Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1954-02-15 PC MINS MINUTES OF' A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COWISSION OF TF2 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held hionday, February 159 1954 The Chula Vista Planning Commission met in the Council Chamber at Civic Center at 7:30 P.M. on the above date with the following Members presents Stewart, Poulter., Drew, Mohr, Farris. Absent: Member Smith. . Also Present: City Planner Wagner., Asst, to the City'Engineer, Johnson, APPROVAL OF MITN'UTES It was moved by Member Mohr, seconded by Member Farris and unanimously carried,, that the minutes of the meeting held February 13 1954 be approved., copies having been mailed to each Member, SECOND PUBLIC HEARING - Master Street Plan. This being -the time and place, as published in the Chula Vista Star, for the second public hearing, Chairman Stewart declared, now we will be glad to hear from anyone in the. audience who has any recommendations or comments to make on the plan., and when you speak., vire-would appreciate it if you would,state your name and residence, please. Marius Rocle: I am Marius Rocle, 899 Second Ave. I want to first find out whether this is. the first public meeting on this new plan. The other public meeting was the opening of ."L" St® Now, we're not opening up BILI' St., we're sick of "L" St.' and I'd like to know whether this is the.first public meeting so that I can get in touch with my at- torney concerning this change. Chairman Stewart: Well, there will be another public hearing on the Master Street Plan., Hr. This is the second public hearing on the Master Street Plan. . The change was recom- mended at the last meeting. Mr. Rocle: I was here.,' I did-aft hear of any change. I heard an objection that the Com Club would give you fifteen feet and they were recommending to shove the re- mainder of it on the other side. But 'there was'no change recommended of going through the lots which Mr. Wagner just mentioned. Mr. Wagner: The last meeting of the Planning Commission held February 13 1954' under ager-Ta- Mm., "Discussion., Major Street Plan",, the minutes read as follows: "Mr. Wlfitt Higgs appeared before the Commission to speak in opposition to the extension of "L" St. through the San Diego Country Club property. Member Mohr suggested that 150 ft. rights- of-way with 100 ft. travelways be shown on the waterfront, or industrial area, plans. After a lengthy- discussion., it was moved by Member Farris, seconded by Member Mohr and unanir-usly carried, 'that "L" St. be relocated to a point 150 to 200 ft. north of the present property line along the San Diego Country Club property. After further discus- sion, it was moved by member Mohr and seconded by Member Smith, that all streets in the industrial area be reduced from 300 to 150 ft, rights-of-way. The motion was carried by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Members Mohr, Smith,- Farris, Stewart. Noes: Member Drew. Absent: None. Not Voting: Member Poulter", Mr. Rocle: Well, that was done. after -the meeting, after the public hearing. Chairman Stewart: That was a regular convened Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rocle: Yes, no one was.present there. Mr. uTagner': Oh yes, there were quite a few people in the audience that were present. Mr. Rocle: Well, the invitations that you sent out were over with.' We Vieren't supposed to be present after the discussion. I knew nothing•about this, it was not published: either, that you had made a change. Chairman Stewart: That was the public hearing, sir, this was a regularly convened Planning Commission meeting. Nin. Rocle: Yes, that's what I understand, Planning Commission members made the change after the meeting, after the public meeting, which I knew nothing about. Chairman Stewart: Yes, it was a regular meeting, and that question did .come up for discussion. Mr. Rocle: Well, then I wish to make mfr objection the same as the Country Club made their objection to the reopening of that road. Chairman Stewart: Well, that's fine, is there anything else you would care to add to that, sir? Mr. Rocle: Nothing else, just object-to it. Mrs. Dinwiddie: I'm Mrs. Dinwiddie, 53 1111 St. Would you clarify what you told the people about "L" St., now? I understand that you're shifting it now, you're not going to open it completely through? Chairman Stewart: Yes, it would veer north after it leaves Third Ave. for a distance of about how.many hundred feet, Fred? Mr. Wagner: It would be on a- reverse curve starting at a point about 50 ft. in from Third Ave.' a 500 ft. centerline radius reverse curve with a tangent of about 120 ft, to another 500 ft. centerline radius. Its laid out to scale on an aerial photograph for anyone who would care t6 inspect it more in detail. And actually, the .south line of the right-of-way is approximately 150 ft. north of the south line of most of Res. Rocle's property. Thereby allowing the possibility of future subdivision with lots on both sides, facing on this UL+i St. opening. Mr. Rocle: You can't do it unless you put the sewers down there, because you have such tremendous lots, to cover your ten thousand feet area. on the remaining width I have. Mr. Wagner: On the south side the lots would be 150 ft. deep and on the north side they would be 100 ft. deep. Mr. Rocle: Well, if youput a 60 ft. road, that would be all right, but not .an 80 ft. Mrs. Dinwiddie: The road is planned to be an 80 ft. road? Mr. Wagner: 80 ft. right-of-way* Mrs. Dinwiddie: What is the travel width of "L" St. up by the Club? -2- Mr. Wagner: "L" St. on all other sections where it exists is 80 ft® Mrs. Dinwiddie: That's an 80 ft. road up there now? Mr: Wagner: Well, its an 80 ft. )right—ofviay, its only a 36 ft. travelway. Mrs. Dinwiddie: I mean the street proper as it stands now, as you see it, it is what' atouut 6 MY ' ? Member Mohr: 36 ft. wide. The rest of the. City has an 80 ft. right—of-gay. All they're doing is just exactly the same thing. In other words, "L" St. will be the same width as it appears now. Mrs. DimrLddie: And how far will that extend beyond, we'll say Mr. Donovan's property or where they're having this new section. Will that continue on out to what they call Telegraph Canyon? Mr. VTagner: It will continue on out to the proposed 395 highway. Mrs. Dinwiddie: To the proposed highway? . The new proposed highway? In other words' Then., Wait will discontinue the Palomar program that you had planned to connect with Telegraph Canyon. Mr, Wagner: No, thatts another one. Mrs. Dinwiddie: How can you prevent that? Thatts exactly what it will turn out to be, 3 •• ere's another plan out here on "L" St. and this connects to, a new proposed highway. Mr. Donovan: Excuse me, Mr. Wagner, I think my neighbor's confused with the two Palomars sEe's talking about Palomax St, in Castle Park, not Palomar Drive, Mrs. Dinwiddie: Itm perfectly aware of that. Mr. Wagner: We feel that we will need at least these three main routes east and west. Mrs. J. D. Peters: I think what shets trying to tell you is, will that become a truck route inasmuch as Palomar gets a lot of heavy truck traffic' will "L" St., due to the overpass being on Harbor Drive, will it get a lot of heavy truck traffic, because we consider its a pretty nice section to have a lot of trucks going through there. Mr. Mohr: I think the intent of having this Palomar St. connection from Telegraph Canyon Rd. is to designate that route as 'a- truck route, so that "L" St. would definitely not have any truck traffic on it. Mrs. Dinwiddie: Which one would be done first, the Palomar St. or the "L" St., which would-be opened first? Mr. Wagner: ?'Fe feel that "L" St. is one that we would have control over and probably it woga oin first. All other streets that are out beyond our City limits are suggestions to the 'County to add to the Countyts Master Plan, which they may or may not do, they might not add these extensions at .all. We think its good planning. Mrs. Dinwiddie: Except that if you put that overpass in and open that street, then there'll just be no reason to have another truck route there on Palomar St., because- they'll automatically-use that "L!' St. -3® Mir. Wagner: Not if its not allowed by Ordinance. Are have an ordinance in existence at the present tim that designates different truck routes and its illegal to drive trucks on them, except for local use, for furniture trucks, etc. Member Mohr_: Getting back to this point here, the thing is that until 395 extension is built' you can rest assured that "L" St. is not going to be continued on out any further than where its going to serve a subddvision. When 395 is built,,its conceivable that if the County were to accept our recommendations on the Palomar connection with Telegraph Canyon Rd., I moan those are two existing roads now, its a matter of tying the two to- gether. It might be that that's a lot closer than our `395 extension.. All of .that can be controlled by ordinance. In other words, we don't intend, or at least I''m'sure the Planning ComY ission does not intend to allol,,r any truck traffic to go over 1111 St. Mrs. Dirnviddie: Vfell, why couldn't "J" St. be opened? Chairman Stewart: Well, we've gone into all that pretty completely, and the reason orig- inally was that topography on "J" doesn't lend itself to the sa=le use as Palomar or "I'll St. do. Mr. Wagner: When you say "J" St. open, do you mean a connection with I4ontgomery Free- way? There is no overpass, there's no connection there., -and the City would have to spend some $250,000 to add one there. Mrs. Dini+vidr?ie : Vkrell, isn't the City going to have to put up any money for the overpass on nZi�7 Mr. 17agner: No, the State Highway is putting that in as part. of th2ir freeway system. Mr. Rocle: The City's going to have to spend quite a little money- purchasing that property, plus my home. Mr. On the opening of "Ll' St�6 itself, its quite possible, but it will miss your home„ M:r. Rocle: But where you're shifting IVI St. you would have just had one section of my home-6 _ ItAr. Y-Tagne-r: It misses most of your home now. Mr. Rocle: Oh, I'm just going to be right in the back yard of a 64 ft. road. Member Mohr: I wouldn't say you're going to be in the back yard, I think there'll be some beautiful lots between the Country Club and IVI St. Mr. Rocle: Not with. a 61; ft. road, :Which is the eventual plan. Meilber 1.1ohr: I'd like to buy a lot dorm there. Mr. Rocle: The property is for sale, you can buy the whole place. The City can buy it, they can make a beautiful park .right on the, Country Club, Mrs. Peters: I'm Mrs. J. D. Peters and we live on Country Club Drive, and I wonder if there vroulc? have to be a bond issue proposed to buy the lots, or is the money already available. Chairman Stewart: The money is not available to my knowledge. This Master Street Plan is something that would be implemented in the future as the needs were indicated, and provided for by the City Council., it would be up to them to take care of gays and meaizs to finance it, and it would be up to them to. determine ,,rhea certain parts of it would be carried out. The fact that we have a Master Plan laid. out doesn't mean its going to be placed into effect next Amar or in any particular period of time. It is a plan which is to be used as the needs are indicated. I iTs. Peters: Vfell, as I understand it, you are ~raking this shift to avoid hitting the Country Club property' is that correct? Chairman Stewart: Partially, that's true Mrs. Peters: Well, I believe their parking lot is 76 ft. wide, is it not, or do you have the .figures on that. A,r. 7Vagner: About that. Mrs. Peters: .IVell, if this is going to be an 80 ft. road, where are you going to get your ex a_ Vft., from their property or from our property? Mr. 17agner: From their property. t,e l d start off with it 'on centerline,, the centerline of ��L'�St, and then veer it somewhat northi-vesterly. Mrs. Peters: Well., I thought that they were objecting. Are they going to allol.^r 4 ft.? Mr. - agner: They are going to have to lose something off that one corner of their prop- erty, because 1,ve'd have to jog the whole street as it intersects Countx-y Club Drive U-i order to miss that property. It would be impossible to do it. Member Farris: I think our thinking on that, at least my thinking, was that the ,City fi- nancially will be far better off with this plan. then they would by condemning the property along Country Club and the other property along that street. But this way, eventually it can be subdivided and the subdivider can stand the cost of that street, and can dedi- cate it to the City, where the City otherwise lvould have to condemn all that property and pay for it. Lbrm Rocle: In other worm, you're condemning my property. If somebody wants to buy it., a e to subdivide it according to your plan. Mr. Farris: I don't know where your property is, sir. Mr. Rocle: We115 practically the whole road goes through it, your whole jogged road. Mr. Wagner: That would be, Mr. Rocle, if that plan is adopted by the Council. The P=H_r ng Commission is a study body and makes recommendations. lire Rocle: You're condemning the property,, that's actually what you're doing. Its just like if the Government said, "Rocle you own so many thousand dollar bonds, we're just going to take a zero off there." You're just condemning my investment. Chairr::an Stewart: I don't think that's quite the case. There can be no condemnation proceedings until such time as it was felt that the street should be put through the property. -5- Mr. Rocle.- I wouldn't be able to put a house there myself* Chairman Stewart: Not where the street is indicated. Mr. Rocle: Thatts condemning it. Chairman Stewart: Thatts a matter of opinion, sir. I think you'll find in most cities, I think one of the reasons we're in the difficulty we're in now, is that there wasnt t a Master Plan provided some years ago. Mr. Rocle: There was on "L" St. Chairman Stewart: Well, that's true. Mr. Rocle: But they're not opening up "L" St. Chairman Stewart: There's no such thing as an "L" St. now, sir. There was an easement there. I don't think the City ever actually owned a street. Mr. Rocle: The City plan was drawn up with "L" St. existing, that they had to close it. That was the original municipality. "LI' St. , the "L" St. never existed, but the plan showed "L" St. .And it had to be legally closed. Member Poulter: Mr. Rocle,, what is your desire in this matters please? Mr. Rocle: Well, I made the suggestion that we just follow the canyon. Follow the can® yon in the lowrland, around the canyon there. Get it up to "K" St. and go where people wanted it on the other side of First Ave. and Telegraph Canyon. But they originally had it going diagonally straight through the high land, not following the canyon. And they shifted to "LI' St., the actual 'ILL' St. Now they're shotring the whole darned thing through probably the most protected and desirable proper'y out in the Country Club, the o_t21�r one that has no road, and that's the reason we bought it, because the road had been closed. Chaimw-n Stewart: Is there anyone else in the audience who has any comment or recom— mandation Mrs. Peters: As a matter of past history, wasn't it brought to the attention of the Planning Commission about a year ago, when the State Highway vts going to put in this pass at 'ILI' St., and everyone tried to get it put in at "J" St., we wouldn't be in this predicament now if they had put it at "J" St. from the beginning, and it wouldn t t have gone past the "L" St. school. Chairman Stewart: That was something that was determined, its location was determined in 1947, and at the time the State drew the plans for the Montgomery Freeway through Chula Vista, the access to the freeway was planned and, so the Highway Commission tells us, was approved by the City at that time® Mrs. Peters: But, as I understand it, when the State voted the money to put the over- pass in at 'V' St., it yeas brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. I don't know whether any of you members were on there at that time, or would remember, but it was brought to their attention that by a few letters to Mr. Cloyed, that vie could have prevented this money being designated for the overpass at ''LI' and it could have.been put at "J" St. You would have had your overpass at "J" and your line straight on through. Chairman Stewart: iNell, that was a wonderful thought, and believe me, I have spent not one day but a good many days exploring that whole situation and the question of a few letters at that time changing itis not quite the case. The State Highway Com- mission did state- in reply to the inquiry, that if the City taxed to pay a matter .of $300,000 for acquiring the land and changing the highway at "J" St., maybe they would entertain the idea, but that's the situation which existed at that time. Mrs. Peters: Vdhat do you mean, the City acquiring the land? Chairman Stewart: The,buying of the necessary land adjacent to "J" St. on either side of the freeway to provide the access on to and off the freeway. If you will remember' at 11H11 St. and "E" St. the side access streets take additional land alongside the free- way to get on to and off the freeway. Mrs. Peters: IAT6113 who bought the land at "L't St: for that access? Chairman Stewart: The State. They own it down there now. You see, thatts the situation that theytre confronted with. They've already acquired the necessary land to put in the overpass there, ,you see. Mrs. Peters: VTell, coulAn't they have bought it at "Jn, too? Chairman Stewart: They might haTre in 19 .7, that I can't answer. I don't knoti4r, I wasn't in on the situation at that time: I did, however, do considerable research work a couple of years ago and what I've told you is what I found out from that. Mr. Wagner: There's another important part of it. The structure itself. The freeway was never depressed at n J" St. as it was at "Hit and n_r;", to accommodate a bridge across it. ':Tnich Tf+could mead that the structure would have to go up and over the railroad tracks and clear the 20 some odd feet to the bottom of the deck over the railroad tracks, and then by the time it met grade on "Jt' St. again, it would be almost at stational Ave... Mrs. Peters: But "L" St.'s not depressed either, as far as that goes. Mr. V+Iagner: No, but the right-of-way which was purchased in 1947-8 has quite a few ac_rzs. The whole triangular piece between the Vest line of' Industrial Blvd. and the East line of Bay Blvd., or vice versa, the East line of Industrial and the Wegt line of Bay is all within the right-of-way now, so that that was purchased for that purposes so that they could have the sweeping curves necessary and the structures within they own right-of-way. The City would have to purchase an additional amount of land equal to that and turn it over to the State, because they don't operate that way, their policy is to always have any other jurisdiction, in the event of a change in plans, make up the difference to the State itself. IVTTs. Peters: "u,lo will determine whether this street will be paved and with sidewalks, or will it just be a gravel street like "L". Who determines that? Does the Planning Commission suggest or recommend that it be paved? 1.11r. Wagner: What street are you talking about? Mrs. Peters: "L", when its put through. Because I think the "L" St. that is in the Country Club area being paved and having sidewalks, it would certainly not look very nice to have the other one just a gravel street with no curbings or no sidewalks like "L" St. is from Third down to Harbor Drive, -7- f Member i arris: V1e11.5 we have an ordinance that takes care of anything like that in the future. Those old streets were not covered on this ordinance, but anything that goes in it7 the future, is. Mrs. Peters: You mean that we can feel assured that the "Lit St. that would go in from ountry C111D Drive down to First would be paved with sidewalks and cubs? Chaiiman Stewart: Yes, we feel that it izuld be. If its opened up, I think that you cam be sure that it will be improved. Mr. ?Magner: It would be improved on the Gas Tax Funds, anyway, and the City would finitely put that type of irTrovemen-t in. They require it in subdivisions, and if they were to do the improving under Gas Tax, they would have to put it in. Mrs. Dinwiddie: Nell, are they going to be put in in that new subdivision at the end of IVI fit. nol'r`;' Mr. ',-,rag.er: Yes, that's right. Mrs. Dinwiddie.- They are? Mr. :Magner: Yes. lfrs. DL-iwi-ddie: But now on the subject of having it opened, its mainly because of this herr-Evelopt;lent.. Chairman Stewart: I don't think_ that's suite the case, no. That ne?r subdivision is not,, doesn't increase our population a great deal. If the subdiv derts _clans go through, Itm i sure it will eventually, but the demand isn't there nor•;r,, Tars. Di_n;-rlddie: Te11_, I for ones think its just a shame that you can' t keep a fey, sections in Chula Vista more or less isolated or _restricted. You find that in just about most every city except L-i California. And I've _never seer_ anything like it. Its just all muddled up. You buy property and never 1mow whatts going to happen to it. Chairman Stewart: ?A1ha-t are your desires in the matter? We would appreciate recommenda- tions as well as your comments. Mrs. Dinwiddie: Well, of course I didn't know that the State is paging out the money, They're still going to have to pay out the mor_ey for this overpass. And the overpass on "Ll' is goi?Zg to have to be a complete new cons traction. To me, I coulcn't figure out why, because theyll-1 have to spend the money for the overpass, why they couldn't rut it on it Jtt St. anytrray. Chairnz-m Stewart: I think we've explained that. The State Highl,,ray Conuni-ssi on planning a long-range one. They appropriate money for several years ahead for their programs and its something that is approved by the Legislature and it takes a great deal of red tape to change, and it takes a great deal more effort to change their minds after they have once made a plan. Its very difficult to change it, and as 1 explained a 1-Jhile ago' there really was a great deal of effort devoted to investigating the possibility of the relocation_, or an additional overpass, or �qridening the overpasses over the freeway, and we've had no luck on any of them. So believe me.,, that has been thoroughly gone into. Yr.. Rocle: You could have shifted it there about 1.50 ft. from the golf course fence to avoid that 80 ft. road. 450 ft. north of the centerline of IVI St. -8- Chairman Stewart: +Tell, t'_nat would get us into that drainage area, wouldn't it? E ` Mr. Rocle: No. You could start from before you come to Third Ave. to cut off, .there's all that bottom land there, up here, you could start from up here and start shoving over that side there' and take your grade and get back in here. Member Drew: 'Would there be some advantage to you. Mr. Rocle: Advantage - nobody wants to live with their tail on an 80 ft. highway, and especially when its going to be 64 ft. width eventually. Mr. Wagner: Mr. Rocle, all of Chula Vista is laid out in 80 ft. highways. Mr. Rocle: If you want to open up "L" St., that's all right. You know there's no "L" Sta any more. You're connecting tIt" St. Member Drew: I would like to ask zrnat the difference would be to your property there between 1 0 "ft. and --r Mr. Rocle: .?Well, it wouldn't all be on mine. For one thing, it wouldn't be all on mine, it wouldn't destroy my lemon orchard which is my income property, there's my other property also, which I lease for vegetables. IThile this way it would hit me, TAr. Bern- hardt, again me, Mr. Maroka, and then back up. - Yr. Farris: Even though that was over there 400 or 500 ft., maybe one of your neighbors migh' ivar to subdivide their property sometime, there'd have to be a street between that and Country Club Drive, Mrs. Dinwiddie I wound like .to ask one more question, concerning the "L" St. school. How much property does the City have, hour much of the sidewalk would be taken from the property there in front of the school itself. How much would the City take. Mr. Wagner: You mean at the south end of the school? Mrs. Dinwiddie: The front of the school. Chairman Stewart: Well, the City property and the school property is on the line af- fording an bO ft. right-of-way. Its well clear of that. Does that answer your question? L. J. LeRoy: For the record, my name is L. J._Le�Roy, representative of the Santa Fe Railroad. I'm sorry that I was late, no doubt you mentioned something about this water- front area before I came in, so if anything that I ask happens to be repetitious, I apologize. My previous talk here a few weeks ago was the elimination, or asking you to eliminate any reference to any streets or highways in that undeveloped railroad .tideland property lying to the West of the Montgomery Freeway, until such time as we know more about what the development might be, or what would be required for your streets. At that time I believe we were talking about streets of some 300 ft* in width. I hope that there has been some adjustment made on that, which L would like to ask you to explain. And if you can't eliminate them entirely, I would like to ask that they be,cut down to the width of the rest of the streets in Chula Vista, which I understood a while ago was an average of 80 ft., not to have them at least any tivider than that, which I think is'a reasonable width, and I also realize that its necessary to have certain streets connecting at certain points with the freeway, which our company is willing at some future time, if necessary, to utilize for street purposes. But as tiie said before, we don't know what, or how that property can be developed or utilized, and have streets —9— laid but:-.in:-,.the--:property-_, then having to go before the Planning Conmdssion and the City Council or some other body at some future date to have these changes made or streets el7mlr_ated or reduced in width, or relocated, raauir-,s quite a little bit of trouble, public meetings and hearings, etc. We, therefore, would like to have all ref- erence to streets eliminated from that area if it is possible to do so. Tdir. Wagner: The Planning Cormiscion resolution that set up this date and sent out the final map for consideration, have reduced the widths to 150 ft. TAr. LeRoy: ?'fe appreciate the concession, but at the same time we'd like to either have