructed in the same general area. They have also accommodated the need for future boat slips. Mr. Warren noted that throughout the area proposed for development the consultants have attempted to create a green belt/or parkway along the major streets to pro- vide for bicycles, pedestrians, or other pleasurable use throughout the develop- ment regardless of the type of land use. Mr. Warren further noted that Option A represents a substantial departure from the character that now exists or was formerly proposed. It would replace the industrial use with a substantial complex of commercial tourist oriented use, residential use, retention of the natural marshlands, and utilize a minimum amount of fill along the northerly edge for a marina. This would necessitate an all or nothing approach to the development of the area to try to change the character that exists there presently. It is felt this plan would present the best view from the freeway north of E Street. Mr. Warren pointed out the areas which are recommended for commercial tourist oriented use, open space or recreational use and residential development. They are also recommending a golf course in the area to help sustain the proposed uses. Mr. Warren pointed out that in OptionBthey have increased the amount of tourist commercial use and included water related industrial use or terminal facility. In Option C all residential use, as proposed in Option A, has been eliminated with an increase in general industrial use. All three options propose the retention of the marsh land in accordance with the policy formerly adopted. In their report the consultants have attempted to give the economic feasibility, fiscal feasibility, employment characteristics an the traffic impact of their proposals. Mr. Warren then presented modifications to OptionA as proposed by the Planning staff noting that this would eliminate any general industrial development north of Rohr Industries. The staff feels that industrial development as proposed by the Stanford Research Institute can be accommodated elsewhere in the City, and retain the bayfront area for water related uses. The staff recommends that the Commission receive the report, as well as presentations from Santa Fe and other interested parties, and after discussion, direct the staff to bring back a proposal for final action to the meeting of June 26. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert McGinnis, Attorney with Luce Forward Hamilton& Scripps, 1700 Bank of California Building, introduced Harold Burroughs, Director of Public Relations, and Ed Stubbs, Regional Sales Manager of San Diego for Santa Fe. He also presented Robert W. Hauptli of the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company. -7- 6/19/72 Robert W. Harptli, Manager of Industrial Development and Real Estate for Santa Fe reported that their analysis of the conclusions reached in the Sedway/Cooke report indicated that the benefits to the community if the land were used for industrial and commercial development were not an&lyzed in sufficient depth. They, therefore, engaged Stanford Research Institute to make such a study and a report of this study will be presented by Harland Danforth of'that organization. Harland Danforth, Director of Land Use, Recreation, Tourism programs for Stanford Research, reported that they were retained to determine whether an industrial development, as originally proposed by Santa Fe, was feasible. He commented that their first objective was to find out if there was a market for industrial use and in this regard they reviewed land sales and leases from Santa Fe and the Harbor Department. They also endeavored to find out the going prices for industrial land and came to the conclusion that, ready to go, such land is worth about $60,000 an acre. They maintain this is too high a price for recreational development. They also attempted to determine what the return in taxes would be if the land is developed for various uses. They felt the return from residential development would not compensate for the cost of public im- provements necessary to serve this use. He reported that $3,000 to $4,000 an acre is a possible tax return from industrial and commercial development. He concurred that in developing an area of this size most of it would probably be non-water oriented, but called attention to a recent announcement that National Steel has expressed an interest in expanding their shipbuilding facilities through the use of part of this area. He maintained it would be difficult to get a developer to put in hotels or other tourist facilities so long as there is con- troversy over development of the area. Robert Hauptli presented a rendering of a proposed commercial and industrial development noting the area owned by Santa Fe. He indicated the Stanford study showed this land could produce 3,000 to 4,500 new jobs, also if the land were developed totally industrially and commercially it could mean a tax return to the Chula Vista community of 1.3 million dollars. He also presented a pictOrial display of other industrial parks developed by Santa Fe. He then discussed their two exhibits at some length. He concluded with the comment that if Santa Fe is allowed to develop the property which was purchased and held for many years for industrial purposes, it will be done in a highly pleasing aesthetic manner of which Chula Vista will be proud, and will funish employment and help build the tax base to keep Chula Vista in a strong economic position. They maintain these advantages outweigh other uses of the property. Robert McGinnis then elaborated at some length on the advantages of industrial development and the problems of putting into effect a plan which calls for a drastic change in the present roles of the bayfront lands and a corresponding need for change in appearance and image of the area. He noted that such develop- ment could not be done piecemeal but would require the entire development at one time. He maintained that the success of Option