Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-04-11 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA - � April 1 , 1964 The regular adjourned special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber at Civic Center on the above date with the following members present; Stevenson, Stewart, Johnson, Willhite, Comstock,_Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also Present: Acting Planning Director Warren, Corwin Mocine, Consultant, and Junior Planner Lee. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjourment as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meeting of March 25, 1964. Chairman Stevenson opened the hearing and thanked the many people in attendance for coming to the meeting. He explained there would be a period , after the presentation by Mr. Corwin Mocine, for anyone caring to make any comments ,, to do so. Chairman Stevenson then asked Mr. Bruce Warren for his comments. Mr. Warren thanked the people for coming and for showing their interest in the Plan. He explained this was the second of two public hearings, as required by' State Law to consider the General Plan. The Plan has now been in preparation for 12 years; the public hearing for the Sketch Plan was held in December, 1963. The Planning Commission tonight could make a recommendation for adoption of the Plan. Hopefully, the City Council will endorse the Plan after considering the recommendation from the Planning Commission, next week. Mr. Warren added that adoption of the Plan will be held up until mid-May or June. Mr. Corwin Mocine, Consultant from the firm of Williams and Mocine, San Francisco, made the presentation of the Plan. He explained in detail the industrial , commercial and residential proposals of the Plan. Mr. Mocine outlined the need for more parks and noted the locations on the map of the areas proposed for these developments. Schools, shopping centers, tourist commercial areas , agriculture and proposed "green spaces" were explained at length. Mr. Mocine then summarized the network of streets and highways. Following the presentation, public comment was then invited. The following is a trans- cript: Mr. Frank DeVore, Right-of-Way Supervisor for the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, submitted a letter which he read, as follows: "This letter is in reference to the proposed Master Plan now being considered by the City of Chula Vista as prepared by Williams and Mocine, City and Regional Planning Consultants , San Francisco, California. It is realized by San Diego Gas & Electric Company that the Master Plan is an adopted guide which will be used by the City of Chula Vista to obtain the orderly development and expansion of the area up to and including the year 1990. It is also realized, that while many of the proposed streets and other common carrier facilities are shown on the map, their precise location will not be known until such time as the area is developed, or it becomes necessary to actually construct the improvement. -1- In this regard, San Diego Gas & Eectric Company would like to bring to your attention, the proposed location of the San Diego Arizona Eastern Railroad Main Line right of way through the northerly end of Company's South Bay Power Plant property, and by this letter place ourselves on record as objecting to any proposal or future precise plan that would be made by the City, the Railroad, the Unified Port District or the State Division of Highways to locate the Railroad through this Company's property, in the location as shown on the Master Plan. We would sub.mi,t •~ :.. ;..ahe,;following reasons on which we base our objection:y �';R•,p;,, I . It has always been San Diego Gas & Electric Company's intent to locate our future • yoi il',s1'orrage�Ktahks1s the yarea i1rimedia,te-l.y sout'her ly off the dew "J':x'Streeit >S,torm;D.ra i n, 4" wester liy ofd theextens i on' of our? 150 footfee..owned `transmj,ss�,on �mer i ghtoft.way. The of 1' storage tanks,°when ,con tructe'dk;°tivr`1lobe 'use`d"`i`n connect on vii th the urlta:mate expansion of the South Bay Power Plant. �l 2. The future additions to the South Bay Power Plant will necessitate the construc- tion of additional transformer and exit transmission line facilities , the area required for this purpose will completely utilize Company's remaining property northerly of the proposed generating units. 