Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-08-03 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 3 , 1964 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson and Willhite. Absent: Members Adams and Guyer. Also Present: Director of Planning Warren, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Duberg, City Engineer Cole and Chief Administrative Officer Ross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Comstock - Stewart) Minutes of July 20, 1964 be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC :HEARING: GENERAL PLAN REPORT After comments by Chairman Stevenson on the purpose of this portion of the meeting, Mr. Warren introduced Mr. Sydney Williams , Consultant. Mr. Williams presented . the General Plan Report, in particular summarizing the goals and proposals of the Plan. Following the presentation, questions and answers ensued and the Commission dis- cussed the potential problems related to the proposed extension of "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road. Chairman Stevenson reminded the Commission that the second public hearing on the General Plan Report would be held on Wednesday night, August 5, 1964. A transcript of the above proceedings is on file. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Referral from City Council - Appeal of Lawton & Lienhard Planning Director Warren reviewed the matter and submitted a plot plan of the liocation. The property is zoned R-3 and the request was for a Conditional Use Permit to con- struct professional offices with an apartment building. This construction would be:' done in three phases; no time limit was specified, however, five years was estimated. The Planning Commission recommended denial ; the City Council questioned the legality of this denial and asked the City Attorney to give them an opinion on this matter. His opinion ruled -the findings of the Commission insufficient; the Council has' now referred this back to the Commission for reconsideration. The staff has given this a great deal of thought, Mr. Warren continued, and find that the Commission sh;ould;. ,have complete judgment in this matter. If -the findings were incomplete, the Commis,Ision _ should strengthen them. i Chairman Stevenson felt this was a peculiar situation. He referred to the City Attorney's opinion questioning the Commission 's findings on the ''compatibility because of the location.'' He agreed that the Commission should either strengthen their find- ing or hold another public hearing on the matter. City Attorney Duberg stated another. hearing need not be held on this matter - the applicant submitted his applica- tion; the Commission held the public hearing and it was closed; the applicant has the right to stand on the record. -1- Chairman Stevenson explained his thinking was that if the Commission were to make any changes , the people should know about it. City Attorney Duberg stated this was not so much a matter of fact as of law and would seriously question the propriety at this time to hold another public hearing without the applicant 's consent; the evidence being all in. Chairman Stevenson remarked then, that the Commission could therefore, change their findings in this case without holding another public hearing. Vice-Chairman Stewart, referring to the City Attorney's opinion, said the Attorney cites a similar use at Fourth and "H" Street implying compatibility, and feels this is the "opinion" of the City Attorney - he has gone 600' to 700:; feet away where there is a hospital and has cited this as a related use. This particular development is proposed in the middle of a residential area - this would be the first office use. Mr. Stewart further stated that if the Zoning Ordinance is faulty, then the City Attorney should correct this. Chairman Stevenson declared they should have been more specific in their findings and say something like: "this proposed development would be totally surrounded by residential uses." Member Johnson remarked that the Commission was taking a narrow view of the sur- rounding area; there is a C-1 area across the street and to the east and the hospital which is about one-half block away, also the City Public Works Yard. He felt they could find it compatible with one of these uses. Vice-Chairman Stewart disagreed stating that these uses could in no way affect compatibility in subject area. Planning Director Warren pointed out that they must think about what the area is going to be based on the zoning of the General Plan. On "H" Street, there is a major commercial area; on Third Avenue, a commercial area and the area across the street from this proposed development is zoned C-1 . That C-1 zone is now vacant, for obvious reasons. Whenever a request like this is reviewed, the Commission should consider how it will affect the related property - whether the area is suitable for high density residential or commercial use. Member Willhite questioned under what part of the conditional use permit regula- tions are they allowed to reconsider this matter; that there should be no further action from the Commission. Planning Director Warren said, as he sees it, the Planning Commission is required to make certain findings and they failed to make these findings and have now been requested to do so by the Council . After the opinion of the City Attorney, the Council sent this back to the Commission for reconsideration since they felt the Commission should have the benefit of the Attorney's opinion. Chairman Stevenson said he was very pleased to see the Council send this matter back to the Commission instead of overruling the Commission 's decision. He added he felt the Commission should supplement the findings that they did make. City Attorney Duberg -stated four of the five findings the Commission made on the matter Were not relevant to the proceedings. Chairman