Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/05/17 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 17, 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 follow- ing members present: Chandler, Smith, G. Johnson, Pressutti, R. Johnson, Renneisen and O'Neill. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assist- ant Director of Planning Williams, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, City Attorney Lindberg, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. ORAN CO~UNICATION Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of Council referral regarding zoning for the Palace Gardens Mobile Home Park Director of Planning Peterson noted that this item has been before the Commission on two prior occasions and both times the Commission recommended that the property be rezoned to R-3-L-M, which would allow 12.4 units per acre if the property were to be developed. The "M" Modifying District designates the land use as a mobile home park. The second time the Commission's recommendation was sent to the Council they referred it back again with the request that the Commission consider R-3-P-17-M. Mr. Peterson pointed out that earlier staff reports justify the R-3-L-M zoning on the basis that Second Avenue is a dividing line between high density residential and commercial use to the west and lower density residential development to the east. The staff feels this designation is supported by other recent rezonings which the Council has approved lowering the density on other properties in this general area east of Second Avenue. In staff's opinion 17 units to the acre is too high for this particular property, and therefore it is recommended that the commission reaffirm the previous recommendation for R-3-L-M zoning. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Planning Commission reaffirms the recommendation as stated in Resolution PCZ-78-E that the property of the Palace Gardens Mobile Home Park be rezoned from R-3 to R-3-L-M. In discussion of the motion, Commissioner O'Neill asked if the same result could not be obtained by simply applying the "P" Modifying District to the property. Mr. Peterson advised that the "P" District does not control the density unless a number designation is included. -2- May 17, 1978 Commissioner G, Johnson pointed out that the Council had initiated lowering the density on various R-3 zoned property, the residents of the area asked that the density be lowered, and it has been shown that the mobile home park serves a definite need at this time. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Chandler, Renneisen and Smith NOES: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of proposed amendments to the General Development Plan and Schedule of E1 Rancho del ReS P-C zone Director of Planning Peterson reported that this hearing was originally advertised for February 1, 1978 and it has been continued a number of times. It was finally suggested by the City Attorney that the proceedings to amend the General Development Plan should be terminated if agreement cannot be reached between the developer and staff in favor of adopting a plan as a Specific Plan for the area rather than an amendment to the P-C zone. It is therefore recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council rescind its action of 1971 which action adopted the plan of record for E1 Rancho del Rey and then proceed on to the next agenda item which is the Specific Plan for the E1 Rancho del Rey area. Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing. Sam Blick, attorney with Higgs, Fletcher and Mack in San Diego, representing the primary land owner, Otay Land Company E1 Rancho del Rey, suggested that changing the designation of the plan from a General Development Plan to a Specific Plan is really dealing in semantics. He expressed strong opposition to such a change indicating that it would have a definite effect on the owner's ability to deal with lending institutions. He urged that the Commission consider the process and designate whatever plan is adopted as a General Development Plan rather than a Specific Plan. Mr. Peterson advised that while the request is understandable, it is also self- serving for the developer, since under the terms of the existing ordinance proceeding with a General Development Plan would enhance the owner's position in the event of an inverse condemnation suit and the city's position would be weakened. For that reason he urged the Commission to proceed as recommended. City Attorney Lindberg advised that where it is called a General Development Plan and accompanying schedule as presently required under the Planned Community Zone, or a Specific Plan which is adopted, it does not effect the substantive content of the plan which the Commission adopts. He did not feel it is simply a matter of semantics, it is a matter of great import in words of the law. -3- May 17, 1978 Adoption of a Specific Plan will require the adoption of certain other actions to implement the development. He expressed the opinion that it is appropriate to bypass the General Development Plan modifications and to move on to consider- ation of the matter as a Specific Plan for development of the E1 Rancho del Rey area. At the further request of Commissioner Renneisen for clarification, Mr. Peterson pointed out that under the P-C zone the General Development plan is a zoning plan, and if a plan is adopted which designates certain areas as open space, it could be argued that the City is zoning land as permanent open space which could lead