3. It is not possible to construct transformer and switching equipment in such a manner as to straddle a railroad considering the Railroad Commission, Utility Com- mission and other jurisdictional safety requirements which, in our opinion, would be required if the Railroad was to be located as shown on the plan. For sometime, we have been aware of the consideration by the Unified Port District and the State Division of Highways to locate the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Main Line right of way to a position west of Highway 101 to better serve the tidelands. We, of course, do not object to the relocation, however, it is our opinion and • suggestion that further consideration be given to the southerly point of connection with the Railroad 's existing alignment so that there will be no conflict with San Diego Gas & Electric Company's proposed future development. In this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of service to you or your staff in re- solving this matter." Mr. Frank DeVore (continuing) : If there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them. I realize again, as I say, it is a Plan; however, it would practically ruin most of our eastern property. We have discussed this with the Railroad and they know of the letter, and with the Highway. We felt that for the future, we should make a statement. . Thank you very much. Stevenson: Do you have any comments you care to make on that, Mr. Mocine? Mocine: I would say that the Power Company's needs , of course, are tremendously important to the development of this community and would certainly have to be re- spected, but I would suggest also that the main policy suggested by this Plan would be just as well accomplished if the railroad crossed at a slightly different point. don't think you would say that was really disturbing the Plan in any way. This seemed like the smoothest and most simple alignment and that's why we put it there. We wouldn ' t be disturbing the Plan by realigning it. Stevenson: In other words, if it crossed the freeway at a point just above their property line, it would serve the same purpose? Mocine: Yes, you would have to cross somewhere, the alignment becomes a little more difficult, but I 'm sure not impossible. -2- Stevenson: Fine, thank you. Is there anyone further who would care to speak about the Map? i Stephen Gassaway: Speaking for the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association: In our remarks last week, I 'm sure the impression was gathered by most of you and certainly by the Press that we had some points of difference and that we had some recommendations to - ma the modification of this Plan. We would wholeheartedly like to convince this Commission -Ithat we enthusiastically support your Plan. There are two areas in the Sweetwater River Bottom, in the flood area, that we think in time will deserve further consideration. But, at this time, if the experts don 't feel that they should modify their map, we would not hesitate to fully endorse this Plan which we think is "forward- looking." We appreciate the fact that many people from the Valley were asked to serve on the preliminary committees. We appreciate and think it's "forward-looking" that for the most part, the north-easterly portion of this map, which includes the Sweet- water Valley has been designated for low-density area. We think it "forward-looking" too that the green-belt through the river itself is preserved - the river valley. Though it might not be newsworthy for a dog to bite a man, it 's probably newsworthy that the Civic Association, for once, is not barking at something that disturbs it but are endorsing your "forward-looking" Plan and hope that you recommend adoption,.to the City Council . Stevenson: Fine, thank you. Anything further? Clint Matthews , Chula Vista Realty, 580 Third Avenue, Chula Vista: I served on the Citizen's Committee and also on the Streets and Highways Committee of the Chula Vista Chamber and also on the Highway Association. All three organizations are verymuch in favor of this Master Plan , and I wish to especially congratulate Williams and Mocine and the Planning Department on the extension of "H" Street into the eastern areas. I have argued many times in favor of this and I 'm very happy to see it on the Plan. I wish to especially endorse the extension of "H" Street. One suggestion some of us on the Broadway Association have was to plan on a larger business area from the shopping center over to Third - the area that you have in the high-density apartment area now. We hope that it would be a business area so that we can ask another large business like Sears Roebuck which is coming in into the Shopping Center riow, and we think there are probably other large concerns that might locate in the Center of the business area such as. at "H" Street and _Fifth Avenue. Thank you. Stevenson: Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Cal Aiken: I 'm from the Bollenbacher and Kelton Corporation, and I have a request I would like to make the Planning Commission. I am speaking on the assumption that you plan tonight to adopt this Plan and recommend it to the Council . As you know, we have a large investment in the eastern part of the City in which we have put quite a bit of improvements: sewer, water and gas lines to the property. Until this morning, we have been completely unaware of the Master Plan or pending improvement plan. would like to request a minimum of one week delay on the approval of this, so that we may study how our development will be effected by this Plan. Stevenson: Thank you. Hamilton Marston: I represent Broadway-Hale who are engaged in retail business in the Chula Vista Shopping Center. I have had the opportunity