Stevenson stated that the development would be abutting on all sides of residential uses , and it would be a joint use, having professional offices and apartments on the same property which is normally ill-received. Member Johnson felt if they are going to talk about being "compatible with the sur- -2- rounding area" that "area" will have to be limited to a certain distance. He added that "H" Street is a very heavily-traveled street and more and more requests like this one will be coming in. He further added that he would like to make a motion to reconsider the action of the Commission on this matter. Director Warren stated he should make findings in support of approval and so move. Motion: (Johnson) Rescind previous motion and hereby approve the conditional use permit application for Lawton and Lienhard for the construction of professional building in the R-3 zone on "H" Street between Third and Fourth Avenue. Such use would not be materially detrimental to the public health and welfare as delineated in the ordinance. The use is reasonably compatible with uses in the surrounding area since similar uses exist. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 . That applicants be granted permission only to construct professional offices as delineated in "Phase 1" at this time. 2. Permission to convert any related apartment buildings in this area at a later date for professional offices should be considered only at such time as the need occurs. 3. Prior to construction of "Phase 111, detailed architecture and landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 4. A six-foot high masonry wall or fence shall be constructed between the parking area and property to the east. Chairman Stevenson asked the applicant if the conditions were acceptable to him. Dr. Lawton said they were; however, he wished to make one thing clear: if he is permitted to go ahead with this project, he would like to be able to make an addition to the first phase professional building, should there ever be a need for it. He would bring in his plans for this addition for Commission approval . The motion died for lack of second. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Warren for new findings based on the evidence pre- sented. Mr. Warren referred to the findings he would suggest as expressed in his memo written to the Commission. City Attorney Duberg commented that he could not add to his opinion on the matter - the evidence wasn't there to support the statements of incompatibility and detriment to the public health, etc. The Commission 's findings weren 't relevant. He further stated that the findings suggested by the Director did not appear to be relevant. Chairman Stevenson stated in the five years he has served on the Commission, there never has been any problem with such findings with any conditional use permit. The Commission again discussed the location of the proposed development and the possibility of it 's being "compatible" to other uses in the area. Chairman Stevenson felt the Commission should take steps to alleviate this use from the conditional use permit regulations. Attorney Duberg stated the Commission should take this use out, if they no longer feel they want it, and amend the zoning ordinance accordingly; except for certain factors, the applicants have a right to go in here. Commission must make findings and those findings must be supported by evidence. In this case, there are only certain findings which the Commission could make based on the evidence. MSC (Stewart - Comstock) The denial of the conditional use permit be affirmed. That the findings be based on the following: -3- 1 . That granting of such conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare - such a use may logically present no problem to adjacent residential use when located at an intersection of major streets or perhaps as a buffer to commercial use. However, to locate such a proposed use in the middle of a residential area may create a conflict' in types of traffic and volumes. The cars entering and leaving this property will not be local residents and can cause a hazard and inconvenience to those who are. 2. "H" Street, between Third Avenue and Broadway, contains a variety of uses; that area between Fifth and Broadway will no doubt be predominantly commercial and office use, even though part of it is zoned R-3 , due to its relation to existing commercial development. Although much of the south side of "H" Street between Fourth and Fifth is residential and should be kept as such, the north side already has professional uses , yet has ample room for logical multiple family use, if designed properly to assure compatibility. Except at the intersection of Third and "H", that area be- tween Third and Fourth is exclusively residential . So that this area may be well developed as a desirable high density residential area, commercial and semi-com- mercial emicom- mercial use must be kept from it. Normally, only under certain conditions should semi- commercial use be allowed in residential zones; such conditions do not exist in this area, therefore, the proposed use would present problems of incompatibility. A General Plan has been prepared to guide orderly growth. Extreme care should now be used to prevent conflicts to it when alternatives exist. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Comstock, Stevenson and Willhite NOES: Member Johnson ABSENT: Members Adams and Guyer Member Willhite stated that in many cities, referral is always made to the Commission from the Council . Director Warren said this was an excellent idea and further asked the Commission if they felt the ordinance should be strengthened in view of what they encountered in this matter. Member Comstock felt -some thought should be given to this. There is a need for con- ditional use permits, but the zoning ordinance is in error if it states it can be applied to any property zoned R-3. It :should be for certain properties that are on arterial streets and those best suited for this type of development. Member Comstock further added that -some good criteria is needed in the ordinance on what and where the conditional use can be applied in the R-3 zone. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt the City Attorney should be directed to make these sug- gestions and strengthen the ordinance. City Attorney Duberg stated one remedy would be to eliminate this use from the R-3 zone, and if permitted, certain conditions should be applied or stipulated. MSUC (Comstock - Stewart) Resolution of the Planning Commission of Their RESOLUTION NO. 314 Intention to Call a Public Hearing on August 17, 1964, to Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Section 33.26) Deleting Business & Professional Offices in R-3 Zones VARIANCES Fredericka Manor - 240 "D" Street - Request to Build House Containing Less than 1300 Square Feet With No Garage -4- The application was read in which permission was asked to construct a home having approximately 900 square feet and no garage. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan explaining this lot was located on the Fredericka Manor premises , and the adjacent homes were all under 1300 square feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ralph Sexaur, representing the Local Board of Management, Fredericka Manor, ex- plained all landscaping and structures are maintained- by the Management. Mr. Warren questioned the statement in the application stating a carport would be constructed. Mr. Sexaur said this was an error; just a cement slab is proposed. The size of the lot was discussed. Mr. Sexaur declared it had 70 feet of frontage; the building would be 30 feet by 30 feet. Mr. Warren explained this lot, although less than 7000 square .feet, was a lot of record and since it was under one ownership, was legal for the applicant to build on it. The property is zoned R-1 . Mr. William C. Smiley remarked that his neighbor had three substandard lots and whether he could have the same privilege. Chairman Stevenson said this would be a matter to take up with the Planning Commission. Member Willhite commented that reducing the size of the house was one matter, but he was not in favor of excluding the requirement for a garage. He added he would go along with a one-car garage, rather than the two in this particular case; how- ever , the idea of a garage was to provide incidental storage and to enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. He felt this Commission should stick to this principle. Member Comstock agreed, however, he stated that after looking at Fredericka Manor, ' he finds it one of the most attractive areas in the City. They do not have the problem of boats and cars sitting out in the front yard; their grounds are main- tained by professional help. He added that a garage could be required; however, in this case he is inclined to go along with a carport because most of the residents do not own cars and operate electric carts. Chairman Stevenson agree that the development was a pleasing one; however, he felt asking for a one-car garage was not asking for too much here, and it would enhance this area. MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Variance to construct a home containing approximately 900 square feet be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . Applicant must construct a one-car enclosed garage with this dwelling. Further, that findings be as follows: 1 . There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said Ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in this same zone. All of the adjacent property is part of the Manor and contains homes with less than 1300 square feet. Many have been built . without garages , some with carports. The development provides retirement homes for -5- couples with no children or single persons, thus limiting the need for a large home or two-car garage. 3. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone in which said property is located, since what is proposed conforms to that existing and is all under one ownership. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Permanent Zoning of Certain Properties in Chula Vista Planning Director Warren noted on the map the different areas proposed for permanent zoning. These lands were interim-zoned R-1 and R-3 when annexed to the City. Mr. Warren referred to a letter on file from Mr. Frank Ferreira, owner of the Grout Annexation, asking that the permanent zoning proposed for his area (R-3-B-3-D) be readvertised and R-3-D zoning be considered here. The staff would recommend this; if it were readvertised for R-3-D consideration, the Commission then could grant less restrictive zoning if they so desire. RESOLUTION NO. 315 Resolution of Intention to Call a Public Hearing MSUC (Comstock - Stewart) on August 17, 1964 to Consider R-3-D for Portion of Grout Annexation Mr. Paul Yaeger, 414 "J" Street, questioned the zoning proposed for the land owned by the Calvary Baptist Church on Bonita Road. He wondered if this R-1-B-15 zoning proposed would still enable the owners to build a large church here, a school and possibly a Pastor 's home. Mr. Warren stated this proposal would require a con- -ditional use permit; the land is zoned R-1 , the zoning would in no way alter the use of the property. Planning Director Warren explained the setbacks proposed for the Princess Hilltop subdivision, commenting that it matches what is built there. RESOLUTION NO. 313 Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending (Comstock - Johnson) MSUC to the City Council Permanent Zoning for Certain Properties in Chula Vista as follows: The following lands to be permanently zoned R-1 : Princess Hilltop Subdivision