Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-08-05 PC MINS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers - Civic Center August 5, 1964 A special meeting for the purpose of holding the second public hearing on the General Plan Report was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on Wednesday, August 5 , 1964, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, at 7:00 P.M. , with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson and Guyer. Absent: Members Willhite, Adams and City Attorney Duberg. Also present: Director of Planning Warren and Junior Planner Lee. The following is a transcript of the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL PLAN REPORT Chairman Virgil D. Stevenson: This represents the second public hearing in con- nection with the General Plan, which as many of you know, is our road map, our guide up to the year 1990. To begin with, we are going to have the Planning Director for the City of Chula Vista give you a ''bird 's eye view'' of what is in the Plan. If you 've not actually seen it yourself, it's available through our Planning Depart- ment here in the City. And then we ' ll open the meeting to the floor, and anyone of you who have comments, we' ll be most pleased to hear them. Bruce H. Warren, Director of Planning: As the Chairman has indicated, this is the second of two public hearings required prior to adoption of the Plan. The Commission, after this hearing, may take action recommending adoption, or they may carry over their decision to a later time, as they see fit. This Report which the Commission is considering tonight contains about 100 pages , which accompanies the General Plan Map which was presented to the City earlier this year. It is somewhat unusual for the two to be separated but because of circumstances at the time, they were. So the Planning Commission has adopted the actual Land Use Map at an earlier time. Their action tonight would normally be the adoption of the Report and the two would be forwarded on to the City Council who will hold a public hearing at a later time. Now the Report. I 'm just going to go through this very briefly. The Planning Commission has reviewed this many times previously and so has the public at hearings; this has simply been expanded and consolidated to its final stage. This Report is made up in five sections: one is ''Chula Vista Today'', which covers the historical development, physical characteristics , population growth - simply the background information for -the Plan. The second section related to the future growth of Chula Vista including Chula Vista population projections , future population dis- tributions , future age distributions in Chula Vista, and employ ment. Third section, which is really the Chula Vista General Plan, essentially is the part that is adopted and serves as a policy, is broken down into the goals of the Plan, principles of the Plan as they relate to Residential , Industrial and Commercial , Tidelands, Waterfront, Agriculture, Traffic Circulation, Public Facilities, Schools, Parks and Recreation Areas and Public Utilities.' The fourth part of the Report discusses carrying out the General Plan - this discusses zoning, planned community development, subdivis ion control , capital improvement program, urban renewal and annexation programs. The last part is the appendices which has all the background information data on which the Plan was based. The Plan proposed for adoption is a goal for 1990 and will -1- serve as a guide for future development; some future zoning, future land use will be based upon it. It is not a hard, fast document that is inviolable in anyway. We hope that with the adoption by the City Council , as well as the Commission, that it will set forth the policies which the city administration will use in the future. We ' ll talk a little bit. about the portion on the General Plan. Referring to the goals of the Plan, they are: (1) Improve and expand the economic base; (2) preserve and enhance the residential quality of Chula Vista; (3) provide adequate and convenient public facilities to serve anticipated population; (4) develop the circulation system within the City of 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 (5) pre- serve and enhance the beauty of Chula Vista. Then we go into the principal proposals of the Plan. Let me just run down these; I think these are particularly important. Planning of the future residential development in Chula Vista will be influenced by the following considerations: The character and value of existing desirable neighborhoods should be maintained. Redevelopment and rehabilitation should be employed to correct deficiencies of blighted or deteriorating areas when they occur. Residential areas should be planned with centrally located school and parks. Arterial traffic should be routed around rather than through the neighborhoods. Objectionable, hazardous, dangerous and other incompatible uses of land should be prevented from intruding upon resi- dential neighborhoods. New concepts in the design of residential areas should be encouraged, such as provision .of communal open space compensating for reduced lot .sizes, and the intrtoduction of planned mixtures of dwelling types. The highest densities should be located at the points of greatest service and accessibility near the central district and the more important outlying commercial areas. The most difficult topography should be developed at .the lower densities. Care should be taken in the design of future residential areas to preserve the natural amenities which make Chula Vista a desirable place to live. We go on to discussion on densities , and then there is an area on commercial develop- ment which delineates the various types of commercial development which should be encouraged in categories: retail commercial areas, visitor-commercial areas, pro- fessional and administrative areas, industrial development. This will require certain modifications in our zoning ordinance we have now and also our zoning maps in the future to help carry this out. Discussion on industry, agriculture, traffic and circulation, public transit and public facilities , schools and into the Map itself. Now, as the consultant indicated in his hearing, carrying out the General Plan will actually be more difficult, we think, then the preparation itself. Preparation takes a great deal of time, cooperation and work on the part of the staff and the consulting firm -we had. However, it is necessary that the Plan be accepted in some form on which everyone can agree as much as possible so that we can expect some cooperation and usefulness from the Plan in the future, in bringing out the develop- ment in the City. I think this is all the detail I will go into. The Plan has been available for cir- culation and reading and has been presented before, as I indicated, and will be available for those who wish prior to the hearing held by the City Council , and unless the Commission has any questions they wish to emphasize that I haven 't touched on. . . . . -2- Stevenson: I was going to emphasize, as a matter of interest to the people, that perhaps these areas contained in the General Map are perhaps more controversial than others. 