of serving on one of the committees pertaining to the Plan, and I am verymuch in favor of this Plan. It is a -3- very good guide for the development of the City, and particularly with our experience in San Diego in which we experienced earlier some of the changes that come with the changing of times. I congratulate Chula Vista for moving so early to prepare for these changes. noted that when Mr. Mocine was speaking of the Plan, that he spoke of the choice that was involved - the choice of the City with respect to the extension of "H" Street. I would like to second what Mr. Matthews has said. I think the extension of "H" Street to provide linkage between two important retail areas of this community is an extremely important element of the Plan and very important to the commercial development of the community. C. R. Campbell , 43 Corte Maria Street, Chula Vista: A little over a year and a half ago, Otis Pemberton and myself were priviledged to be asked by the City officials to co- chair the beginning of the citizen 's committees which was suggested to us as a means of bringing to volition what we see here tonight.. We would like to take this opportun- ity to express our sincere thanks and commendation to several of the people who have done the most work in this effort. While many have participated, I would like to point out first of all the very professional and objective approach of the firm of Williams and Mocine, to Mr. Bruce Warren, Mr. Fred Ross, their respective staffs , we believe have done a fine job. We are priviledged also to be here to see this Plan in its final form and to wholeheartedly endorse it, and hope that the Commission does likewise. Thank you. Frank Julian, representing San Diego County Road Department and especially Mr. Speer, the Road Commissioner: He asked me to point out that the County has gone through a very similar procedure in adopting the County Master Plan of major streets and high- ways. Of course, this does not have the scope of the General Plan, but it does cover one portion of this transportation 'system, and this was approved by our Planning Commission and will be subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors next Tuesday, April 7. Unfortunately, there are a good many major discrepancies in the eastern portion of this Plan, between the Plan that we, I hope, are in the process of adopting and the one that you are considering. This area is, of course, mostly outside the area of the city of Chula Vista and what- ever efforts are made to guide this development in the immediate future will have to be made by- the County. ' So, I would like to urge that effort be made to cause in some way to eliminate these discrepancies so that we can get together on a Plan that we can depend on you until .you are ready to annex the area. Vice-Chairman Stewart: I would like to get some estimate of the time since this gentlemen and the staff of the County have gone over the discrepancies. How much delay do you feel is essential in order to reconcile these discrepancies? Julian: This depends somewhat on how strong you feel about some of these routes. There are several of the major east-west routes that appear to be very similar to the ones we have. There are quite a few differences in the north-south routes and a few in some of the minor east-west routes. We had reasons for putting them where we• put them, we thought. We will have to determine whether your reasons for putting them in these locations are more important than ours , and then we' ll have to decide which route should be protected. Stevenson: Are these majordiscrepanciesor is it a matter of relative locations? Julian: In some cases , it is a matter of location and in some cases it is a matter of what the route accomplishes. In general , this is a grid pattern. Ours is a grid with some variations where many of them are dictated by topography. Maybe we are trying to -4- serve a different end than youJre trying to serve. Of course, there are many ways in which a road system can be developed to serve an area , but unfortunately, you hit on one and we hit on another. Somewhere along the line, it will be necessary that we agree on one plan. Member Comstock: What year do you envision your plan to be your optimum; what year do you envision its full development? Julian: Our plan is intended to be for an indefinite period, subject to revision. This is a revision of an already existing Master Plan , and we are shooting ahead as far as we can see now, realizing that we will have to revise from time to time. Most of the areas as they are developed are annexed by cities, but we don't ordinarily keep the urban areas very long after they develop. To that extent, we are actually your care- takers , and it is necessary that we have a clear idea of the precise direction in which to proceed in this caretaking. Comstock: What are your plans - for instance, ours reaches for the year 1990. Julian: It's intended to be approximately a 20-year plan. Stevenson: Mr. Warren, I know this map was discussed with the Port District, was it also discussed with the office. this gentlemen represents? Warren: I wonder if I can make some comments on this. We have two letters here that I would like to have the Clerk read in a moment: one is from the Transportation and Traffice Engineer in the City of San Diego, and another from Dr. Miller , Planning Director of San Diego County. They refer to the Plan in general , but in particular to the routes east of the City. Of course, the Sketch Plan was reviewed by these agencies rather extensively. As I indicated before, the General Plan is in basic conformance with the Sketch Plan; however, there are some differences. A little over two years ago, I spent about a month in the transportation research office in San Diego participating in this County study and laying some ground-work for the major street plan that Mr. Julian is talking about. I was new in this area , of course; since that time, I 've become somewhat wiser about the area with which we 're directly affected. However, I don 't consider all of the discrepancies significant. The topo- graphy east of the city, of course, is very rough;the major streets , I think to a degree are limited to canyons or mesas. This is not necessarily the case, but the Plan, to a degree, suggests this. We have not, on this Plan, shown very many of the collectors; there has been some attempt made to delineate the .route of some of those. I suppose, depending on who prepares the Plan, we can come up with a number of routes; however, there should be some sort of a consistency involved whereby we can work together. Naturally, in the future, we' ll want to do this, working out detailed plans. I would like to have the Clerk read these two letters now, if I may. Stevenson: I think it would be appropriate to read them now. If I interpret your remarks right, you say there's no insurmountable problems. Warren: This would be my opinion. Some of the discrepancies have been discussed and I thought, sometime ago resolved. But judging from some of the comments I received last week, perhaps the other agencies involved consider it more significant, but I think the letters will help explain it. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, before we go on with this , I believe in a former presentation, -5- Mr. Mocine or Mr. Williams commented that in the undeveloped areas to the east, there - have been definite intent to locate exactly some of the access roads in, the area. Now I would like to hear Mr. Mocine 's comment on this. Mocine: Yes , Mr. Stewart. That 's quite correct. Necessarily, the easterly part of this Plan is more general than 'the westerly part because it deals with an area that 's entirely or almost entirely undeveloped and in which we have tried to suggest the nature and the broad pattern of a development system rather than the exact details of it. I think the clues to the road system that we have suggested here are essentially two: one, they reflect our natural concern that this area function well and tightly with the existing city, in other words , when it develops , or when it finally becomes a part of the city, it will become a real part of the city and not just a second cousin which orients entirely in a different direction. In the second place, we have thought that the whole development in this area could be benefited in a major way by a real center at this point; focused, in other words , on this whole development. . . . . . cultural focus, educational focus and service focus and a population focus, and there- fore to some extent, our street system reflects this by making this point right here the most accessible point, if you like to put it that way in this whole .area. Now, it may very well be that the County with the whole County to think about and without these particular concerns of ours would come up with an entirely different system. I have no very serious doubts that we can work these details out, but I think there are, just as Mr. Julian suggested there were, good reasons for his selections, there were good reasons for ours , and so far as it is possible to establish the practicability of a road from the kind of topography that we had to work with, and without making engineering studies, we think our roads, somewhere within a few hundred feet of where we've shown them on the map can be built. Stevenson: Would you read the letters now, please? Clerk: First letter is from Martin Bowman, Transportation Engineer, City of San Diego and it reads as follows: ''Thank you for a chance to review the Chula Vista: General Plan prior to the public hearing on April 1 , 1964. This kind of continuing cooperation among jurisdictions will help insure successful long-range planning in the metropolitan area. We have reviewed the General Plan and although it does not coincide exactly with the adopted plan of the City of San Diego, we find that there are no significant differences in concept or in general network design. You may wish to consider three minor items: 1 . It is our understanding that the County and the State are planning a collector street crossing the South Bay Freeway to give local service to the area between Woodman Avenue - Otay Lakes Road and the San Miguel Freeway. 