Flynn Annexation Greg Rogers School Park Site Francine Annexation Grout Annexation (portion of) from interim R-1 to R-1-B-15 Further, that setbacks for Princess Hilltop subdivision be established as follows: 10 feet - Hilltop Drive 10 feet - Palomar Street 15 feet - E. Orlando 15 feet - E. Olympia 15 feet - E. Oneida 10 feet and 20 feet on Cuyamaca Street MISCELLANEOUS - City Attorney's Report on Request from Warren K. Hatz Mr. Warren explained that Mr. Hatz requested permission to lease a part of his land on Third Avenue, between "K" and "L" Street, to a service station for use as a parking lot for U-Haul trailers. -6- James Duberg, City Attorney, stated he has talked to Mr. Warren about this matter, _ and informed him that a conditional use permit is not appropriate for this matter; it will have to be done with a variance. Chairman Stevenson informed Mr. Hatz to apply for a variance. Workshop Dinner Meeting A date for the dinner workshop meeting was discussed. It was the concensus of opinion that the Planning Director would suggest a date at the next Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Willhi.te - Johnson) Meeting adjourn to August 17, 1964. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GENERAL PLAN REPORT City Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1,964 The first public hearing on the General Plan Report was held by the Planning Com- mission of the City of Chula Vista at 7:00 P. M. , in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson and Willhite. Absent: Members Adams and Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Sydney Williams , Consultant, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Duberg, City Engineer Cole and Chief Administrative Officer Ross. The following is a transcript of the General Plan Report presentation and public hearing held by the City Planning Commission on August ,3 , 1964. After some introductory remarks by Chairman Stevenson and Director of Planning Warren, Mr. Sydney Williams of Williams, Cook and Mocine, presented the General Plan Report. Mr. Williams: I 'm happy to be here because it's been many months , in the order of a year and half now in which the preparation of your General Plan proceeded. There's been many meetings , many stages for its review. Now that the Map has been adopted, we' have the Report which accompanies it. A section of the Report will be adopted and recommended with any modifications that. the Planning Commission desires , follow- ing the public hearings. In the Report, you will notice that parts referring to the General Plan; the part that will be officially adopted is Part III of the Chula Vista General Plan. 4 Although the Plan has to do with the physical future of the City, primarily, and the °'map is particularly of significance because it deals With that development, I think the Report, referring to the Plan' is also important because it contains the prin- ciples and standards which affect the overall development of the City. As some of _ the recommendations in the Report will , over the years, turnout to be as important, think, as the map itself in determining the future policies that will be followed ; by the City. ,As I am sure that my partner has pointed out in many of our previous meetings, the '.General Plan is to be thought of as a compass point in direction rather than a 'blueprint which is to be followed precisely in every detail . The mere fact, however, that the Plan has been developed which represents work by all means not solely or primarily by the Consultants but by the staff, and consideration of the Planning Commission, is a guide in which the many factors of growth and future development can be coordinated in ways together. As changes are made, or if changes are made in the future, there 's this direction to change from. If the Plan were not prepared, you would be in a position of many communities without plans for each decision with very little to relate that decision to. For the future years , as decisions are made by the Planning Commission and by the City Council in regards to public develop- ment for zoning or other majors that effect the future development of the City. Here at least is the guide for which the direction can be taken or if the direction is: changed, it 's a conscience change of direction. I 'm going to be relatively brief, because I realize that the presentatirn s of the Plan have been made many times starting with the Sketch Plan in the order of a year ago, and that you have conducted hearings on the Map and adopted the Map. Now, if you ' ll refer briefly to the front parts of the Report. The General Plan is -1- designed to accommodate the guide for the future development of the City. The five major proposals of the General Plan are as follows: Industrial Development. I 'm sure you know how concerned you are here with your economic base and the need to expand and diversify industry in the City, to provide employment and to provide a tax base for the City. All in all , approximately 3000 acres of land have been set aside; it is not presumed that the entire amount will not be used even in the planning period which goes to 1990, but the sections that are not proposed by 1990 are left in industrial reserves so it will be available for future years. Fourteen thousand industrial jobs that are contemplated would re- present your share of industrial employment in the San Diego area. Central Chula Vista. Chula Vista has the problem of an older business district close to the Civic Center which is seriously affected by complications from com- petition from new shopping centers in the City and which is an area historically important and important again in view of passes and values it represents. So the development of the civic and cultural center ties in with the revitalized Third Avenue district is an important