1 . It does seem to encourage the City to require all the developers to put in under- ground public utilities. This will be a totally new approach for the City. 2. It recommends the extension of "H" Street to tie in with a freeway that has been proposed behind the City and of course, and 3. It does recommend that we increase our land area in terms of parks. This isn't exactly controversial but it does point out the fact that a city this size, we are substantially behind the average in terms of parks and space. I think these are three things that I wanted to bring out. Are there any questions of Bruce before we go on? If not, we' ll consider the public hearinc on the matter open. Many of you have perhaps attended the first public hearing on this that we held Monday night, and perhaps also attended the public hearing that we had on the Map itself. Now, if any of you would care to speak on any section of the General Plan, either in favor of it or opposed to it, this is your last opportunity be- fore this group. I might add that this will be reviewed by the City Council . There will be a public hearing held on this before it is finally adopted. So, if there is anyone who would care to speak on the subject, will you step forward, tell us who you are and where you live. Edwin Campbell , Attorney, 261 "F" Street: (representing Mr. and Mrs . Warren Hatz who own some property on Third Avenue between "K" and "L" Streets) : I recognize that this is rather late in the proceedings to offer any objections; however, through no fault of anyone, Mr. and Mrs. Hatz just became aware of this proposed Plan, and on that basis, we would . like to offer the following objections instigated to the Report itself. Well , I know that the Plan and Map has been adopted, but insofar as the Report relates to the zone on the west side of Third, between "K" and "L" with the exception of the two corners , it is. my understanding that it is proposed resi- dential zone for that area. The zone now is C-1 . The people along that street have inevitably had the desire to keep that commercial property and it would also be to their advantage and to the advantage of the City and to no detriment to the City, it should remain C-1 . I recognize that this is not a zone change even by the adop- tion of the Plan or the Map; however, I think that eventually that there will be a further study by your Commission and the Council as to certain zone changes probably to conform to this Plan as it is adopted; while it is not mandatory that you follow it, but anyone following the Plan as adopted may be persuaded especially in the immediate future where zone changes are proposed. I feel that I would like to have you give consideration to this one particular area, between "K" and "L" which is termed thoroughfare commercial property in the Report. Whether or not this would be detrimental to,. by reason of the Plan, to have this remain as commercial property while the most of Third Street is and probably will remain commercial - thoroughfare commercial . I think there might be some protectional changes to a block or two north of that but especially if you recognize the construction around "K" Street just to the west. It looks like it might be quite difficult to make all of that, as proposed by the Plan, into a practical residential zone. I would assume that any zone change would carry a non-conforming use. Most of that area now is certainly not conforming; it will be difficult to see why that area will be jeopardized when the C-1 reaches back, I believe, to a distance of only 219 feet. The following property owners have' also signed an informal petition asking that you consider not changing or recommending any particular change as set forth in this -3- language: "We the following property owners , oppose any zone change from the present C-1". Again, we recognize that this is not a zone change, but it might have the same effect and of course the same argument would be properly presented when a zone change was submitted. All of these own property on the west side of Third: Mr. Woothen, Mrs. Robertson and Mr. Martin; and I think that covers all the property that is not now occupied, that is, not used as commercial property with exception of Mr. Starkey who's out of town. With your permission, I would like to submit to the secretary this particular list and ask that you also give consideration before the final adoption of the Report, whether or not this area should remain as commercial property. Stevenson: Thank you very much. Any questions? Is there anyone else who would care to speak about the Plan? Paul Yeager, 414 "J" Street: On this .proposed Plan, Part III , the Traffic Circulation, after reading some of the articles of some of the Members of this Council , it is undoubtedly opposed in pushing "H" Street through. I 've made a survey, I and several other citizens of Chula Vista, and we feel definite that "H" Street should be the street to go through. Therefore, by putting this street through, we adopt this area of residential property over a block of eight. . . If we continue on this plan, the City Commission feels they are going to do, and this Body gave their permission for a subdivider to go ahead and build his homes. The very next day you gave this - man permission, the City engineering department started to survey "J" Street. And if we widen out "J" Street with how some of the members of the City Council and Commission feel towards this, we are moving over 32 blocks - these are not from "J" and "K", but they are small blocks in between, every bit of property along that whole street clean out to Rice Canyon. This , I feel , will be too expensive to do; we will create a traffic problem along this street; we will have a highway with very heavy .traffic traveling past three elementary schools. I 've heard reports , read articles in the paper, and those people who made those statements have never .