Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1978/02/01 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 1, 1978 A special meeting, duly noticed, 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, G. Johnson, Pressutti, R. Johnson, Renneisen and O'Neill. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Director of Community Development Desrochers, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Acting Fire Chief Longerbone, Traffic Engineer Hanson, 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. Consideration of boundaries for Town Centre Redevelopment Project #2 Community Development Director Desrochers displayed a plat outlining the proposed boundaries for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project #2, which is adjacent to the west of Project No. 1 and encompasses the Chula Vista Shopping Center. He pointed out the intent to avoid including any single family residential property within the project area, but to accommodate the major intersectons between Broadway and Third Avenue with "H" Street. He advised that the boundaries may be changed prior to the public hearing on the project, and that the Commission will have the opportunity to review the plan at various stages. Commissioner O'Neill questioned the inclusion of Madison Street in the project area since this might be the forerunner of including the adjacent residential lots in the district. Mr. Desrochers advised that it is not the intent to include the adjacent residential properties, but that with the redevelopment project some special treatment of Madison Avenue may be desirable. Commissioner Renneisen asked for the step-by-step process for establishing a redevelopment district. Director of Planning Peterson reported that the beginning of the process is the consideration before the Planning Commission tonight of the project boundaries and of a preliminary plan for the redevelopment project. This consideration does not involve a public hearing but should include comments, suggestions, and a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The redevelopment plan will be considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the final boundaries of the project will be established at that time. The project is then submitted to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency for final action. Mr. Desrochers noted that it is anticipated this redevelopment plan would be similar to Town Centre Project No. 1 in that it would establish the policies and goals desired and the Design Review Committee and Design Manual would be used -2- ~ February l, 1978 for each individual development within the project area. Commissioner Smith noted that the report indicates there is no provision for tax increments to be incorporated as part of the plan. He further noted that the plan refers to land assembly and financing, and asked where it is proposed the money will come from to accomplish this. Mr. Desrochers affirmed it is the City's feeling that there is presently sufficient property under the tax increment financing and that it would not be appropriate to include this area as well. He advised that financing can be obtained through lease/revenue funds; however, it is not anticipated there will be any major land acquisition in this program. Commissioner Smith pointed out the City's involvement in bus service, golf course operation, the water business, and now proposing to get further involved in the development business, which he felt belongs to private industry rather than to tax payers. Commissioner O'Neill asked if it is the intent to combine the two redevelopment projects into a central business district. Mr. Desrochers asserted it is not the intent to combine Project Area No. 1 and No. 2 in terms of financing, but the two project areas do comprise the central business district of the City. The total area includes practically every major civic and retail function of the city. He stressed the importance for the City to maintain its sales tax base, since that is an increasingly critical factor in the financing of city services. This project is a tool to protect and strengthen that tax base. In this regard, the City wishes to be competitive and offer opportunities for the location of new sales facilities. Commissioner Renneisen asked for an explanation of what the Planning Commission is considering, and whether the City Council has already decided there will be a Project No. 2, for which the Commission is asked to establish boundaries; or can the Planning Commission express an opinion as to whether or not there should be a Redevelopment Project No. 2. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that the Commission has the authority and responsibility to advise the Council if they think this should not be a redevelop- ment area, or to change the proposed boundaries if that is felt desirable. In response to questions from~the Commission, Mr. Desrochers indicated that the Commission is being asked for a tentative endorsement of the area to be studied for consideration of a redevelopment project. This is merely the starting point and the Commission is not being asked at this time for a recommendation on a specific redevelopment plan. It was moved by Commissioner Smith that the Planning Commission express disapproval of the creation of a Redevelopment Project No. 2. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Renneisen expressed the opinion that based on the advice that these boundary lines may be modified prior to the adoption of a redevelopment project, the resolution of approval should indicate tentative boundaries. Commissioner R. Johnson suggested that the boundaries should be established "for study only" of an area to be considered for a redevelopment project. Commissioner Pressutti expressed support of a resolution which would establish -3- February l, 1978 the boundaries of an area to be studied for a redevelopment project. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner O'Neill, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution "establishing the tentative boundaries" of Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, under the format suggested, modified to read: "Section 1. The Planning Commission establishes the tentative boundaries as outlilnedon Attac~nent I for the study of Town Centre Redevelopment Project Area No. 2;" and "Section 2. The Planning Commission requests that the preliminary Redevelopment Plan for a study of such Project Area be presented for this Commission's review." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Renneisen, O'Neill, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Chandler and G. Johnson NOES: Commission Smith ABSENT: None 2. Consideration of preliminarS plan for Town Centre Redevelopment Project #2 Director of Community Development Desrochers noted that the "preliminary plan" is just that; following its adoption the staff can begin to formulate a plan to be considered in public hearing before the Planning Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Commission adopt a resolution which would read, beginning with the second paragraph: "WHEREAS, the tentative boundaries for the project area study were adopted by the Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM-78-14 on February 1, 1978," and the fourth paragraph be changed to read: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission recommends to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista the adoption of the preliminary plan for the study of Town Centre Redevelopment Project No. 2, attached hereto." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Renneisen, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Chandler, G. Johnson and O'Neill NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-78-2 on proposed revision to the General Development Plan of E1 Rancho del ReS Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out that this environmental impact report concerns the E1 Rancho del Rey Planned Community revisions as proposed by the Planning Department. Several previous environmental impact reports have been prepared and adopted on portions of this property, including a report on the Sports World project, Plaza del Rey, and a 950 acre segment of the E1 Rancho del Rey project itself. -4- February l, 1978 The two major elements in the proposed Planned Community are the text of the plan, which is included in preliminary form in the EIR, and a land use plan diagram, which illustrates the various density ranges propo~ed throughout the project, in addition to areas for commercial uses, school~s~ parks and open space. As noted in the EIR the project area involves the Nacion earthquake fault zone, and therefore it is proposed that specific development proposals be reviewed by a registered geologist to insure that no structures are exposed to substantial hazard. The report also points out that the urbanization of this area will result in an increase in runoff and water pollution. Some downstream drainage facilities are inadequate and a substantial increase in runoff may result in a hazard to these sites. The increase level in water pollution is not considered significant due to the relatively small area in relation to the total Sweetwater Hydrographic subunit. It is noted that the land form of the area is rather severe, and that most of the major canyons are proposed for retention in either a natural or partially natural form. There will, however, be a substantial change in the landform required for the provision of access roads into the area. Development of the area will result in increased traffic on major access streets, such as Bonita Road, Otay Lakes Road, and Telegraph Canyon Road. Through the proper coordination of various development phases with public improvements and the widening of existing roads, these traffic volumes can be accommodated. The report notes several rare and endangered plant species in the area and suggests mitigating measures to preserve those species. Mr. Reid acknowledged the receipt of written comments from the Air Pollution Control District, the Environmental Control Commission, Safety Commission and the Otay Municipal Water District. A response to those comments will be included in the final EIR, along with response to testimony which may be presented in the public hearing. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed the opinion that this EIR was of much higher quality than the previous EIR's submitted for development proposals for the area. He felt, however, that some aspects of the impact of development were not adequately covered. Among these is the supply of water for the Southern California area. He enumerated the three sources of water supply; namely the Owens Valley aqueduct, Colorado River aqueduct and the new California aqueduct from norther California. He asserted that within five or six years this area would lose half of the water coming from the Colorado River due to its diversion to Arizona. He also stressed the hurdles that must be overcome in order to obtain water from northern California; these include an end to the drought, construction of the peripheral canal, and the construction of a nuclear energy plant to provide the power required to pump the water over the Tehachapi Mountains. He contended there is a strong possibility of a water shortage for this area and that any development which will add to the consump~on of water should take that into consideration. Mr. Watry pointed out that the report indicates the urban design and townscape planning of the actual development projects shall be governed by the Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista. He asked how this correlates with the recommendations contained in Sedway/Cooke report, some of which were unusual to southern California. He also questioned the student generation figures at the different levels and -5- February l, 1978 suggested that these were not in keeping with the recent trend of student population coming from new development, particularly an area of higher cost homes. He pointed out that the school districts may move toward integration,which could have a decided effect on the need for neighborhood schools, and on the location of school sites. Mr. Watry expressed doubts about the adequate supply of natural gas, and also questioned the effect of increased traffic on streets outside of the development area. Harlan Skinner, 4234 Lynwood Drive, Bonita, spoke of the country atmosphere enjoyed by that area and objected to the use of Lynwood Drive as an access road for proposed development within the E1 Rancho del Rey area. James Fairman, President of Project Design Consultants, 610 A Street, San Diego, spoke on behalf of E1 Rancho del Rey, major