objective of the Plan. Perhaps more important than all of this is the fact that the city of Chula Vista will be expanding into this planning area east and will have size geographically and has a size much greater than it has now, and that the expansion area in the east can be planned to accommodate the future development in advance of the development, and create a better community than the redoing of an older community could ever achieve. The expansions to the east focus to extend on the Junior College which will not be simply suburbs, acreage estates and low-density development. One of the important concepts in the Plan of the Junior College is the shopping and the multiple facilities that would justify the higher-density development in that area, .and will in a sense be provided into the community and be a part of the city of Chula Vista. Open Spaces are emphasized, the research that was done in connection with the Pian shows that in terms of recreation you 're below standards. You can desirably achieve open spaces in the Plan making use of natural ravines and other areas that are not conducive to private residential development. The lakes certainly should be ex- panded and used to the utmost, together with the canyons and agricultural reserve for land which will not be developed for a number of years. As far as circulation is concerned, the pattern will surround you in fact with three full freeways which will be of value in getting around your own communities as well as making use of the metropolitan San Diego area as a whole and a freeway that will ma'r_k its boundaries in the older and newer communities. Of course., the important proposal in the Plan is that Chula Vista is in an area that has an ideal climate: most fabulous beaches , recreation center in a recreation6lly oriented county. We should make the most of this which hasn' t perhaps been the case to date - that the marina that would utilize the bay front development with a provision for motels and other tourist-oriented facilities which would also strengthen this base for your future development. In order that the discussion of the Plan may be reasonably brief, I think it might be well to review the goals of the Plan. We think of the Plan again as a document pointing the way to goals which were adopted after many months of work by the Citizens committees representing your entire community. The goals reflect the summary of the Plan: improving and expaning the economic base; preserving and enhancing the resi- dential quality of the community; providing adequate and convenient public facilities to serve the anticipated community; developing a circulation system within the city of -2- Chula Vista and linkages to the region and to Mexico which will be -convenient, efficient and harmonious with an optimum pattern of land development; and to pre- serve and enhance the beauty of your community. Certainly with the environment you have here, preserving and enhancing the character of the community is one of the most important things. I 'm not going to review in greater detail the principal proposals of the Plan, be- cause I think in previous meetings, in previous discussions, these have been mentioned many times. You on the Planning Commission, and those of you that have reviewed this report are probably familiar with them as written here. I think it's important, though, that the principals relating to residential development be reviewed, because even though you will be hopefully expanding your base and even though your commercial market and commercial development is increasing and increasing very well indeed, your prime asset is your residential community. Maintaining the character and value of your existing, desirable neighborhoods; redevelopment and rehabilitation probably on an involuntary basis of the areas that have fallen behind; planning of centrally located schools and parks. In the new parts of the City to the east, you have an excellent opportunity to do just this. Protection of residential areas from objec- tionable, hazardous and other incompatible uses and urging new concepts in residential design. I think its particularly important when you're moving into hilly areas that you do everything possible to avoid re-contouring the entire landscape from the newer con- cepts that have to do with clustering the new developments and enable the same overall densities of population to be achieved without the excessive grading which is in- volved in standard tract house or even larger lot types of development. Higher densities have been suggested and the gradual replacement of single-family development close to the heart of the present community; as I mentioned earlier, higher density development in the vicinity of the Junior College making it truly the focus of your newer development to the east. think this is probably enough on the Plan for the moment. I think it's important again to emphasize the preparation of the Plan despite its cost and despite the many months which have been spent by the Planning Commission, the Planning staff and ourselves; a relatively easy task compared to the carrying out of the Plan. The carrying out of the Plan will determine whether it is simply a document prepared because the communities do prepare plans , or whether it represents a set of policies the City in fact intends to carry out. This is the responsibility which I think is of the most importance. We are pleased at the reception of the Plan to date is favorable, public reaction is good, but we are, I think, above all concerned that it represents the real desire of the City to make Chula Vista not only larger, and you are going to be three times. or more greater, as the years go on, but in fact, a much better community as well . think, Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions. . . . . . Chairman