to an inverse condemnation suit. If a Specific Plan is adopted, it is a refinement of the City's General Plan, but does not constitute zoning. City Attorney Lindber9 reiterated that a Specific Plan is a firm, hard and fast plan for the development of the Rancho del Rey area, but the technical implementa- tion of it will be undertaken by means of precise zoning, subdivisions and precise plans and at that point the land owner would have the opportunity to discuss give and take propositions relative to the open space areas designated on the Specific Plan. Under a Specific Plan the uses and density will be firmly fixed, within ranges, which the developer can rely upon. Commissioner Smith questioned the possibility of adopting a Specific Plan over the General Plan. City Attorney Lindber9 explained that the terminology of a General Development Plan as used in this recommendation is the implementing factor of the Planned Community Zone, and has nothing to do with the planning process as related by State Law. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, encouraged the Commission to wipe the slate clean with regard to the 1970 plan of record. He contended there is ample evidence that the 1970 plan has not been satisfactory to the City Council or to the community. Mr. Blick voiced objection to revoking the existing plan prior to the adoption of a new plan. He also disagreed with the City Attorney's interpretation of the General Development Plan and of a Specific Plan. It was moved by Commissioner O'Neill, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the proposed amendments to the General Development Plan be filed. Carmen Pasquale, representing Otay Land Company E1 Rancho del Rey, objected to the motion as the hearing had not been closed. He reported that he had seen no procedures or ordinances relating to implementation of a Specific Plan, and contended that such a designation would have a definite effect on the financing of developments. He pointed out that they had not testified at earlier hearings on the amendments to the General Development Plan and requested that they be permitted to do so before any action is taken on that proposal. Mr. Peterson felt that any testimony they wished to offer would be very germane to the Specific Plan and could be presented under the hearing on that item. -4- May 17, 1978 Commissioner Pressutti asked if it would be possible to withdraw the motion and then take testimony on both proposals in a joint hearing since the substance of the plan is not changed. City Attorney Lindberg supported that suggestion. Commissioner O'Neill withdrew the motion, with the agreement of Commissioner R. Johnson as the seconder of the motion. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, that the hearing continue and that testimony be received on the plan without joining the two proposals. The motion carried unanimously. City Attorney Lindberg emphasized that the two items should be combined, contend- ing there is no point in dividing the testimony on these two items, they should be taken together. Commissioner Renneisen reiterated that he felt it is not proper to give consider- ation to adoption of a Specific Plan until action has been on the amendments to the General Plan. He concurred that much of the testimony presented on item 2 would be applicable to agenda item 3 and would not need to be repeated. Carol Smith, 87 F Street, expressed resentment at holding the two hearings separately and stated it would be her preference to combine the two items. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, asked if testimony in support of the Planning Department's proposed plan would be appropriate in the hearing on agenda item 2, since that plan is referred to as a Specific Plan. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the substance of the plan is the same under both items; the only difference is in the procedures for implementing a plan which may be approved. Director of Planning Peterson briefly reviewed the history of plan. He called attention to the rendering of the General Development Plan adopted by the City Council in 1970-71, which is the official plan of record for the property and contemplates about 13,200 dwelling units on the property. Shortly after adoption of that plan, some development occurred near Southwestern College under the Larwin tract and the American Housing Guild tract. In the fall of 1972 Dr. Bloom submitted a proposal for development of Sports World, which was treated as an amendment to the plan. That amendment was approved by the City Council but was later submitted to a referendum vote of the citizens by virtue of the opposition of many of the residents of the City and the plan was defeated in that referendum. Dr. Bloom then submitted a revised plan for a regional shopping center known as Plaza del Rey to be located in a 450 acre portion of the property adjacent to H Street and 1-805. The Council approved that plan, but again it was brought to a referendum and defeated. -5- May 17, 1978 At that point the Council appointed a citizens committee, known as ACCORD, to help the staff study this area because of the citizens concern about it. The Council also contracted with a planning consultant to study and make a recommenda- tion on the possible development of the 450 acres. The firm hired was Sedway/ Cooke and after complete study and many meetings with the members of ACCORD, a comprehensive report was submitted by that firm. The recommendations of Sedway/ Cooke and ACCORD are included in the staff report on the proposed plan. Mr. Peterson discussed and identified the maps which depict the plan recommended by the staff, the plan requested by the developer, and the map which designates the differences between the two. The staff's recommended plan is very similar to the plan considered by the Commission on February 1st. There has been a change in the 450 acre area in terms of the configuration of the areas shown for develop- ment, but the total number of units remain the same. The property owned by the Dreyfus Company has been eliminated from the plan; that property is presently zoned R-1-H. On the overall plan, the staff is recommending a total of about 5800 units on approximately 2,340 acres; the Gersten plan contemplates just under 8400 units on that same area. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that the plan recommended by the staff is a balanced plan. An attempt is made to conserve certain areas in their natural state and yet allow for reasonable development of the property. He advised that this plan is the result of many hours of study, giving attention to topography and earthquake faults, and holding numerous meetings with representatives of the · Gersten Company. He pointed out that in the 450 acres, a commercial area would be located on the south side of "H" Street which would accommodate up to 300,000 square feet of floor area, or about half the size of the Chula Vista Shopping Center and Sears combined. The text of the plan also allows for some multiple family development within some portion of that commercial area, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. Also included in the 450 acres, on the north side of "H" Street is an area designated for substantial higher density residential development, ranging from 6-10 and 11-18, with lower density, 3-5 units per acre, wrapping around the existing Lynwood Hills neighborhood. Outside of the 450 acre area, there is a full range of densities, including apartment units at 11-18 units to the acre, a larger portion for medium density at 3-5 units per acre, and in the northern portion of the property a designation of 1-2 units per acre. He pointed out on the map the three bands of density ranges, with the area along Telegraph Canyon Road and extending north to "J" Street, designated for medium density in keeping with the development which is presently taking place in that area, including E1 Rancho del Rey Unit #5 and the Casa del Ray project. The "H" Street corridor would include clusters of higher density as well as some medium density development. Mr. Peterson acknowledged that the staff has received some criticism for recommending fairly large areas of low density development. He felt there is no need to apologize for that since the community is quite full of 7,000 sq. ft. lots, as well as some areas of higher density single family homes and areas -6- May 17, 1978 which are somewhat impacted with high density apartment development. To complete the spectrum of housing types in the community there is a need for areas of low density. The area on the northern reach of E1 Rancho del Rey lends itself well to that kind of treatment, due to its rough topography, the fact that it is relatively inaccessible and is adjacent to Rancho Robinhood which is developed at a fairly low density. Mr. Peterson acknowledged that the question of density is the major difference between the two plans, but pointed out that in an area adjacent to "H" Street if the same designation of 11-18 units is applied to a parcel presently owned by a church, the site could contain up to 950 apartment units. He felt that such development in that area does not represent good planning. At the in~er- section of Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, the developer is proposing a density of 725 apartment units. Mr. Peterson also pointed out that the developer has added a new 10 acre shopping center at the intersection of "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero, and around that are clusters of 11-18 and 6-10 apartment development which could add an additional 300 to 400 apartment units in that location. (It was later determined that the applicant's plan shows approximately 700 units around this 10 acre commercial area). Mr. Peterson called attention to the density comparisons contained in Exhibits B and C of the appendix to the staff report. Those comparisons show that the overall density for the E1 Rancho del Rey area, excluding the 450 acre Rice Canyon area, schools, parks and other commercial centers, of 2.9 units per gross acre, including the natural open space, compare~ with the 28 units per acre in the E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5 tract and is considerably higher than the already developed Rancho Robinhood and Bonita Ridge Estates. Exhibit C points out that the area recommended for the lowest density would permit 1.7 dwelling units per gross acre, which is still higher than the density in Rancho Robinhood or Bonita Ridge Estates. Mr. Peterson also called attention to the economic report prepared by Sanford Goodkin. He reported that two meetings between the staff and the consultant had not resulted in a clarification of all of the questions of the staff. He expressed the opinion that the report does not say that 8400 dwelling units are required to economically develop the property and does not say that the staff's recommendation is economically infeasible. It does say that development costs will be high, houses will be expensive, and the staff has no question about that. Because of doubts as to the interpretation of the report, the City asked its own economic consultant, Gruen and Gruen in San Francisco, to look at the report and submit their evaluation of it. That report was mailed the day before this meeting but has not yet been received, but in a telephone conversation Gruen and Gruen advised that they have enough doubts about the report that it should not be used' as the basis for a decision by the Planning Commission. The report of Sanford Goodkin devotes several pages to the justification for a 10 acre shopping center which is proposed at "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero. The market area for the center is defined as extending down to Main Street on the south, over to Third Avenue near F Street on the west, and out to the Otay Reservoir on the east. -7- May 17~ 1978 The market area for a convenience center is not that large. The report also assigns a leakage factor to that center of only 50% -- a more normal factor would be about 70%. No consideration was given to the competing center pro- posed for Otay Lakes Road and H Street, where an 8 acre area has long been zoned for a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Peterson said he felt these factors invalidate the justification for the 10 acre center. Mr. Peterson pointed out that in the text of the plan submitted by the staff an effort has been made to introduce some flexibility in density by providing for a transfer of density within a particular Sectional Planning Area from one designation area to another area of the same density designation, all within the same Sectional Planning Area. It is even possible to transfer units from one designation of density to another on a more limited basis. It is felt this will encourage a greater variety of housing types in this area than is exper- ienced in typical tract development. The text also requires each developer of more than 50 acres or more than 250 dwelling units to incorporate more than one housing type within the development. At an earlier hearing, consideration was given to the extension of Paseo Ranchero north of H Street to cross the north leg of Rice Canyon and continue to Otay Lakes Road. The report points out the need for that street extension, and also points out the adverse effect it would have on the main leg of Rice Canyon, the main ecological resource in the area, due to the requirement of constructing an embank- ment across that canyon, which might run as high as 40 or so feet. The Commission should weigh the destruction of that environmental resource against the benefit of improved circulation. Mr. Peterson reiterated the recommendation of the ACCORD group which studied this area for a two year period, which stipulates approval of the staff recommended plan for E1 Rancho del Rey subject to four conditions: (1) That the densities and total number of dwelling units shown on the plan should be considered as the maximum; (2) that the principles of the Sedway/Cooke report pertaining to the 450 acre area, be applied along the Ridgeback Road area further to the east (those principles relate to major limitations on grading and fitting housing types to the land form rather than altering the land form to provide a flat pad); (3) that the commercial area at 1-805 and H Street be limited to 300,000 square feet and be developed, not as a regional shopping center, but as a specialty shopping center; (4) that Paseo Ranchero not be extended to the north across Rice Canyon. It was moved by Chairman Chandler, seconded by Commissioner Renneisen, and unanimously carried, that the presentation made by Mr. Peterson on this plan be made a part of the record. Sam Blick, attorney with Higgs, Fletcher and Mack, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, noted that while it might appear there could be no reconciliation between the developer's proposal and the staff recommended plan, he felt that was not the case. He submitted, however, that the plans are far enough apart in terms of economic feasibility that the developer cannot live with the staff's plan. Based on their concern of economic feasibility they retained a specialist in the marketing field who prepared a report which has been supplied to the Planning Commission. He requested that the report prepared by Sanford Goodkin -8- May 17, 1978 be made a part of the record as is the staff report. He introduced the author of that report, Mr. Elliot Lewis, Executive Vice-President of Sanford Goodkin, to explain and analyze the economic feasibility of the developer's plan and the staff recommended plan. Mr. Elliot Lewis expressed the opinion that the issue is the relationship between ecology and valid community planning. He contended there can be no valid planning which does not focus heavily upon people and upon economics. Real ecology is the relationship between humankind and fauna and flora. He advised that Sanford Goodkin and the Otay Land Company are strongly committed to environmental concerns. While their plan has the same amount of open space as the staff plan, it also reflects their obligation to provide good, affordable housing, and to protect property owners and business people who operate in the free market. Mr. Lewis emphasized that the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan is quite specific as to the city's housing goals to make adequate provision for the housing of all economic segments of the community. He contended that the staff report on this development plan are in substantial conflict with the Housing Element of the General