A depends upon a private developer stepping in and making it work and since there are several ownerships -8- 6/19/72 of land, there is no assurance the developer could acquire these. Mr. McGinnis emphasized the possible return in tax money to the city through industrial development of the property indicating that it would result in $443,000 in property taxes, as well as addtional revenue in sales tax as a result of new jobs created. He urged that further consideration be given to Option C presented by the consultants. Jeanie Hermanson, 235 Moss, President of the South Bay League of Women Voters, remarked that they had indicated their support of the recommended public policies as proposed by Sedway/Cooke, with emphasis on the public use of the shoreline area, public access and public recreation, especially for local residents. After reviewing the land use options presented by Sedway/Cooke the League wishes to implement its position by the following statement: "We firmly urge that Sub Area A be a public park and recreation area and further that portion of Sub Area C, D and E surrounding the marshland also be park and recreation areas. We strongly favor the development of a bayfront to be such as to benefit the people of Chula Vista and the City of Chula Vista." Pete DeGraaf, resident and taxpayer of the City of Chula Vista, questioned what affect~this recommendation will have on. the taxpayers. Mrs. Hermanson affirmed that their group had not made a study of the means of financing development for public parks and what it would mean to the average taxpayer in Chula Vista. Mmrvin Whiteman, 980 F Street, felt a mistake was made in locating the arm of the marina, noting that if it had come off the existing "gun powder" point they w~uld have gained four times the Yacht area. He emphasized the waterfront is a valuable thing and should be preserved for water-oriented uses. Jim Johnson, 639 Windsor Circle, treasurer of the South Bay Citizens Planning Committee reported that their organization recommends Option A-1 proposed by Sedway/Cooke with the following changes. 1. Area A would be a public park utilizing the center with a vacation village type motel recreation facility but not cutting off the access to the bay itself. 2. Area C, D, G and E would be P.U.D. type developments centered around professional offices, motels, restaurants, tourist or mercado type facility. Each area would be self contained, that is, coffeee shops would be close to professional offices. 3. Our view towards residential use is negative. How much has the City of Coronado paid for the Coronado Cays? He pointed out that surveys made two years ago showed that 87.6% of the citizens who returned their surveys want public parks and beaches on the bayfront and 72.7% of the businesses want the same. He added that the South Bay Citizens Planning Committee supports an industrial park in Chula Vista but question if it -9- 6/19/72 should be on prime bay land. Mr. Johnson also called attention to the power transmission lines extending through the bayfront area, noting that these lines are not supported by a single pole as depicted in the rendering of commercial-industrial development, but are twin towers, with four legs on the groun¢ for each tower, and about l0 lines on each. He pointed out these power poles are there and will remain. Doug Royer, Attorney with Seltzer Caplan Wilkins and McMahon, 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, represented Sam Vener who owns approximately 23½ acres of bayfront property. He reported this land was purchased in )965 to be held for industrial purposes and considerable property taxes have been paid on it. He felt that Mr. Vener should not be deprived of his reasonable expectations and intentions by a radical departure from long standing zoning practice and zoning policy for industrial use in that area. He pointed out industrial use would assure a broader tax base and help minimize the taxes of other Chula Vista residents. Bud Wilson, speaking on behalf of the Tidelands Task Force Committee of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, urged thatthe public hearing be continued in order that information from the S. R. I. report might be absorbed by the Commission and by the citizens of Chula Vista. He urged the Commission to derect their thinking toward water and marine oriented development of the area and stated that a ship building plant would not be appropriate for this area. Ken Kolk, 620 Mankato, spoke in favor of Option A of the consultants. He felt this would require high density residential use and pointed to the need for more boat facilities in the area. Pike Hod.ge~ 189 Country Club Drive, spoke of the great growth in the San Diego area. He also commented on the tourist attractions of the area, and suggested that the development of this waterfront area should be put to a vote of the people of Chula Vista for support of a bond to develop the area in an elegant country club atmosphere with a tropical atmosphere, which would attract big hotels as it has done on Mission Bay. He also commented that industry can compliment a recreational area, noting that Ryan Aircraft is no detriment to Harbor Island. He spoke of the raise in taxes over the past 20 years and felt this will continue. John Sipula, 268 Shasta Street, felt the greatest need for the Chula Vista area is more jobs, and Rohr alone cannot furnish work for all of the people. Pete DEGraaf, local resident, pointed out this is one of the few spotsleft for water use and he felt the city should make the best advantage of that which they can. He did not feel the area should be devoted to land use recreation since -10- 6/19/72 there is ample land nearby at a lower cost to meet that need. He spoke of the need for flexible plans since requirements may be different five years from now. He recommended adopting a plan in the derection of flexibility, striving for the highest and best use of the water front. No one else wished to speak to this public