Stevenson: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Does the Commission have any questions before we open the hearing? There's one thing I would like to have you talk about, because I think it's the most unique proposal in the Plan that came to my eye - this has to do with the recommendation in connection with underground utilities. We heard that this is taking place in other areas. This has not happened on a wide-scale = basis in Chula Vista. Now., how do you tackle something of this nature - do you first put it in on a wide-spread basis and apply it to all developments or do you restrict it to the most luxurious-type developments? What has been your experience in other , areas - how do you approach this very touchy subject? -3- Williams': I 've always felt that if utilities had been stored underground 75 years ago, that they would be able to prove that you couldn't afford to put the wires up on poles, but I know that ten or fifteen years ago, we were told that it would cost at least ten (10) times as much to put these underground. Now, we are quoted-,-, in the order of $200 per dwelling unit, which I suppose is the cost of a luxurious built-in oven in a housing unit. In communities where I 've worked, we had given the Planning Commission the power to require that utilities be put underground with respect to residential subdivisions. The Planning Commission should certainly be discreet in exercising this power, but there appears to be no legal reason why this power cannot be given to the Planning Commission. The City of Oakland has recently broughtout policies in which new subdivision development will have underground wiring - this represents all subdivisions. Stevenson: All subdivisions, regardless of the nature of the housing development, the quality, etc. ? Williams: Right. The City of San Francisco apparently has had a franchise for many years requiring a certain number of miles of wiring to be put underground each year, and the franchise exercises the wires that have to go underground. I think we're talking about the value, and as I mentioned, the value of about $200 per dwelling unit; and if the wiring in the community were to be put underground, then this cost would be added to the dwelling unit. Then it 's a question as to whether it 's to the benefit of the community to adequately represent this cost. Stevenson: Thank you. The public hearing in this matter is now opened. I certainly realize that for many of you this is probably the first time you heard about the General Plan, and you have not had an opportunity to secure one from the Planning department as yet. But, we would appreciate hearing any comments you do have to make, and we would like to let you know that Wednesday at 7 o'clock, we will be holding another hearing on this same subject, so if you have a deep-seated interest in this, let 's hear from you. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Chula Vista: In regard to the underground facilities and the price quoted, $200 1 think, that only applies where you have the utility companies segregated; I mean where they are in competition with -each other. seriously wanted to install underground utilities in my next subdivision, but the figure quoted to me was almost twice that amount. Now, I have discussed this on previous subdivisions and I have learned that where there are differences that exist between the Gas and Electric Light Company, they do have the cost down to where it"s reasonable, however, I don't think it's reasonable at all . Willhite: Did they talk "direct buridl" to you on your last subdivision? Even that was approximately $400 per dwelling? Ferreira: Yes , if I recall correctly, and it was about six months ago, I believe they quoted me a price of an approximate figure- I can't guarantee it - of $375 per lot. Willhite: That's even with direct buriall which is just like trenching any lot? Ferreira: Yes, now the telephone company will install their lines underground at no charge. Willhite: It 's the. same process? Ferreira: Yes. Now in the Los Angeles area, I believe they are getting them in for $150 to $200; however, the Edison Company up there is in stiff competition with the Southern County Gas Company and they're absorbing part of the cost. -4- Warren: Well , this might not be particularly pertinent to the problem, but it's interesting that this $200 figure is approximately the figure quoted me by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company. I 'm surprised to hear that that's not true. Ferreira: We91 install it then in Bonita Cove at $200 a lot. Stevenson: Is there anyone further who would care to speak? Mr. Cecil E. Sparlin , Mayor of Chula Vista: Perhaps , Mr. Chairman, I have a question. In your amount in figuring the acreage for industrial land, did you include all of the waterfront and the properties in there? Williams: Are you referring to this area? That represented all of the land shown in blue on the General Plan Map. If you look on the left, that would be all the waterfront property except for the sections designated as the marina and associated activities. Stevenson: As I understand it, he has included the Unified Port District area. Now, if there anything further? If not, then the public hearing in this matter is closed. Gentlemen, do we have any further recommendations or discussions on this? One thing that has concerned me a little bit in reading of this; of course, it relates to the Map and the hearing that we had on the Map itself. At that time, I thought the Commission had two or three points on the Map that they were, let's say, concerned about, and yet the general feeling was, well , it's a guide; let 's approve it and get on �with the show. The more I think of this, the more I think that either tonight or Wednesday night, we should make our feelings specifically known on these two issues, and I 'm referring to "H" Street and the road that cuts across the green area out in Bonita Valley (Otay Lakes Road) which we discussed. I think we should make our feelings on this a matter of record -- approving the General Plan except for items so-and-so. Perhaps we don 't want to get into that tonight, but I just want to let it be known what my feelings are. Anything further? Willhite: Yes. I think this was very definitely brought out by the Commission; that if they're not included, and I 'm not speaking out in leading us in approval , but in reality, we should take a definite stand as far as these developments are concerned. . . rectify- the stand as a matter of record. Stewart: Well , in a sense, since we have approved the land use map and it has gone to the City Council , I think we should make a record of it unless we want to call back what we have previously done and start all over again; I 'm in agreement completely. The question of "H" Street, you ' ll notice on the General Plan, it 's not too far beyond the present developed area and I believe, Halecrest School . I believe that "H" Street and "J" Street alignment come very close together, and since for ten or twelve .years , I 've been very closely connected with the traffic problems that have to do with "H" Street and Montgomery Freeway, I feel that we should make ourselves heard and make a record of the fact that "H" Street is overloaded presently, and we know we are going to get an interchange on "J" Street. During the time the streets and high- ways committee was holding their meetings on this , it wasn 't known then that there would be an interchange on "J" Street and Montgomery Freeway. This subject has been one that has been talked about a great deal with the South Bay Highway Association, of which I have been a member for several years, and the Streets and Highways committee in the Chamber of Commerce, and I feel that getting into the back country, the cost of development as stated by the City Engineer has pointed out that "H" Street align- ment after it gets beyond the alignment of 241 , is up Rice Canyon, and you won 't be able to get any assistance from developers in the area in building streets. Something would have to come out of gas tax funds or general fund, or something. -5- Warren: I 'd like to comment on this if I may. Based on some recent developments and considering the fact that the hearing tonight was advertised for that of the Report, that the Commission has adopted the Plan as is, I would like to suggest that such action, either an amendment or recommendation, not occur tonight. I believe that since you have forwarded your recommendation on the Map, and as you now have the opportunity to give the complete package to the City Council in the near future, that we should do .this. I think that there is a complete possibility that the Plan will be referred back to the Commission - possibly one item, possibly two items - it 's .difficult to guess at this point. , At that time, I think you' ll have an opportunity to amend it or recommend it in whatever manner you wish and possibly be a cleaner and a more organized manner if we do it at that time. Stevenson: Well , I 'd like to ask a question that perhaps Mr. Williams can answer. As - I understand it, you are performing similar consultant services in many other cities. It wouldn 't seem to me to be completely out of order to approve the General Plan except for - and then cite two or three, areas that we're not com- pletely in accord with, and let this go on to the Council , and they can approve the Plan in total , or they can approve the Plan .with certain exceptions or refer it back for complete directions. I think the fact that on the Map, we approved it on the basis , well , it 's a guide; I think there are some quarters that feel we have ap- proved everything in that map, and we are responsible for everything in it; whereas , if you were here at the meeting, you 'd know better than that. This is all I 'm trying to get across. Williams: I think the problem. . . . . . .you approved the Map as the best circulation system that could be devised - it seems to me the best, if practicable. The changing of one aspect of the Map will change certain others; that's a statement that needs two clear alternatives. I think the most progressive step would be for the Planning Commission to respond by approving the General Plan and bringing it to the Council to pick up on one or two of these very definite ideas and have it back to you for specific review. Stevenson: Well , how do they pick these items up unless we make them a matter of record - that we want them to look at these items perhaps a little closer than some of the content. If we simply approve it, we're not giving them any of our guidance whatsoever, with our staff thinking. Warren: May I answer that? I think these points of controversy are already occuring. It 's pretty clear to me that some further study is going to be sought on this. think the problem tonight, if the Commission for instance, were to amend their original endorsement or adoption to change this, would be inappropriate in that we haven' t had any opportunity to study this. Let us , for instance, cite the example of "H" Street; if we want to consider changing this, we've got to devise an alternate, and I think it would be impossible tonight to say that "H" Street would come out and something else would go in without further study. I think it's going to be necessary to present to the Commission certain- alternatives , at which time they will review and make their recommendations back to the City Council . Johnson: (Bruce Johnson) Mr. Chairman, since there is specific reference to "H" Street on page thirty-four, I think if we do have any comments or reservations about it, I think we should make them now in this report