Plan. He avowed that their study was not made in an effort to support the density desired by the developer, but was based on a marketing analysis of the need for housing in the community. He asserted that under the staff's recommendation that need would not be met because there can be no development. Mr. Lewis pointed out there is a front end investment of $258,000,000 in addition to the cost of the units. With that cost, no family earning $20,000 a year could afford a single house under the staff plan. With a 10% pretax profit included in the development costs it would take 3.58 units per acre for the plan to be economically feasible. At that density the resulting average sale for units of 750 square feet would be $47,167; the sale price for a 1500 square foot unit would be $68,160. He indicated it is their intent to provide housing for families of $10,000 a year and up, noting that this would require some government subsidies. That will also require a larger proportion of multiple family units, up to 65% of the total. He cited living conditions in Japan, which admittedly is not desirable, but it is the trend in this country toward higher density in living units, which is the only way the market demand can be met. Mr. Lewis expressed amazement at the staff's allegation that his report did not firmly support the need for 8400 housing units, or prove that the density recom- mended by the staff is infeasible. He also stressed that the staff's recommenda- tion does not conform to the goals set forth in the City's Housing Element. Commissioner Smith questioned whether a neighborhood shopping center, which would return $80 per year per square foot, could be profitably constructed in this area of high improvement costs as cited by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis reported they had been conservative in their figures and felt the shopping center can be justified. -9- May 17, 1978 Commissioner Renneisen asked again for the price per unit of housing under the developer's plan as compared to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Lewis reported that under the developer's plan the lowest price for a 750 sq. ft. unit would be $47,167, and the same unit under the staff's recommenda- tion would cost approximately $61,000. Under their plan, the lowest price for a 15,000 sq. ft. house would be $68,167 and under the staff's plan the lowest price for the same size house would be $82,427. He indicated that under their plan the average cost per unit would be around $70,000 and under the lower density recommended by staff the average unit would be around $90,000. He asserted that in Chula Vista less than 10 per cent of the population could afford housing at $9o,o0o. Steve Crook, 1328 Yorba Court, asked how the housing proposed by the developer will fit in with the established area which consists of $80,000 homes. Mr. Lewis advised that much of the housing would, of necessity, be multiple family development of some type rather than single family homes and be limited to smaller living units in order to be affordable. Director of Public Works Robens responded to a criticism voiced by Mr. Lewis on the Public Works' report. He asserted that he does not feel the Sanford Goodkin report makes a case that the staff recommended plan is not feasible. He also advised that their calculations indicate a difference in cost of about $8,000 per unit between the staff plan and the developer's plan, rather than $15,000 as indicated by Mr. Lewis. He agreed that the price difference could extend the time required for the developer to sell the units. Chairman Chandler recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m., and it was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Peterson stated that he did not believe it would cost the same to prepare the land for construction of 5800 units as for 8400 units as indicated in the Sanford/Goodkin report. He also felt the value of $20,000 per acre for the land is not realistic for raw land in that area, and pointed out that the cost of marketing 5800 units would be less than for 8400 units, whereas the Sanford/ Goodkin report had the same figures for both densities. He acknowledged that it is valid for Mr. Lewis to quote from the City's Housing Element but noted that he speaks as though the E1 Rancho del Rey area is the only area in which these goals can be met, which is not true. It is acknowledged that development costs in the E1 Rancho del Rey area will be higher than in more level areas and this will make it difficult to provide low cost housing in that area. James Fairman, 610 A Street, representing Project Design Consultants, planners and engineers for E1 Rancho del Rey, asserted that the projected density of development is too low to support the extraordinary allocation of open space and the development of the proposed road intrastructure within that community. -10- May 17, 1978 He pointed out that under the staff plan the community would average 2.5 units per acre while about one-third of the total area is set aside for open space. He contended that density i~ exceedingly low when compared to other close-in urban areas within the San Diego metropolitan area -- this is not a rural project or country club estates, it is close-in urban property that deserves a higher density in terms of the infilling process within San Diego County. He felt the proposed plan does not meet the objective as stated in the text of providing an economically feasible development. Nor does it meet the objective of providing a mix of housing types since roughly 51 per cent of the area would be set aside for very low density development -- less than 3 units per acre. Less than 2 per cent of the area is designated for multiple family development at a moderate density of 18 units per acre. At that density it will not be possible to meet the housing needs of moderate income families in Chula Vista. Mr. Fairman contended the circulation plan being proposed is not adequate to serve north-south movement within the community and also that the procedures for imple- menting development under a Specific Plan should be clarified. With regard to urban policies, Mr. Fairman pointed out that the County's Prelimin- ary Growth Management Plan has taken a strong position that unincorporated urban development areas should develop at minimum densities of 4 units per acre for the following reasons: Achievement of higher densities is prerequisite of the provision of affordable housing; achievement of higher densities in urban areas is necessary to contain sprawl; densities in excess of 4 units per acre are prerequisite for transit service; it is more costly to provide low density areas with urban services; per capita water consumption rates increase as densities decrease. Mr. Fairman acknowledged that the application of this Growth Manage- ment Plan is a little fuzzy, it does contain good points and should be considered. Mr. Fairman expressed the opinion that the staff report and Specific Plan text are confusing due to their reference to General Plan, General Development Plan, Community Plan and Specific Plan, which are not defined. City Attorney Lindberg asserted that it will not facilitate the hearing this evening to get into discussion of the procedural points just raised by Mr. Fairman. He agreed there may be some confusion with reference to the Specific Plan and its procedural implementation, but this is the device which he has strongly recom- mended as a means of providing planning for large areas. The implementation procedures are contained in a new ordinance which has been prepared and will be considered for adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council in the near future. He suggested that discussion at this hearing should deal with the sub- stance of the development plan rather than being overly concerned with the pro- cedural implementation of it. Mr. Fairman proceeded to the following criticism in items of the Specific Plan text: Page 3, paragraph B2 states that "the bulk, height, parking, open space and other preannounced standards of the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations should govern, where appropriate from a land use standpoint . .". Mr. Fairman took exception to this, since the land is zoned P-C. -ll- May 17, 1978 Page 3, paragraph B.3, Mr. Fairman objected to the use of the term "deep greenbelts" and felt it should be called open space. On page 4, paragraph 6 calls for the subdivision of E1 Rancho del Ray into a number of micro-neighborhoods. Mr. Fairman objected to the requirement that each micro-neighborhood have a small common recreational area, a common access road, and common landscape theme. He contended the formation of homeowners' associations to maintain such areas would not provide some social structure for the group, as advocated. On page 4, under Conservation, paragraph 2, indicates that the preserved floors of the middle and south legs of Rice Canyon should be complemented by adjacent common greens, parkways, or other usable open space. Mr. Fairman strongly ob- jected to that provision since the area adjacent to the canyon floors would in most cases be comprised of steep slopes which could not be adapted to usable open space. On page 6, under Public Facilities Planning, the text indicates that specific sites for public buildings have not been designated; Mr. Fairman asserted that specific sites are shown on the plan diagram. Under Circulation and Public Facilities, at the top of page 6, it is specified that bicycle routes and facilities hould also be established within the principal canyons of the district. Mr. Fairman questioned the practicality of bicycle paths within Rice Canyon. On page 7, relating to Residential Planning, Mr. Fairman objected to the statement that the gross residential densities indicated on the plan diagram are partially designed to provide property owners and developers a reasonable return on their investments, since no studies have been conducted to substantiate that statement. He also questioned the process proposed to determine allowable densities. He felt the process would simply lead to ad hoc negotiation for whatever density a developer can get. He further objected to the requirement to include two housing types on a development involving more than 50 acres or 250 dwelling units. He contended that is inconsistent since the low density areas are restricted to single family detached units. While Mr. Fairman supports the Sectional Planning concept, he felt the text raises questions concerning the application of that concept. With reference to the Conclusion on page 11 of the Specific Plan, Mr. Fairman took exception to the statement that the said text and diagram are readily amend- able, since they have been trying for a year and a half to amend the adopted General Development Plan. With reference to the question of density, Mr. Fairman failed to understand the staff's contention that higher density will bring on more grading. He contended apartment or townhouse construction which would provide higher density would require less grading than