2. The proposed marina in the vicinity of J Street will prevent development of a southerly extension of Tidelands Boulevard on a direct alignment. Perhaps it would be possible to plan a street nearer to the railroad south of the marina , extending towards the proposed Otay Freeway. 3. We suspect that the alignment shown for H Street-Rice Canyon Road will encounter formidable grade problems. Detailed design studies may be necessary in the next stage of planning. In the past, the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, and the County of San Diego, have undertaken cooperative analysis of trnsp6rtation needs and plans for your -6- General Plan .area. Simi-far analysis -can be undertaken using the data from this more current plan, if you desire. We also suggest that the Chula Vista General Plan be included in the proposed new series of metropolitan area-wide travel forecasts called "Project Update. " This project will produce forecasts of travel needs based on land use plans. The Chula Vista General Plan would be a significant contribution to the necessary input data." The second letter is from Dr. Willis H. Miller, Director of Planning, County of San Diego: "This is in regard to your notice of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission 's hearing on the proposed General Plan, to which we earlier responded by letter dated March 25, 1964. At that time, we reported the results of our analysis of the Sketch Plan as we had not then received a copy of the General" Plan. Following a`t,somewhat brief comparison of the General Plan with our current Sweetwater Area study, ':we conclude that the .eland use categories of the two generally are in agreement. The highway category of the General Plan also is generally in agreement, with one major area of exceptions , with the new County Master Plan of Major Highways. The exceptions occur in the easterly section and result principally from the signifi- cant difference in the alignment of the San Miguel Freeway. While it would be desirable to conduct the necessary studies to resolve these differences as soon as possible, it would seem unwise at this time to delay the adoption of the General Plan and the Master Plan of Major Highways by our respective legislative bodies. We strongly urge, however, that as soon as possible after adoption of these two plans , the City and the County, together with the Division of Highways , undertake jointly to establish a mutually agreed upon alignment forthe San Miguel Freeway and for related routes in the general vicinity. " Stevenson: Thank you very much. Any further comments? C. W. Gillman, Hill Road, Bonita, California: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would like to first commend the Commission and Mr. Mocine for the foresight in making this plan, certainly I think it has many admirable features. I am here, however, to object to one rather minor point, at least it looks minor when you look at the Plan. The way I look at it, you have a road here that will be going through my living room. At the hearing in December, some comments were made by Mr. Frank Phillips in relation to the secondary route that would pass from Bonita Road at the Corner of Glen Abbey Cemetery southward to the "E" Street extension. It was mentioned at that time that since the map was a Sketch Plan and Williams and Mocine had been made aware of the fact that this passed through an area of rather dense development at the northerly end. At that time, Mr. Phillips also suggested two alternate routes which seem to be feasible as far as this topographical map is concerned. Mr. Mocine said also at that time, that his Plan was developed primarily from aerial photographs and these things were very flexible. Assuming that these things are flexible and this being primarily an undeveloped area, I would still like to place an objection to the route that exists on this map" and in doing so, to also state that I represent the families of Basham and F i tzpatr i ci:. Thank you. Stevenson: Thank you very much. Anything further? Frank Phillips: Civil Engineer living in Bonita on Grevillea Way: I wish I had this map when I worked on the Division of Highways; it would have made it much easier for me -7- to locate the Inland Freeway in the design of the four interchanges that I worked on. My primary interest is in the Bonita area; 1 live on Grevi Ilea Way near Mr. Gillman and I would suggest that the collector road as shown there be located to the West of Gen Abbey or connect by the mesa on Otay Lakes Road. My objection is primarily, that it disturbs a developed area which one of the objectives of the report is to preserve the developed areas; also, that the topography is not suitable in this area for an alignment for this type of road. Primarily, this would cause a great deal of grading and scarring of the area , and we wish to maintain the natural beauty of this area - this