-considered in their statements about these three elementary schools which "J" Street does go by, plus several churches also. Now, as far as this General Plan is concerned, I think this is a very good Plan, and I firmly am very disheartened with the citizens of Chula Vista not coming down to these meetings to see how the City grows. I don't know what we can do in the City to get the people, interested in their City; I don 't know whether this Planning Commission can do something about it or not. You remember the first night we had a meeting at Hilltop High, we had approximately 175 people. there. Ever since that time, it 's been dwindling down.. Sure, it's the same thing hashed over. I don't know whether it is proper for the Planning Commission here to call on their friends and neighbors and try to get them to come down to these meetings so that the people themselves can see what you people are trying to do. I sit up here, stand up here, argue with you and everything, but in general I think we all agree -on everything. But I definitely am opposed to this thinking of making "J" Street one of the big circle streets. I think, in the long run, it will cost the City more money to do this "J" Street project even though we do have an interchange there, or a proposed interchange, I still feel that it will cost the City much more money and a lot of grief, a lot of heartaches, because I for one, after this is adopted - I can't do anything until you adopt it - I propose to have a petition signed by at least 98 % of the people on "J" Street opposing this change from the Plan that we have. Because if "J" Street goes through, and the people in this street are definitely for "H" Street, because we feel that disturbing approximately 12 homes and part of the High School property which is just a play area for the High School , is I:much more feasible than disturbing 32 blocks of residential area. Stevenson: Thank you. -4- Vice-Chairman Stewart: Let's see, where do you live? Yeager: 414 "J" Street. Member Bruce Johnson: You don't object to having "J" Street extended as a secondary thoroughfare as shown on the map? Yeager: As it's shown on the Map, the way I looked at it, it's not widened out, but it is a secondary street; "H" Street is not a secondary street; "H" Street is a full width street. Stevenson: I' think it is a four-lane street now. Yeager: Right. "J" Street we have to go all the way down. This is where the money is going to come in and no doubt, probably several court actions. I feel we should stick with this Plan; I think it hashed around many, many times. Like I said, there is no mention of the schools , high schools or elementary schools. We have to protect our kids , whether they are going to protect themselves or not, the citizens are going to have to protect them. The less traffic we can have on that street, the less pro- tection they're going to need. Stevenson: Thank you. Anything further? If not, the public hearing in this matter is closed. Gentlemen, anything further? I think we hacked this up Monday night. Any new thoughts come to you? Member William Guyer: Just one comment on this General Plan - there' ll be many changes over the years. Member E. Alan Comstock: Just thinking, Mr. Chairman, in relation to Mr. Campbell 's comments representing his clients, we're discussing something on Third Avenue for 1990 not 1964. 1 think that instead of today, we do not have the demand for the commercial property along Third Avenue. It appears to be questionable that we ever will . I 'm not speaking of zoning from a planning standpoint; I 'm speaking of it from a fast and hard economic supply and demand law. First of all , as far as land planning and zoning goes, we can zone the entire desert area commercial , but if we don't have a demand for it, there isn't going to be any development or use for it at all . I think this is something that we have to consider also in our master planning -- again, I point out that this is for 1990 and not the next 2 or 3 years. Stevenson: I think that is a point well taken. I 'm actually a bit surprised that there hasn 't been more comment on the, well it 's proposed re-routing of the traffic down Fourth in lieu of Third. If you study the map closely . . . . . this will , I assume, take considerable traffic off of Third , probably involve lesser demand for com- mercial on Third Avenue. Stewart: I think so. Traffic will no longer go on Third. This was poi-rated out at least on two of the public hearings that -we held at the school buildings. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I feel here tonight, we are approving the broad General Plan; we have already approved the map itself, and I would have no reservation about voting in favor of it bearing in mind that if there are specific items in specific areas where further study is needed and where this Plan will be reviewed at least every year and there should be a public hearing at that time. So that 's my viewpoint be- fore you're ready to vote on it. -5- I Guyer: That is an excellent suggestion. $omstock: If you're ready for a motion, I would be very happy to move. Warren: You must "adopt" it.- Stevenson: A resolution adopting it. . . .before we vote on this. Comstock: Do we have a resolution drawn up on this? Warren: Yes, "Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, California, Adopting the General Plan Report". Comstock: Is that all we need for the resolution? If you're ready, Mr. Chairman, I so move. Stevenson: Fine, do I hear a second? Guyer: 11111 second it. Stevenson: We have a motion and a second, any further discussion? I.'d like to ask that the comments the other night - the minutes, etc. , will go forth to the Council . Warren: It's a transcript, word for word. Stevenson: Fine. All those in favor of approving the General Plan, signify by saying "aye". Opposed same? (The vote was unanimous) . Motion carried. Discussion on Fredericka Manor Vaniance Planning Director Warren asked the Commission for their opinion concerning new developments in this request. The variance was granted by the Commission at their !fast meeting allowing them to construct a dwelling at 240 "D" Street having approxi- mately 900 square feet. The Commission stipulated a one-car garage must be attached. Two facts not pointed out at the hearing were: (1) there are garage facilities on the Manor property and (2) there is a provision in the State Fire Code requiring in a D-2 type occupancy such as this , a minimum of 20 feet between buildings. The Commission concurred that this matter should be held over until the next regular meeting and requested that the Fire Marshal be present. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Meeting adjourn to August 17, 1964. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary