HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/06/21 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 21, 1978
A special business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista
California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following,
members present: Chandler, Smith, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, O'Neill and Renneisen.
Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner Pressutti. Also present:
Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Director
of Public Works Robens, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant
City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by
a moment of silent prayer.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Specific Plan/Revised General Development
Plan for the E1 Rancho del ReS area
Director of Planning Peterson advised that while this item has been before the
Planning Commission on several prior occasions, it was readvertised for this
meeting due to the ruling made by the City attorney on May 31st that the public
hearing had been previously closed and further testimony could not be taken unless
the public hearing was readvertised. The plan is now presented as a Specific
Plan/Revised General Development Plan in order that implementation may be
handled either under existing procedures or under revised procedures to be presented
for consideration prior to or concurrent with their consideration of the proposed
plan.
Mr. Peterson noted that staff presentations and testimony received at previous
hearings are applicable to this hearing since the map and text of the plan as
proposed by the staff are identical to the map and text presented on May 17 and
May 31 and are very similar to the map and text originally presented on February
1, 1978. Under the proposed procedure for implementation when ultimately adopted
by the City Council, the Plan will not constitute zoning of the property as a
General Development Plan but would constitute land use policy as a refinement of
the City's General Plan. If the plan is adopted, the developers could file
tentative maps or development plans which would be considered by the Planning
Commission and City Council, the owners would also have the option of requesting
rezoning the property from P-C to whatever zone they wish to accommodate the
type of development they desire. If such rezoning were approved, in some cases
development plans could be approved solely by the staff. At least, that is
the nature of the amendments to the P-C District regulations as contemplated~
bY staff and the City Attorney.
Mr. Peterson referred to the map of the staff proposed plan on display, advising
that it was the result of many meetings with the developers and consideration of
many different alternatives. He advised that this plan represents what the
staff believes is the best plan for the area, as it respects natural topographic
features of the area, provides for a full range of housing types--all the way
-2- June 21, 1978
from apartments to estate or low density single family homes. The text of the
plan provides enough flexibility to give developers a reasonable alternative as
they pursue the plan. The Gersten Company and their consultants do not agree that
this is the best plan and have submitted numerous proposals for requested changes.
Mr. Peterson enumerated faults which the staff sees in the plan as proposed by the
Gersten Company as follows:
First, in the area on the north side of H Street, between Otay Lakes Road and
Paseo Ranchero, the Gersten plan calls for about 950 apartment units, as opposed
to 450 units on the staff plan.
Second, at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road,
the Gersten plan contemplates 750 apartment units, which the staff
feels is far too dense for that location.
Third, at the intersection of H Street and Paseo Ranchero the Gersten Company
wants a commercial area of about l0 acres to be surrounded by apartment and
attached single family units totaling about 710 dwelling units. The staff feels
this is far out of character for that area.
Mr. Peterson expressed firm conviction that the staff's recommendation for those
three areas is not too restrictive or too low in density. On the contrary, he
felt that even the staff's recommendation may be a little too high to those areas.
The fourth area of concern relates to the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road
_ and Paseo Ranchero where the applicant is proposing to devote an area of about
10 acres to office uses with an area just west of that devoted to apartment uses.
On the staff recon~ended plan that area is shown as open space which is based on
the designation of Telegraph Canyon Road as a scenic route on the Scenic Highways
Element of the General Plan, and also on the Open Space Element of the General Plan
which shows a substantial buffer of open space on the north side of Telegraph
Canyon Road. Other tracts recently approved, such as Casa del Rey and E1 Rancho
del Rey Unit 5, have successfully provided for such open space adjacent to
Telegraph Canyon Road. That precedent should be continued as development moves
to the east.
The fifth point of concern with regard to the Gersten Plan relates to their
proposal for increased densities in then~rthern portion of E1 Rancho del Rey.
The densities which they request in that area are in many respects ~imilar to
the densities which have been approved and for which grading is under way along
Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Peterson felt the Gersten plan does not acknowledge
the fact that the northern portion is quite remote, very rugged topographically,
relatively inaccessible, and really warrants a lower density than the area near
Telegraph Canyon Road.
Mr. Peterson noted that the staff proposed plan shows about one-third of the
entire property as permanent open space, and while that sounds like a high
percentage, given the rugged topography which exists in the area, unless massive
grading occurs large areas must remain in natural slopes or manmade slopes.
He pointed out that in the Bonita Ridge Estates development, 45% of the area
is left in natural open space; in Rancho Robinhood III, 42% of the area of the
- tract is in natural open space; in Rancho Robinhood I, 30% of the tract is in
natural open space. In E1 Rancho del Rey Units 4 and 5, which are massive
grading tracts, 27% and 21%, respectively, of those areas are devoted to unusable,
manmade slopes.
-3- June 21, 1978
Mr. Peterson recalled that in the Sedway/Cooke report dealing with the 450 acre
Rice Canyon area, it is recommended that 65% of the land be left in its natural
condition.
In comparison to those areas, the staff proposal for 33% open space in E1 Rancho
del Rey is not out of line, although it is lower than has been approved in other
developments.
With reference to the Sanford R. Goodkin report, Mr. Peterson pointed out that
the report is divided into two sections; one dealing with the commercial portion
and one with residential. He contended that the commercial portion of the report
does not justify the location of a 10 acre commercial center at H Street and
Paseo Ranchero. Defects in that section of the report include the assumption
that the trade area for that center extends from Third Avenue and D Street to
the Otay reservoir; also that the estimated gross sales per capita is based on
the gross sales per capita in all of San Diego County, which includes the sale
of cars, boats, trail ers, furniture and appliances which could not be accommodated
in a center of this size. The report also assigned a leakage factor of 50% to the
proposed center, which is far too low in view of the large market area which
they defined. Also the analysis failed to take into account the designated
commercial center at Otay Lakes Road and H Street.
Based on those four reasons, Mr. Peterson recommended that the commercial portion
of the Goodkin report should not influence the Planning Commission's decision
on the development plan.
With regard to the residential section of the Goodkin report, Mr. Peterson
asserted that it does not make the case that 8300 units are required to make the
development feasible, nor that 5800 units is not feasible. The report merely
states that the average cost of units will be higher under the staff proposal
than it would be under the Gersten plan. One basis for that conclusion is that
the staff plan includes some large lots which would accommodate larger homes
which would naturally be more costly to construct. Mr. Peterson pointed out that
under the Gersten plan about 65% of the units would be attached dwelling or
apartment type construction. That difference in housing ~ypes would account for
a difference in average unit cost.
In summary, Mr. Peterson stated that no ~erbal testimony or written reports
submitted by the Gersten Company contain information which would persuade the
staff to change their recommendation. He ~×.p~ressed the hope that the Planning
Commission would be able to formulate some recommendationto move this proposal
on to the City Council, if not for the entire 2300 acres, at least for the 450
acre portion, since the major property owner of that 450 acre portion have
expressed agreement with the staff recommendation and have been waiting for some
time for approval to go ahead with development plans for that area.
Commissioner Smith asked if the difference in opinion between the Planning
Department and the Engineering Division wi th reference to the extension of
Paseo Ranchero to the north of H Street has been resolved.
Mr. Peterson advised that has not been resolved. It continues to be the Planning
Department's recommendation that the road not be extended, although the advantage
it would provide to the circulation system is recognized. He suggested that the
street not be included on the plans, but if, as development proceeds, the traffic
generations and volumes indicate the need for that connection, right of way
should be reserved for future construction. He noted there is still a difference
-4- June 21, 1978
of opinion as to the height offill embankment that would be required across
Rice Canyon for the road.
In response to questions of procedure raised by Commissioner Renneisen, Assistant
City Attorney Harron explained that the plan for development can be implemented
either as a General Development Plan under the present ordinance provisions, or
as a Specific Plan if the City Council enacts proposed revisions to the P-C zone
regulations; the difference between the two procedures is that a Specific Plan
is a policy and a General Development Plan constitutes zoning.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Commissioner Renneisen noted that the Commission seems to be faced with two
immovable positions and given the choice of deciding which of the two is the
best plan. He personnallyfelt that each position has merits and each has some
things with which he disagrees. He suggested that the Commission hear testimony
and discuss the proposals with an aim to possibly finding a compromise or workable
solution that all parties could agree to.
Sam Blick, attorney with Higgs, Fletcher and Mac~, San Diego, representing Otay
Land Company, advised that they do not have extensive additional testimony to
offer, but would be pleased to answer any questions raised, and wished to reserve
the right to speak following comments made by citizens in the audience. He
advised that they have representatives present who can respond to questions on
technical data.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue,noted that the developer has requested a much
higher density than proposed by the staff plan and that the only evidence
presented to support the need for the higher density is the Goodkin report.
He suggested that the central question is, does the Goodkin report make the case
that 8,000+ units are required to make the project feasible; although there is
considerable material in the report about the total demand, the future demand
for housing, population changes, etc., that is irrelevant to making the point
they are trying to make except to show that the demand mill be there. He noted
there are many value judgments in the report, about what are positive planning
objectives and which are negative planning objectives, but those are the kind of
things the Planning Commission decides and are not relevant to the point of
whether it would take 8,000+ units to make the project economical. He expressed
his intent to demonstrate that the Gookin report does not make the point of
economical feasibility.
Mr. Watry discussed Table I of the report, which sets forth front end costs--
offsite, interior, land costs, etc. He pointed out that the biggest single item
in the total estimated front end cost is the figure of $132 million for marketing,
overhead and profit, which is indicated at 30% of the gross sales estimate. He
discounted the circular logic used in the table to arrive at the gross sales
estimate since the gross sales estimate is arrived at by multiplying the total
number of units by the average cost per unit, and the average cost per unit is
calculated by dividing the gross sales estimate by the total number of units.
He also contended it is illogical to use the same figure for marketing,
overhead, and profit for the development of 5800 units, as recommended by staff,
as for the 8,000+ units.
Mr. Watry questioned the land cost figure of $20,000 per acre, since one of the
reports indicates the acquisition cost of the land was about $2400 per acre,
the assessed value for tax purposes is less than $4,000 an acre, and the resale
price of a portion of the land to Dr. Bloom a few years ago was $5,000-$6,000
an acre. He contended that Tabte I is the table upon which other things are
-5- June 21, 1978
developed and in his opinion it is obviously faulty.
Mr. Watry also discussed the table relating to average family income and to
housing costs. He asserted that the so-called 2½ times income rule-of-thumb
to determine affordable housing is mt valid since it does not take into account
the inflation rate which affects incomes while the interest remains stationary
for the life of the mortgage. He contended that lending agencies anticipate
this inflation in making home loans.
Mr. Watry discussed the household income and housing cost data graph of the
Goodkin report, pointing out its inaccuracy due to no consideration of inflation.
He also noted many references in the report to low income housing in this develo-
merit. He contended that ~he rough topography of this area, as well as the cost of
street improvements, sewer and utilities, make it impossible to provide low income
housing in this area. The need for such housing will have to be met through the
resale of older housing within the city.
In conclusion Mr. Warty asserted that the Goodkin report in no way demonstrates
that 5,000 units are not economically feasible nor that 8,000 units are feasible,
which leaves the Commission at the point of deciding what is best for the community
of Chula Vista both now and in the future. For an objective, careful analysis
of that question he urged that the Commission not ignore the Sedway/Cooke study
and report, or the recommendations of the ACCORD committee which are acceptable
to at least a representative group of Chula Vistans.
Sam Blick pointed out that the Commission must be sensitive to the needs of the
_ community. He questioned that the community needs 2400 acres of very expensive
homes. He pointed out the Housing Element does not contemplate that, but calls
for a mix of housing to meet the needs of all people in the community. He
contended there is very little difference in density between the staff's proposal
and the developer's request, except that it is significant enough to change the
character of the neighborhood from estate sized homes to a more middle income
type home. He pointed out that on the staff plan far more than half of the total
area is either open space or is estate sized homes, which are difficult to sell.
He felt this area should be consistent with the Housing Element in providing a
mix of housing to meet the needs of all classes within the community. He asked
that the Commission look at the subtle differences between the plan suggested
by the staff and the changes requested by the developer with a definite inclination
of mixing the housing types, and of providing a trade off of open space for
higher density development in order to finance that open space.
In response to Mr. Blick's testimony in which he indicated that the staff plan
is not responsive to the Housing Element and therefore may be illegal, Director
of Planning Peterson pointed out that on the staff plan a total of 1640 housing
units are proposed as very low density, while a total to 2,296--a substantially
higher number--are in medium and medium-high density categories.
Commissioner G. Johnson reported that on a table from the County Tax Assessor's
office, out of 28 areas in San Diego County, Chula Vista is third from the
bottom in price of homes. She felt that adding the number~of higher cost homes
as recommended by the staff would not create an imbalance in Chula Vista housing.
-- Commissioner O'Neill referred to a letter from Mr. Lewis to the Planning Department
and contained a sheet entitled, "Recommended residential breakdown for Gersten
E1 Rancho del Rey property." He asked if this represents a commitment from the
developer to include a substantial number of low and middle income houses in
their development.
-6- ~' June 21, 1978
Carmen Pasquale, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, affirmed that this is a definite
commitment based on the economic and marketing study that has been made. He
advised that the report received from their economic and marketing specialists
represents the plan which they must carry out over the next 16 years. He
indicated that if an agreement cannot be reached between the city and themselves
for an acceptable plan under which they may start development, and the land lies
there for another two years, then it would require another marketing study to
determine what should be built.
Commissioner R. Johnson noted that the Gersten Company has been doing some
construction in this area in the past few years and asked for an estimate of the
number of low cost homes which were built.
Mr. Pasquale advised that they have built 200 or 300 homes and that the price
range began at less than $50,000, which at that time was considered in the middle
income bracket. He pointed out that to build low cost housing there must be a
subsidy from the government or the city must reduce theirrequirementsin the
matter of fees for parks, bicycle paths, and things of that nature. Eliminating
some of those items would play a part in reducing the cost of housing.
Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that the report indicates the developer's plan
will include 928 units in the $25,000-29,000 price range. He asked how that
will be accomplished.
Mr. Pasquale indicated that such housing may be townhouses, duplexes, or homes
on smaller lots, which can be accomplished in higher density areas.
Esther Lassman reminded the Commission that on past development proposals the
public has expressed their wishes with regard to this area through a referendum
vote in which 62% of the eligible voters participated. She noted that the
present tenor of the country is for the citizens to speak out, even against the
government, if need be.
Roger Challberg, 1444-F Eagle Peak Court, advised that as a resident of the
"H" Street area, he still sees a hugh block of apartments in that area and
at the Otay Lakes Road-Telegraph Canyon Road intersection as a real concern.
Those concerns relate to the burden placed on police and other service agencies
by the high concentration of apartments. This concern is increased by the
recent passage of Proposition 13, which may lessen the availability of such
also ex ressed concern that if the developer is relieved of certain
service. He . P ..... ~ ..... he city will be paying for them at
public improvemen~ costs, ~n~ ~,~:-o vf t ~
a later date.
James Fairman, Project Design Consultants, planners and engineers for E1 Rancho
del Rey/Otay Land Company, addressed the map showing their requested changes,
which has been revised to drop about 100 units. He advised that with regard to
the proposed apartment development north of H Street, their plan calls for
650 or 660 units, with is 28% lower, or 260 units less than on the existing
adopted planfor E1 Rancho del Rey.
He spoke of the designation of 14 acres in that area as a church site, pointing
out that it is not unusual on a General Development Plan to designate sites for
institutional use, such as a church. If it is later desired to change that
designated use, the owner must secure approval from the Planning Commission and
City Council. He also pointed out that in the area to the south, the so-called
Parkside area, the proposed plan would reduce the number of units down to 470
as compared to 1,OlO on the existing adopted plan.
-7- June 21, 1978
He also contended that their request for a density of 2-3 units to the acre
for the LaCanada-Ridgeback area, would result in development comparable to the
developed area of Robinhood.
In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Fairman advised
that they would prefer to extend Paseo Ranchero, and felt that a curvilinear
alignment to get down into the canyon would result in a considerably less amount
of fill than the 40ft. embankment envisioned by the City's Engineering Division.
In response to questions from Commissioner Renneisen Mr. Fairman advised that the
open space area on the staff plan and on the developer's plan is identical and
that the requested increase in density represents about one unit per gross
acre, but when it is added up to a difference of 2,000 units it becomes very
important to E1 Rancho del Rey for economical reasons, and also seems very
important to the Planning Department. He compared the plan as desired by the
developer to the type of development which has occurred at Rancho Bernardo
which is developed at about 4 units to the acre, residential plus open space.
Mr. Peterson commented that the comparisons of either the staff plan or the
requested plan with the 1970 plan of record are totally invalid. That plan
of record has been rejected by the City Council which is the reason for the
current process. He also contended that comparisons of this land with Rancho
Bernardo are invalid, as the topography in this area as compared to the topography
in Rancho Bernardo are totally differentt Rancho Bernardo is not nearly as
rugged as E1 Rancho del Rey is.
Mr. Fairman responded that although the topography of Rancho Bernardo is different
-- since it is rolling country, there are enormous areas of rock and all kinds of
geologic problems and slide areas that can't be utilized. He contended that it
narrows down, just as it does in the E1 Rancho del Rey area, the amount of
usable areas.
As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Peterson advised that
this plan, if adopted, may be changed in the future, at the request of a developer,
through the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Commissioner Renneisen noted that the total units under discussion would be
the result of the maximum allowable density under the proposed plan. He asked
how frequently development occurs at the maximum allowed.
Mr. Peterson advised that in almost every case it is the desire of the developer
to use the maximum density allowed.
Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that while the difference in density is small
the Commission should realize they are talking about 16,000 residents versus
21,000. Also that if a church is developed in an area of high density, it
creates additional traffic and police problems. She also pointed out that
although Bonita Ridge Estates is developed at a density of 1.3 units per acre
with a lot of open space most of that open space is unusable and the houses are
- spaced very close together. So, in determining the proper density, consideration
must be given to what is usable space and what is unusable slopes.
Commissioner Renneisen stressed the need for a wide range of housing types in
-8- June 21, 1978
an area of this size. He concurred there should be some half acre or one-third
acre lots, especially in the northern area into the Bonita area, but felt
there should also be areas of higher density in order to provide housing for
more than gust a select group of the citizenry.
It was moved by Commissioner Smith that the plans on display be modified as
follows: The' area in the triangle bounded by the power line easement, H Street
and Otay Lakes Road, be in accordance with the staff proposal with the exception
that the yellow area be changed from 3-5 to 6+10 density; the area in the oval,
identified as Del Rey (on both sides of H Street), be in accordance with the
staff plan; and all other land use and the road pattern be according to the
developer's requested changes.
Commissioner Renneisen suggested that the developer's request be further modified
by deleting the developer's request for an office-commercial section and the
11-18 multiple family section along Telegraph Canyon Road, and also to designate
the area on the north side of Ridgeback Road as 1-2 units to the acre as shown
on the staff plan rather than 2-3.
Commissioner Smith agreed to incorporate those two changes in his motion, and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Renneisen.
In discussion of the motion Commissioner O'Neill expressed the opinion that it
is time for the City to give more than lip service to the problem of providing
housing for low and moderate income families and to socio-econemic mixes in
neighborhoods. To accomplish that, he recommended that the developer be given
a 20% density bonus--on the order of 1500-1600 units--if those additional
units would be committed to low and moderate income housing and it would be
a firm commitment.
Commissioner R. Johnson advised he~could not support the provisions discussed
by Commissioners Smith, Renneisen and O'Neill without having comments as to
its effect on the number of units recommended by staff and the number
requested by Mr. Gersten.
Commissioner Renneisen indicated that while he agreed with Mr. O'Neill's
sentiments, he questioned whether this specific geographical area is suitable
for such provision. He pointed out that the plan now under consideration provides
for a housing mix with the unit cost beginning at about $30,000 and going up
to about $120,000.
At Commissioner R. Johnson's request, Commissioner Smith restated the motion, as
follows: In the triangle which is defined by the power line easement, Otay
Lakes Road and H Street, use the staff's proposal there, with the exception of
the yellow area being changed to 6-10 density; use the staff's proposal for the
oval area called Del Rey, which is near the center of "H" Street; the developer's
proposal for the major street pattern that's shown; the developer's proposal
for all of the remaining area except that area north of Ridgeback Road, which
would be according to the staff proposal; and use the staff proposal in the
southerly area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, which is essentially open
space, in lieu of the office and high density development requested by the
developer.
The motion failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Renneisen and O'Neill
NOES: Commissioners Chandler, G. Johnson and R. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti
-9- -- June 21, 1978
Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that the plan proposed by the staff is a
compromise from what some citizens have requested. She noted that the plan
has a lot of different housing types and if the citizens of Chula Vista approve
of it, it would be a valid plan.
It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson,
that the plan as proposed by the stafffor E1 Rancho del Rey be accepted.
The motion failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson and Chandler
NOES: Commissioners Smith, O'Neill, and Renneisen
ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti
In light of this deadlock, Mr. Peterson suggested one of the following courses of
action: Forward the proposal to the Council with this undecided vote; wait for the
return of Commissioner Pressutt-i; or attempt to strike some other sort of a compromise.
The Commission discussed the effects of the modifications included in the earlier
motion and no consensus was reached as to the total number of units such a plan
would contain.
It was suggested by Mr. Carmen Pasquale, Otay Land Company, that a recess be
called to enable their engineers and the Planning Department to calculate the
total density figure which would result if Commissioner Smith's motion was approved.
The meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Peterson reported that the total number of units under Commissioner Smith's
motion would be 8,087.
It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill, seconded by Commissioner Renneisen, and
unanimously carried that the Commission recommends that the Council rescind its
action of 1970-1971 approving the E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan.
It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill that the Council adopt the staff plan and
provide therewith a 20% density bonus to the developer on the condition that those
additional units will be in the low and medium income range and be scattered through-
out the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area (this would be about 1200 additional units).
Commissioner Renneisen seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner O'Neill asked the developer how low cost housing could be provided
other than by the use of housing subsidies.
Mr. Pasquale reported that the majority of such housing would be in duplex
types, or on small lots. He also indicated the need for eliminating such
requirements as underground utilities and things like that.
Mr. Peterson advised there would be serious problems in administering such a bonus
and in determining what the low and moderate income range is over a period of time.
Commissioner Smith pointed out the possibility that the major land holder might
split the property into a number of small parcels and sell it to other developers,
in which event, who would get the 20% bonus. He concurred it would be very
difficult and suggested that if there is to be a 20% increase, or whatever per-
cent, the resulting density for each area should be shown on the map and adopted
as a plan.
-10- June 21, 1978
The motion on the table failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner O'Neill
NOES: Commissioners Renneisen, G. Johnson, Chandler, R. Johnson
and Smith
ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti
Commissioner Smith asked if the developer had any other compromise to offer
which might be acceptable to a majority of the Commission.
James Fairman, Project Design Consultants, pointed out they had not proposed
the 6-10 density in the area to be served by loop streets on each side of H
Street, and if it is the Commission's desire to permit that density there, .then
approximately 50 acres of 6-10 density could be eliminated in favor of 3-5
in other areas. This would result in a reduction of 250 units. He indicated on
their map of requested changes, the various areas where such reduction could
be applied. As a result of those changes and the previous modifications
recommended, the total yield would be 7,676 units, or a 6% reduction from the
number requested by E1 Rancho del Rey.
It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill, seconded by Commissioner G. Johnson, that
the Commission recommend the extension of Paseo Ranchero north of H Street to
connect with Otay Lakes Road as shown on the developer's plan.
Discussion followed as to the extent of embankment required for the crossing
of the north leg of Rice Canyon and the impact this would have.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, G.Johnson, Renneisen, R. Johnson
and Smith
NOES: Commissioner Chandler
ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti
Mr. Peterson commented that in his past experience a plan arrived at through
a series of compromises without knowing the total ramifications and results has
never been very good. If it will be difficult to have the full Commission present
at a meeting in the near future, it would be his recommendation to forward this
proposal to the City Council without a decisive recommendation of the Commission
but with a detailed report to reflect the views of the various Planning
Commissioners.
It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Renneisen, that the
previous motion, plus three areas specified by the developer for reduction from
6-10 units to 3-5 units per acre, be adopted as the final plan (resulting in a
total of 7,767 units).
The motion failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Renneisen and R. Johnson
NOES: Commissioners Chandler, G. Johnson and O'Neill
ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti
It was moved by Commission R. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner O~Neill that
the proposal be forwarded to the City Council. '
-ll- June 21, 1978
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, O'Neill, Smith and Chandler
NOES: Commissioners Renneisen and G. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner Pressutti
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson advised he had nothing further to report at this
time.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner G. Johnson advised she will be out of town from July 1st through the
14th and will therefore be absent from the meeting of July 12th.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
Respectful t'y submitted,
~Hel'en Mapes, Secrei~ry