providing individual pads for single family homes. -12- May 17, 1978 Mr. Fairman expressed the opinion that the overall density of 2.5 units per acre as proposed by the staff is extremely low, as compared with Rancho Bernardo which achieves about 4 units per acre. He also pointed out that the density comparisons made in the staff report were with single family tracts. He felt this is not equitable since they propose areas of multiple family development. With regard to phasing of development, Mr. Fairman did not agree that development should move from west to east. He had the understanding that land tributary to Telegraph Canyon Road could be developed in any rational manner as long as the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road was provided for in the development plan. He felt circulation problems could better be resolved by providing a pattern around each development. With regard to the requested changes on the plan, Mr. Fairman indicated they have tried to introduce greater density in order to meet the housing forecast developed by Sanford Goodkin, who they consider experts in the marketing field. He noted that their request represents one more unit of density on all of the lower density areas than recommended by the staff. Their request for 8400 dwelling units is a reduction of 4,000 units from the current plan of record. Their new proposal also includes an increase in natural open space of 524 acres; there must be an increase in density in order for the city to have that open space. City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that the Specific Plan which is to be considered under the next agenda item is intended to be quite specific. Through these hear- ings the City hopes to reach a very concise textual explanation of that Specific Plan. He indicated there will be opportunities under the Specific Plan to have modifications and changes so long as the General Plan is preserved. Sam Blick expressed the opininn that the City's concern over an inverse condemnation suit was groundless since the developer's plan shows the same amount of open space, however, they must have higher density to support that. He emphasized that it is mandatory to follow the City's Housing Element, not only due to the law, but in order to meet the needs of the people. To do that, the City must eliminate the open space or increase the density. Mr. Blick advised that H.U.D. has come out with a report on housing element guide- lines and that the California Legislature has found that the subject of housing is a vital statewide concern and has decreed that the early attainment of a decent home for every California resident is a priority of the highest order. Gary McCabe, 2160 Fletcher Parkway, E1Cajon, representing M.C.S. Watt Industries, reported that over the last several months they have worked very closely with the staff and are in accord with the staff plan on the 450 acres. The land use and density fit what they plan to do. The City Council has expressed a policy that development along H Street proceed from west to east, and inasmuch as they meet the west to east criterion and concur with the staff plan, they would ask that the 450 acres be considered separately from the rest of the E1 Rancho del Rey area in order that they may proceed to get approval of their development plans. Roger Challberg, 1444 Eagle Peak Court, home owner in the Encore homes, advised that their biggest concern is the 900 unit apartment complex proposed on the north side of H Street. He felt that such an increase in population would add -13- May 17, 1978 greatly to police problems. He also asserted that with the difference in topography, development in this area cannot be compared with Rancho Bernardo. He reported that over the past 20 years he has heard the same song -- that developers cannot continue to develop unless they are allowed higher density, but development continues. Barbara Edwards, 1390 Blue Falls Drive, Chula Vista, representing Encore Homeowners, submitted a petition in opposition to the proposed construction of 900 apartment units in the area near East H Street and Otay Lakes Road and enumerated the following reasons for opposing such a project. It would compound the social problems and the traffic problems which already exist at Otay Lakes Road and H Street; additional cars would intensify the danger for school children and local residents; police protection in the area is not adequate at the present time and adding a heavy concentration of population would increase the problem; schools in the area are now at capacity enrollment and would probably be required to go to double sessions. Carol Smith, 87 Second Avenue, cited a recent court case in San Mateo which up- held the city's right to give specific guidelines for the development of property. She stressed that the future quality of living in this city is very important to her and recalled previous efforts put forth to prohibit earlier development plans which the citizens felt would be detrimental. The quality of living can be adversely affected by lack of police, shortage of schools, and heavy traffic. She expressed the opinion that the proposed Specific Plan goes beyong the interest of the developer and considers the interest of the citizens which should be the Planning Commission's primary concern. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, made reference to the previous development attempts which were defeated through a referendum vote, and to the work of ACCORD and the planning consultant to determine an acceptable development plan. He urged the Commission to adopt the Specific:Plan as presented by the Planning Department, and to incorporate the recommendations of Sedway/Cooke and ACCORD. He also reminded the Commission that despite the unusually heavy rain of the past season, Southern California will continue to depend on imported water. Two major obstacles still exist to bringing northern California water to this area; these are the need for the peripheral canal which has not been approved by the legisla- ture, and the need for a power plant to provide the energy needed to lift the water over the mountains. Steve Crook advised that he moved to Chula Vista in September of last year after spending three months looking for the most desirable place to live. He finally purchased a home in this area on Yorba Court because he liked the way it was developed and was led to believe that future development would be of the same high quality. He voiced strong objection to putting in a 900 unit apartment complex in that area. He did not concur with the statement made by Mr. Fairman that this should be a higher density area because it is close to San Diego. He moved here to get away from the high density in downtown San Diego. He felt the plan proposed by the Planning Department was professionally done and would protect _ the reasons for his moving to this area. -14- May 17, 1978 George Kirk, 3809 East Indian School Road, Phoenix, Arizona, representing the firm that owns 265 acres in Rice Canyon, supported Mr. McCabe~s request that because the MCS and Watt groups, by working with the city staff, have accepted the staff's plan, that portion of the plan should be separated and forwarded to the City Council. He felt it is not fair to keep that area under a long term discussion tied in with the rest of the property. Ray Watt, 1633 32nd Street, Santa Monica, one of the developers involved with the 265 acres, advised that it was his understanding about six months ago that it would be possible to separate the 265 acres from the rest of the plan. He reported they have made a financial commitment and now have the funds and are prepared to carry out the plans as proposed by the staff. Chairman Chandler advised that due to the amount of testimony presented in this public hearing, he did not feel the Commission is in a position to make a decision tonight. Commissioner Pressutti suggested that the public hearing be closed and that the Commission set a future date when action would be taken. Chairman Chandler closed the public hearing on consideration of proposed amend- ments to the General Development Plan and Schedule of E1 Rancho del Rey P-C zone. The Commission discussed the matter of setting a date for final consideration of the proposed amendments to the General Development Plan and also consideration of the Specific Plan. Chairman Renneisen asked for the status of the ordinance which the City Attorney indicated he is preparing to provide assurance to the developer under a Specific Plan. Mr. Lindberg advised that a great deal of thought be given to an ordinance to provide procedures for implementing a Specific Plan. Such an ordinance will be forthcoming but it will in no way effect the substance of the plan which was discussed in the hearing tonight which is the reason he requested to consider agenda items 2 and 3 simultaneously. Commissioner O'Neill asked for a staff recommendation with regard to separating the 450 acres from the balance of the plan. Mr. Peterson advised it is acceptable with the Planning Department to do that and he did not see why that developer should be held up. He did not know if that would be agreeable with the Director of Public Works as he had expressed some reservations. Director of Public Works Robens advised there are two problems with breaking out the 450 acres. The Council has indicated that they want a reimbursement district for H Street and for the road in the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area. A plan would have to be approved for the reimbursement district so the City would know what portion of H Street and other roads in the district would be -15- May 17, 1978 the responsibility of the developer of the 450 acres. As another alternative, he suggested that if the developer would extend "H" Street to the easterly boundary of the 450 acres, then the reimbursement district could exclude that area and consider only the portion of ~'H" Street and other streets easterly of the 450 acres. It would also be possible to consider plans for the 450 acres providing the final map for such development were not approved until a reim- bursement district is established. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner O'Neill, that the Commission will consider action on the proposed amendments to the General Development Plan of E1 Rancho del Rey on May 31, 1978. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Renneisen, O'Neill, G. Johnson, Chandler, Pressutti, and Smith NOES: Commissioner R. Johnson ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.): Consideration of Specific Plan for El Rancho del ReS area. Chairman Chandler asked for a motion to continue this item to the meeting of May 31. MSUC (Renneisen-O'Neill) Consideration of the Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey be continued to the meeting of May 31 and joined with consideration of amendment to the General Development Plan. There were no oral communications, Director's Report or Commission comments. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mape~, Secretary