concerning the General Plan. Although there were no comments here tonight from the public at large, I do recall the .last hearing on the Map,there were some such comments. Also, I 'm wondering if you have some information on the progress for designing where these interchanges go, whether or not there might be a time element involved here in getting the information to the State Highway Department. -6- Warren: We have now a freeway agreement between the City and the State about this Inland Freeway or 241 as it was once called. The freeway agreement stands as it was executed at that time, and if in approving the General Plan, it alters this in -any way, we' ll take that negotiation in the future with the State, but I don't think the action that has transpired in any way jeopardizes that area. Williams: You understand from the point of view of the public hearing will be a specific document that you now have. Subsequent public hearings: your actions may be to endorse the Plan or Report as presented, amend it or recommend it on to Council or to make certain changes. Comstock: (Member E. Alan Comstock) I was just going to ask that very point. After all , this Report has been made by a group of experts. We have a certain amount of information and data; they have to send it back with certain recommendations and suggestions to us. Now, as to whether or not the City, the Commission or the Council agree with this , whether or not they think "H" Street should be extended through Rice Canyon or whether they think it should be extended south through Southwest College or whether it should be extended at all , or just what, is something that I think is rather immaterial at this point. The people we have engaged to make this report have made their recommendations; whether we agree with it or not, I believe it is our duty to accept the Report, and to live with it, change it and modify it as we see fit, after the acceptance of this Report. Frankly, I 'm a little amazed that we should be, thinking about making changes in the Report already. I frankly can see much merit in "H" Street being extended to the east; I can't see much merit in the extension of "J" Street. I also see that this is a report that is not an exact blueprint as Mr. Williams said earlier; it is something that says the road may go through number four green at the Bonita Country Club or it may go through number two green instead. It can be shifted around to some extent. I don't believe that we are going to be tied down to any exact pinpoint location as to where the new road or extension is going to go through: But I am seriously questioning the advisability of this Commission at this time making any changes in the recommendation and development as presented by Mr. Williams and his organization. Stevenson: Well , I hope I made myself clear. . . . there are many recommendations in this Report. The only poisition I 'm trying to make is that we would like it known that we accept the greater extent of the recommendations but there is one or perhaps two that we are not in total agreement with. It seems to me wrong to blankly approve the entire Report. Comstock: We just "accept", what we "approve" is something else. Stevenson: I feel it may put us at a disadvantage to "accept" this. Willhite: I 'd like it explained now - what is accepted and what isn't. Comstock: We would acknowledge receipt of the Report, then study it and review it. IVillhite: I see, in other words , you feel it is time for accepting the Report as presented to us , but that doesn 't necessarily mean we approve it in its entirety. Comstock: Yes. Stevenson: Is that all we're doing? Warren: Yes. Tonight there' ll be no action. You're required to hold two public hearings by law. -7- Williams: Yes , that 's correct. You close the last hearing then your action is to recommend it, adopt it as is or adopt it with changes, or refer it to City Council and get their actions back to you. Stevenson: Well , Gentlemen, what .is your pleasure? Any further discussion? Stewart: I have one comment, Mr. Chairman, I 'm in agreement with the point that was made by Alan. The General Plan will be almost under constant review or changes as the changes become necessary, as it 's been pointed out - it's merely a guide, not a hard and fast rule, and it will be necessary to make may changes. hope we' ll be able to keep up with the changes and make them when they should be made, so I don 't think it's imperative that we say we're not going to send it through until we might correct one or two items that we have. I think that a matter of record should be established so that it will be taken care of so that we either approve it as is or else we make changes. This is going to be a constant duty of this group and the staff. Now the Council may review this and keep it up to date. Stevenson: Well , I think, and I hope Jennie has made this a matter of record, our thoughts on "H" Street and roads - this type of thing is a matter of record so that in- the future if there is any discussion on this , they' ll know what our thoughts are. This is the main thing that I wanted to have done. Johnson: Well , I can't think of a better time to make comments on the Report than right now at the public hearing. In fact, that 's what the staff recommended. Stevenson: Well , Gentlemen, I think the item has been discussed for this evening; we' ll have another hearing on this Wednesday night. Suppose we have a motion and take care of this item tonight, and further our discussion. . . . Warren: Close the hearing. Stevenson: We' ll just have another hearing rather than a continuation? Warren: Right. Stevenson: We have to close this hearing. Stewart: I so move. Comstock: Second it. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Comstock, Johnson, Stevenson, Willhite NOES: None ABSENT: Members Adams and Guyer. -8-