them eliminated or get down to ,your 80 ft. where you said a while ago, I think, T:Ir. Wagner, that all the streets were laid out in Chula Vista on 80 ft. widths, or less, and I think that's the only thing for Chula Vista. Member Mohr: ViTell, I might make this statement, and that is., that one of the main reasons why those streets presently, the ones that have access to the freeway, and of course on to the tidelands; I think the main reason for having them 150 ft. was the fact that, of course 80 ft, is considered a mi.nj�mum for a. major street within a city, princi- pally speaking now of through streets in residential properties, etc., but when you get down into industrial properties in cases where, if your property lines are only 150 ft. apart, some industry comes in and builds to their property line with dock space- for the semi's, etc., and we see what happens in downtoirn San Diego i7.i some of these areas where no laws have been made for heavy trucks to operate in, that the streets are so choked with these semi's backed up to their docks that you can't get through. Of course, the difficulty here is that the properties where these streets occur are between the main freeway and the tidelands. So vie feel that if any place should not be congested, that would be the location. Mr. . LeRoy: To add a few more words along those lines, as you know, in your construction wort; iiia all these industries now, these plants are being set back in order to have their parking and their trucks back up to their buildings, etc., and on their own property, and the-Ire usually fencing in their own property. That's borne out by two industries that are now under construction in National City there, Lyon Van and Storag e and the A. M. Lewis Co., they're one of them is 100 ft. off the street and the other one is 150 ft. off the street, and the same thing applies in Los Angeles in our industrial districts up there. I don't believe we have any industries up there where trucks use the sheets in the new areas, now. Let's don't talk about the old areas, I realize that's a bodge-podge situation. But in the new districts that are being acquired, and of course this could be considered one of them. That setback line is for buildings that are being established through City ordinances, that provide these buildings to be set back far enough to provide off-street parking for both trucks and private automo- biles, etc. 17hen you get talking about taking 150 ft. of land away for streets in there.$ it talms an awful lot of land off the tax rolls and it also appears to provide a lot of excessive land for street purposes that isn't being used in other cities where traffic is really heavy. Now, on through streets where you have a north and south or an east and west highway that's got good connections on both ends, and there's considerable traffic, not only the local traffic but the through traffic., you do need some pretty wide streets, but on these short ones vrhere you can't only go but a few blocks., and furthermore when you have openings into 24 ft. highways or roadways, onto the highways.$ it hardly seems plausible to have a. 150 ft. street opening into a 24 ft. hig'_nway open- ing, Member I1ohr: We have cut the actual roadway into 100 ft., provided the 25 ft. on either sidei^roil.$be, I mean it would be by the property, it would be on the tax rolls and probably be paved anyway. I see your point. -10- Dir. LeRoy: They didn't lay out.a 150 ft. ,street up there on that Cudahy property, did they? Member Drew: Now this street that you described there, being a major north and south street, or possibly an east and west street, because there must be some t►eans of getting in and out of that whole area, both north and south, and this plan that we have here, my visualization of it is that that street that you set up as 150 ft:. 'is that ( ? , ? ), or perhaps a north and south extremity, will turn east and go on the through highways, leaving it as a deposition. In other words, there must be at least one road there which is 150 ft. wide to accommodate all this =major in and out traffic into the entire area, those are not just little local streets that are pictured on that map. Member Mohr: I definitely agree with you, as far as streets are concerned in relation to the possibility of some big industry coming in, and its possible that it would re- quire some minor shift in these streets, but I do wish to make this point, and that is that on the main accesses to the freeway there can't very well be much alteration. In other words, those are the only. connections that we're going to be able to get on that freeway, because it is a limited access freeway. As far as these minor streets are concerned, now those are pretty big parcels of land in there, and as far as your minor . struts are concerned, there is where we're going to have to give and take for industry, Just as you've done in National City. But for those major east-west routes there, and of course the fine routes 500 ft. back from the bulkhead line are pretty well set, I mean, those we must have. Anything other than thatI think we definitely can adjust for industry. Chairman Stewart: We are trying to bring enough pressure to get those 24 ft. overpasses widened, because before they were completed they weren't adequate for the traffic. That's especially true at nEn St.. and we're hoping that we will have a better situation at "L" St. , and I understand that will be a wider overpass there, won't it, Fred? Mr. Wagner: Well, I haven't heard, I haven't seen the plans. Member Mohr:} It will have to be, because its almost impossible for some of these big vehicles now to maneuver those turns. Mr. Wagner: They actually have purchased additional rights-of-way beyond what they had. They have purchased within the last six months additional rights-of-way on the east and west sides of that triangular piece at nLn St. now, to widen out beyond what they had originally intended. Mrs. Dinwiddie: This street that you plan to make the major north and south and east and west streets -- Mr. Wagner: In the tidelands? Mrs. Dinwiddie: Yes, for the opening up. Mr. Wagner: The ones that are shown in heavy black lines. Chairman Stewart: That's just in the tidelands, now that's not running out of Chula. Vista, that's just to service the area and the tideland area. Chairman Stewart: If there are no other comments or recommendations, we will consider the public hearing on the Master Street plan closed. -11- FIRST PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning of Shapov Tract and Country Club Villas No: 2. This being the time and place, as published in the Chula Vista Star, for the first. public hearing, Chairman Stewart declared, -we will take up first the question of the zoning of the Shapov Tract. Does anyone have any arguments for or against the zoning of 0-2 for the Shapov annexation? Chairman Stewart: Does anyone wish to say anything on the Country Club Villas tract, any argument for or against the zoning to R-1? Mr. Donovan: I'm Donovan, 895 Hilltop. I'm in Country Club Villas No. 2, I believe. When you say R-1 I know you mean single residence. . Is there any footage limitation? Mr.. Wagner: Fifty .foot minimum frontage lots, 70 ft. depth minimum and 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lots. Mr. Donovan: Any limitations on the size and structure of the houses that come under it at all? --— Mr. Wagner: We do not cover housing requirements in our zoning regulations in Chula Vista. Mr. Donovan: IIs being newcomers, we understood that all those things were rigid codes like we were used to on the other coast. Our local publisher told us that the only thing the City ordinances gave a. hoot about was if the plumbing was sanitary, which was kind of a shock to us. Mr.North: I'm Mr. North, 730 First Ave. Has there been any action taken on additional access out of that new development there, other than the existing roads there. Mr. Wagner: "L1' St. opening and Hilltop Drive. That's what we're proposing, and Naples St. Mr. North:. That proposed road running into Telegraph Canyon to "J°, there's no action, I mean that hasn't been considered? . Mr. Wagner:I You mean the Hilltop Drive extension? That subdivision, this Country Club Park, will be completely in the .City by the end of this week. 'And Unit No. 2, which is the remainder of this 150 acres, 112 acres total, they will start annexation proceedings and that will bring it down to Naples St. Then there's a 240 lot subdivision that's waiting for that to come down here so they can come in, fill in the other half of Naples St. , so that Naples St. will be assured, within here, of another half mile. And that will give us a connection back to Third Ave. Howard K2Zer: My name is Howard Beyer, 28 "L" St. May I ask the thinking on the size of the lots. Did I understand you to say 50 by 70 ft.? Chairman Stewart: -. That's a minimum width of 50, sir, and a minimum depth, a minimum square footage of 7,000. Mr. Keyer: Just for information, it seems to me that in this modern day, we should have some frontage more than 50 ft. Its awfully small, that means very small houses on it. I'm not particularly interested in- the area about which you're talking, I'm just asking whether the thinking passed by us. —12— Chairman Stewart: 'That's the zone requirement, sir. In. some areas our thinking may be That that would be not great enough, but it is the minimum for R-1. There's no res- triction on size, but.that is the minimum that may be laid out in an R-1 zone. Ms. Leyer: Just why are you setting the minimum at that? Isn't that too .small? 50 ft. frontage 70 ft. depth may be enough. Chairman Stewart: No. 'you can't have the two of those together, sir. You see,' if you had a 70 ft. depth lot, it would have to be 100 ft. , so you'd have the 7,000 sq. ft. And of course, on a 50 ft. lot it would have to be much deeper than 70 ft. Mr. Wagner: We find'that today with land values as high as they are, that the average lot is coming out somewhat close to 70 ft. frontage by 100 ft. deep. That's one of the more recent subdivision requirements. Mr. Keyer: My own lot is 75 by 150 ft. and that's not too deep. Mr. Wagner: For your particular area its probably not too big for your taste, but there are other areas in Chula Vista where people will build an R-1 house, having only one house on a lot, and still get on a 50 ft. lot. Mr. Keyer: Yes, I know., but you, can prevent people from building chicken coops that will build them. Mr. Wagner: Well, to them they're probably not chicken coops,.,they're homes. Chairman Stewart: I hereby declare the public hearing closed on the zoning of the Shapov Tract and Country Club Villas No. 2. RVISED TENTATIVE MAP - Miles and Dalseth No. 4 - Harold Foster. It was moved by Member Poulter, seconded by Member Farris and unanimously carried, that the revised tentative map of Miles and Dalseth No. 4 be approved, subject to 1 ft. lots along the south and east sides of Center Street, and that the plans be changed to eliminate the combination curbs and sidewalks as per the sidewalk ordinance, and that Lots 2 through 9 be widened to 53 ft. APPROVAL OF LOT LAYOUT - South end of Cedar Ave. north of rip" St. Mr. Gustav Kershner appeared before the Commission to request approval of the above- mentioned lot, 'with regard t-o setting back to allow Cedar Ave. to eventually go through. It was moved by Member Drew, seconded by Member Mohr and unanimously carried, that the lot layout be approved with 5 ft. side yards from the north and east property lines. DISCUSSION - Recommendation on Annexation of One-half of Sweetwater Valley. City Manager Gauttereaux of National City appeared before the Commission with re- gard to the above-mentioned annexation. Mr. Gauttereaux stated as follows: The Plan- ning Commission and myself would like to possibly meet with the Planning Commission of Chula Vista to determine whether Chula Vista was interested in such a program as en- deavoring to work out a common boundary through that portion of the County running be- tween Chula Vista and National City, .to the end of establishing what we might work out to be a city limit line and one that would be feasible that we could use as a means of estimating, it doesn't mean necessarily that we're going out to endeavor to annex these particular properties on either side of this boundary, but it does more or less indicate something of possible future intentions, or we might say near future intentions so that . -13- it does give us something to be thinking about and working on. We would know, just as you would know that our common agreements are just about as such. We thout that, in our thinking, that it would in all probability fit better planning and possibly the general grid of our streets running east axe west and north and south, if we could pos- sibly work a line that would run practically straight back to a point more or less at about this point, here, which would be coming into Chula Vista's Second Ave. , approxi- mately. We hadn't anticipated anything further east than that. Of course, we feel too, that being able to tie in at a point at right angles to "Dry Ave. which, I believe would, "D" Ave. on our side probably lines up with your Fifth Ave. on dour side, which as far as National City is concerned. and- I imagine it would also relieve some of your local traffic both on Highland and National Ave. here, as it would as far as National City would be concerned. Member Drew stated that he would like to see National City and Chula Vista meet and establish a common boundary line, and also to see Fifth Ave. in Chula Vista carried out to meet "D" Ave. in National City. Chairman Stewart asked if it would meet National City's approval for Mr. Wagner to contact whoever Mr: Gauttereaux might name in National City and they together contact the County authorities. Mr. Gauttereaux repled that it would be most -satisfactory. APPROVAL - School Site in Country Club Park, City Planner Wagner read a letter from the Chula Vista City School District re- questing approval of the proposed school site in Country Club Park. It was moved by Member Farris, seconded by Member Mohr and unanimously carried, that the site be ap- proved, providing the remainder of the 9 acre parcel be annexed to the City of Chula Vista, and further provided that the Commission recommend that the School Board assure the dedication and improvement, according to Council Resolution 1352, of the North one-half of "Zn St. and the East one-half of Cuyamaca Ave. as shoim on the attached plat. DISCUSSION - Local and Secondary Street Plan. In discussing the plan for local and secondary streets, City Planner Wagner pointed- out that a policy decision would have to be reached as to whether or not it is possible to use City funds to condemn property and improve local streets to open up the interiors of some of the closed-in blocks. The Commission agreed to discuss the plan in detail at a later meeting. DISCUSSION - Zone Ordinance and Plan. Mr. 0. C. Alley, member of the Mayor'.s Committee on Business Zoning was present and discussed phases of that committee's recommendations. Some property owners on Third Avenue north of "D" Street favored Commercial zoning for their properties. Eight of the twenty-two recommendations of the Mayor's Committee were discussed in detail and due to the lateness of the hour, it was decide& to continue discussions at the next special meeting. " ANNOUNCEMENT - Of Intention to Resign. Member Poulter informed the Commission that due to the pressure of business, he was forced to submit his resignation from the Commission. He stated he was reluctant to resign but felt it was best that he should. -14- ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Mohr, seconded by Member Farris and unanimously carried, that the seting adjourn sine die, at 11;10 P.M. Jea. Steele, gecretary