hearing at this time, but Chairman Stewart suggested that since there has been a request from a representative of the Chamber o~ Commerce to continue the hearing, he suggested that the Commission act upon that request . MSUC (Rice-Whitten) The public hearing for consideration of land use alternatives for the Chula Vista Bay Front Study Area be continued to the meeting of June 26, 1972. Consideration of development plans for Community Hospital Associate Planner Lee displayed a plat showing the location of the proposed new facilities for Chula Vista Community Hospital south of Telegraph Canyon Road east of Greg Rogers Park/School. Mr. Lee noted that when the conditional use permit for this hospital was approved in August, 1970, one of the conditions was that the applicant shall show how satisfactory vehicular access can be obtained and the necessary utilities constructed. It was also required that development plans be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Lee indicated on the plat the location of Brandywine Avenue which will be extended from the Brandywine development though to Telegraph Canyon Road just west of this proposed project, thus affording access to the hospital site by an additional road constructed from Brandywine Avenue to the hospital property. Mr. Lee then discussed the site plan showing the location of the building and the parking area. The building consists of a service core of a basement plus one story, and a four story nursing tower, with plans to construct a second nursing tower at a later date. More than ample parking has been provided, and the setback from property lines is more than required by the ordinance. He noted that the grading plans indicate several manmade slopes and it is required that these be blended into the natural topography. Mr. Lee enumerated the conditions recommended by the staff for approval of the plans as presented, which include the question of acquisition, design and development of the access roads to this facility. He requested that the Assistant City Attorney comment on this question. Attorney Blick advised there are two ways of acquiring property for the road, both of which involve means of emminent domain. He noted a section in the civil code which provides that the hospital can be made the agent of the City. Since the City is acquiring the land for public use, the hospital could be the agent who would supply the expenses for the legal fees and appraisors fees involved. Another way is to have the City undertake the entire action itself through condemnation proceedings. -ll- 6/19/72 James Bird, Architect representing Community Hospital, 2550 Fifth Avenue, Sna Diego, reported that they are in agreement with conditions 1 and 4 recommended by the staff, but on item 2 they agree with the intent of the staff in the desire to sculpture the land, easing the top and toe of the slope, and to blend the contours in so they make a nice appearance, but felt the 100' radius might work a hardship if interpreted strictly in all areas and they would ask permission to work this out with the staff. With reference to undergrounding utilities, he reported that they intend to have all onsite utilities underground and anticipate that when Brandywine is fully developed all utilities will be underground, but in the interim if only a portion of Brandywine is developed, they would request overhead service on an interim basis. Mr. Warren noted that this request would require Council action and the staff would not favor it at this point. MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) Development plans as submitted for Community Hospital be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) No building permit shall be issued until the question of acquisition, design and development of the access roads to this facility have been resolved to the~sat~sfact~on of the Public Works and Planhing Directors and ultimately the City Council. (2) All manmade slopes shall be blended into the natural topography by the use of rounded toe and tops of slope. Extensions shall be not less than 5! in horizontal distance from the theoretical hinge point of the slope. Manmade horizontal contours shall generally use 100' radius into natural contours. (3) Any necessary extension of utility service shall be underground from existing service facilities regardless of whether such service is in the city limits of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego. (4) Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted concur- rently with any requested grading permit, subject to approval of the City Landscape Planner. SUBDIVISION: Request for approval of tentative map - Windsor Views Director of Planning Warren noted that the proposed tentative map for a single family subdivision involves the same property for which a Planned Unit Development was previously considered and was denied by the Commission and by the City Council. He pointed out that the conditions which were the basis for denial of the P.U.D. still remain to some extent; these include change in cross section on Telegraph Canyon Road and the drainage channel that will parallel it, the location of East J Street to the north, and the -12- 6/19/72 constraints that may be placed on the water line which crosses the property or is adjacent to it. Associate Planner Lee indicated the location of the property on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, comprising 18 acres, which is proposed for a 52 lot subdivision. He noted the distance required to bring gas and electric service to this facility, and the problem of fire protection since there is no fire station in this area. He also reported that the design of a drainage channel to run along the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road for its entire length has not been resolved. Mr. Lee also d~$cussed the proposed grading, pointing out that 1½ to 1 slopes are indicated whereas the staff recommends that slopes be no steeper than 2 to 1. In discussing the proposed