rural and well-kept area. Stevenson: Do you mind showing us on the map the specific area you are talking about? Mocine: I think I know the road he is talking about. Phillips: This road right here. It could be located over in here; the grades aren't any better here than they are over there, of if you run along the mesa and connect it with Otay Lakes Road. Member Adams: Have you attended any of the other meetings? Phillips: Yes , I attended the meeting in December, the second hearing. Mocine: I would like to comment on this. This is a problem we have been aware of that we tried to find a solution to. We did do one thing - two things , as a matter of fact: we divided the road after the objections provided for it in the Sketch Plan. We also reduced this category from a major to a secondary. We feel that the _size of the area between Otay Lakes Road and the freeway, and from Bonita over to Rice Canyon is such that there will need to be atleast a secondary thoroughfare through here some- where. This , after flying over, walking over and driving over this area , as well as studying the maps is the best that we can find, but we are perfectly willing and even anxious to have a better solution, if there is one. Also, we would point out that the kind of more intensive study which I suggested in the first place ought to follow the General Plan, area by area which the city might very well require here in order to serve this particular problem. It may not be able to be solved here at this 'scale, I don 't know. I don't want to evade the problem, but I think it is a very good problem. Phillips: It is my own opinion that this residential area should be kept separate and not be bi-sected or crossed or connected with any secondary streets. It should function as an area within itself, because most of the streets are sub-standard from the City standpoint, although they do have adequate access. Bringing additional traffic into the area would only be additional hazards , as far as I 'm concerned. Stevenson: Thank you very much. J. B. Norton: Bonita , California: I would like to second Dr. Gillman 's and Frank Phillip 's suggestions. Robert Jones , Bonita, California: I would like to "ditto" that. Stevenson: Thank you. I might save some time on this point - perhaps there 's a lot more "dittos" out there. Would you raise your hand and ,give us an idea of how many people have thoughts on this particular point? (no hands were raised) I guess we've covered that angle of it. -8- Paul Miller, 350 "E" Street, Chula Vista, realtor: I have had the priv.iledge of working on one of the committees for this Plan. I think the Plan generally is very nice, but a Plan that covers as many properties that this Plan covers, there 's certain to be some that would be omitted. One of the areas that seems to be omitted - from the present C- zone is the area between Oxford and Palomar which is currently C-zoned all the way down, I believe. We represent some people that own property on the corner of Palomar and Third there. Also, on the main street area, we have a buffer there going practically into - is your ochre color designated as R-1 , R-2 or what is it? Mocine: I suggested earlier it is residential at medium density, but it doesn$t exactly translate into any zoning categories, as it might be made up of different categories. Miller: Well , we have R-1 there practically up against your M zone. We represent some people that have property on the corner of Fourth and Main, which I suggest might be commercial property. Stevenson: There are bound to be certain problems in this respect. I notice, for example, I think it 's First Avenue, they haven 't shown all the way through to the distance it runs now. I don 't know if these are major problems. Thanks very much. Mocine Regarding the First Avenue point, Mr. Chairman, the part that we show there is the part that we have to function as a major street - the rest of it still exists. Stevenson: Is there anything further? P. R. Patrick, Otay Lakes Road: I have one question which I could have .asked last week, but I think you answered it this evening - the waterfront area does include wharfage and so on, am I correct? Mocine: Yes , this area here would be commercial wharfage, this would be recreational , etc. Patrick: The other thing you mentioned was the lake area should be maintained as recreational . I might be facetious and say, what lakes? The upper Otay Lake is now a little puddle and the Lower one is not much better. I didn 't really mean to phrase that in that facetious fashion; I wondered if there might be any plan to do something such as has .been done in Elsinore up north. As it stands at the moment, the Lakes are San Diego City property and not much to them. The only other observation I had was that the Freeway people we heard were talking in terms of a quarter-million people living on Otay Mesa in twenty year 's time; and we seem to be talking roughly about 160,000 - 180,000 in this much larger area. I don't know if there 's any discrepancy again between the Highway and you. Stevenson: I think it means again that they want to annex Chula Vista very badly not very many people live in that area. Patrick: I have another question that was touched upon last week. Is the Plan to annex us to Chula Vista or how is the land going to be acquired or what is the process there? Stevenson: I don't know whether I can answer that except to say that I don 't know of any changes in the current annexation plan; I suppose it will follow the plan now in existence. It would depend upon the ownership and their desires. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? -9- Cecil Sparling, 96 East Emerson, Chula Vista: Having served as the Chairman on the Streets and Highways , I would like to compliment Williams and Mocine and the Planning Department, in the Plan that they have come up with. I realize that no Master Plan can be laid right down to -- it is a guide. _ Some of the plans that have been laid out there, for instance, for zoning for high density and low density may change as time goes on. think, all in all , we have a very good plan. I am also very pleased at the letter received from Dr. Miller in not holding this plan up. I hate to see a delay for small problems that can be taken up as time goes along and as the problem comes up. Thank you very much. Stevenson: Anything further? Fine, if not, the public hearing in this matter is closed. Gentlemen, it 's your turn to batter it around. Vice-Chairman Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on those made in the undesirability of delaying the adoption of the Plan based on those things that have been discussed here tonight in opposition. I don 't believe it can be possible to develop a Plan as extensive as this one without going into areas where there wouldn 't be some conflict of interest. I would like to stress what MfrMocine said in his opening remarks, this is a guide of necessity; the Plan will have to be changed from time to time in years to come. It would be doing the City a disservice to delay this for adoption. Stevenson: I think we are all in concurrence with that remark. We have the alternative of forwarding this as it is , or forwarding this with recommendations; in other words , specifying certain exceptions as a whole that we do not go along with. Are there certain aspects that bother you to the point where you might want to make exceptions? Member.Guyer: Mr. Chairman, Ithink this Plan is a very good one. I would like to see it go to the City Council as it is. Stevenson: There are two things: minor ones in nature, but being a golfer, I was wondering about the road going through the Bonita Valley Country Club. I realize that even though it is on the Plan, nothing may materialize from it. It seems like a minor point. Member Comstock: In Los Angeles, there is a golf course where you play across the free- way and under the freeway. Stevenson: Yes, I know of that one. Is this a definite thing you had in mind, Mr. Mocine? Mocine: There is a question of connecting across the freeway from this center. I hesitat-- to find another route we can suggest, right at this time. Stevenson: The topography here would be rough; it would be almost impossible to build a road. Mr. Warren: I am sure that Mr. Mocine is aware of this. This is one point that coincides with the County Major Street Plan, as a matter of fact, appears perhaps due to a recom- mendation from the County. It 's obvious from looking at the Plan, there is a pretty wide span along South Bay Freeway between the interchanges with San Miguel Freeway and 241 , the Inland Freeway. Of course, the density of population would be low there , and topography may present a problem; but some form of local service will have to be provided. I doubt if this plan would necessitate the elimination of the Club, but it might present a little problem. -10- Stevenson: Fine. Everyone seems so happy tonight. Is someone prepared then to make an appropriate motion? Member Willhite: Did you go on record as making an objection to this particular road? Stevenson: Yes , I did, although, as I say, I recognize this is a ''general''- Plan; I wouldn ' t want the Plan held up for six months so that they would take out that route. Willhite: Well , I just wanted to second your objection because it does split the course in two, and it would eliminate it as a Country Club which would eliminate it as a green area, which we are trying to preserve out there. Guyer: Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to make a motion that we recommend adoption to the City Council of this General Plan. Comstock: I ' ll second that. Stevenson: Will you call the roll , please? AYES: Guyer, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams , Stewart, Comstock, Johnson NOES: None ABSENT: None Stevenson: Motion has been made and carried. Do I hear another motion? Stewart: I move we adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Johnson: I second it. Stevenson: All those in favor, signify by saying ''aye.'' (Motion was carried unani- mously) . nani- mously) . Meeting adjourned at 9: 20 P.M.