street plan he noted that in two different areas the two cul de sacs approach 15% grade and the staff does not recommend approval of this grade. He also noted that the alignment of J Street has not been definitely determined and the circulation system for the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area is presently under study. Donald Worley, attorney with Seltzer Caplan Wilkins and McMahon, 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, representing the applicant, reviewed the history behind this particular parcel. He contended that the action of the City Council approving annexing the property to Chula Vista two years ago would be tantamount to stating or committing that the land was ready to be developed and that the City of Chual Vista was ready to serve it with the necessary untilities and services. He commented that Mr. Horton has spent a great deal of time, energy and money in coming up with various types of development plans, each of which has been met with the objection of prematu~ity. Mr. Worley requested that the Planning Commission make a commitment tonight as to whether the applicant may proceed with a reasonable development of this parcel. He stated that if the Commission determines it is premature, then it would be futile for the developer to proceed to redesign the parcel to meet any specific objections concerning alignment of streets, grading or anything else. Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the Commission previously made a determination just a short time ago that they did not have adequate information to consider a map for development of the property, and there has been no change in those conditions up to now. He advised that a ruling from the City Attorney, a copy of which was sent to the applicant, stated: "This office would concur with the right of the Planning Commission and Council to defer the subdivision of this property pending the outcome of the study presently being undertaken of the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area." -13- 6/19/72 In discussion the Commission concurred that until the studies currently being undertaken, which affect this property as well as the adjacent area, are concluded, they do not have adequate information to approve any plans for the development of this property or to establish guidelines and standards for such development. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council that the proposed tentative map for development of Windsor Views Subdivision be denied due to the finding that until studies currently being undertaken, relative to circulation pattern, grading, drainage facility and overall density of the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area, have been completed, and development standards have been adopted for property along Telegraph Canyon, it is not possible to determine the requirements or conditions to be met for approval of development in this area; it is further found that the subdivision design itself does not conform properly to existing topography and, if developed would result i n~atisfactory lots and street patterns. Consideration of requirement for removal of sign - Home Fair Associate Planner Lee recalled that the resolution approving a freestanding sign on property at the corner of Fifth and H for the Home Fair department store included the condition that: "In the event Home Fair should go out of business or the tenancy of that building should change, the continued need for subject sign shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the sign could be used by a new tenant. If the main building (Home Fair) should become vacant and remain vacant for a period of six months subject freestanding sign shall be removed." Mr. Lee reported that the Home Fair store has been vacant since at least January 1, 1972, however, there are still three businesses operating within the building. They are: a pharmacy, a beauty shop and a barber shop. The City Attorney has expressed the opinion that as long as any businesses are in operation in the building the building cannont be considered vacant, therefore the freestanding sign would not have to be removed. The~staff contends that the intent of the condition was that if the Home Fair store were to cease operations for six months, the sign was to be removed. The staff asks that the Commission clarify the intent of the condition regarding removal of the freestanding sign. Gene Scales, Manager of Home Fair in Kearny Mesa, expressed the need of the three leased stores to retain the freestanding sign, particularly since the closing of the main department store. He requested that the sign be permitted to remain for an additional six months as he felt anew tenant would be found for the main store within that time. J~.m Magot~ owner of F~rre)l~s Ice Cream Parlour, reported that they id~n~fy ~ ~ ~g.ree w~th {Re F[Ome Fair ~en~er a~d would like to, have'the Sign rema~in. -14- 6/19~'72 He further advised that he is acting as a broker to attempt to lease the store building and hopes this will be accomplished in the near future. He reported that prospective lessees are concerned with the lack of exposure and feel the sign is necessary to identify the location. Member Whitten expressed the opinion that the sign should be removed. Assistant City Attorney Blick reafyirmed that the Attorney's office finds that the Home Fair building is not vacant. MS (Adams-Rice) The Commission finds that the business is not vacant and that the sign may be left for six months. After some discussion the motion was withdrawn. MSC (Adams-Rice) The condition requiring removal of the Home Fair sign shall be waived. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Adams, Rice, Stewart, Chandler, Macevicz and Rudolph NOES: Member Whitten ABSENT: None _A~JOURNMENT MSUC (Chandler-Whitten) The meeting be adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to the meeting of July 26, 1972. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes ~ Secretary