owners of property in the area. He expressed the opinion that the projection of student enrollment is probably too high stnce it is based on the maximum density ranges of development, which may not be attained. On the same basis, the numbers used in terms of generating traffic, air quality, emissions, etc, are maximums, worst case, conditions. He noted that while the report indicates the plan amendments are calculated to provide the developers with sufficient economic incentive for the development, there is no description in the EIR of those incentives or analysis of their impact. Mr. Fair man further pointed out that while the plan strongly infers that the north leg of Rice Canyon would be acquired, developed and maintained as public open space, there are no analyses in the EIR dealing with the impact on the community tax structure. He also felt the EIR does not adequately address social factors in terms of housing supply, housing costs in terms of the market, the demand and the need of the community. He also questioned the cost/revenue figures used in regard to the retail center. Mr. Fairman submitted written comments referencing the sections in the EIR that he questioned. Reva Lynch, 626 Date Avenue, read a statement which she had prepared for inclusion in the EIR, in which she recommended leaving the remaining 2354 acres of E1 Rancho del Rey in open space for eventual public use. She also stressed adverse impacts which she felt were not fully covered in the EIR, such as economic impacts relating to the provision of roads, schools, sewers and water supply. Peter Watry read a statement addressed to the Planning Commission from Eugene V. Coleman, 1670 Gotham Street,who was unable to attend the hearing. Mr. Coleman questioned the supply of water to serve the community in future years, and the excess amount of sewage to be handled by the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant on Point Loma. He suggested that the Commission should receive assurance that capacity exists for adequate treatment of the additional flow. Fred Gathe, 3242 Lynwood Drive, elaborated upon the adverse noise factor resulting from the construction of Freeway 1-805. On that basis heobjectedtothe use of Lynwood Drive as a feeder road to serve the proposed development. Margery Watrous, resident on Holly Way, affirmed the statements of Mr. Gathe with regard to noise and added that there is also a great increase in dirt -6- February 1, 1978 particles from the air pollution. Mitchell Beauchamp, 1843 East 16th Street, National City, spoke on behalf of the California Native Plant Society. He particularly stressed the pl~tSimmondsia chinensis, noting that while it is not a rare plant, there are only two populations of this plant occuring on the coast while the rest of the plants occur in the desert regions of California and Arizona. Because of this diversity of habitat occurring in Chula Vista amd in Del Mar, the plant represents a unique gene nome, which could be drawn upon to increase the productivity of the Simmondsia. Since it represents a genetic pool adapted to coastal climates, in that respect it is rare and endangered. Mr. Beauchamp also refuted the practice of preserving an endangered species by moving plants to a protected area; he contended that such transplanting would cause the plants to die. He urged that the plants be preserved in their present location. As no one else wished to spea~, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Chandler advised that all testimony offered would be included in the final Environmental Impact Report, along with the necessary response to questions raised, and that the final report would be presented for Planning Commission on February 22. At the request of Commissioner R. Johnson, the meeting was recessed for ten minutes at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of proposed amendment to the General Development Plan and Schedule of the E1 Rancho del ReS Planned Community Zone Director of Planning Peterson gave a resume of the history of this property, dating back to 1970, when the property was placed in the P-C zone, and a development plan was adopted a short time later. He noted that the original plan covered a larger area, approximately 3100 acres, and the portions of the property which have been developed since 1970 are not shown on the present plan. Shortly after adoption of the development plan, development began to occur in the area immediately west of Southwestern College, with the construction of 345 homes known as Bonita Encore Estates and an additional 125 homes built by American Housing Guild. In 1973 Dr. Bloom's Sports World plan proposed an amendment to the 1970 plan to permit construction of a sports arena and other recreational development in the vicinity of "H" Street and 1-805. Citizens Concerned were unhappy about Council approval of that plan; they circulated petitions to require a referendum vote, and the plan was defeated at the polls. After that Dr. Bloom submitted another proposal known as Plaza del Rey, for commercial and residential development in a 450 acre area at the same location. Following approval by the City Council, this plan was also defeated in a referendum vote. - Prior to consideration of Sports World, the Council had begun to express concern about the development plan, particularly with regard to the grading proposed and the staff was directed to prepare an ordinance which would regulate the manner in which hillside development could occur. The Council adopted the ordinance in 1973, but when it came time to apply that ordinance to different properties, the -7- February l, 1978 Council backed away as it was very controversial and the Hillside Modifying District was applied to only 18 small properties. At about that time the Council had asked the staff to prepare a plan showing the way the Hillside Modifying District could be applied to E1 Rancho del Rey. The plan was prepared and designated as the Hillside Sketch Plan, howeve~ the Council did not take action on that plan. In lieu of applying the Hillside Modifying District the Council then decided to attempt to define the areas within E1 Rancho del Rey that should remain as natural open space and the areas that should be developed. The Council also decided to hire an outside consultant to evaluate the 450 acre area and to made recommendations for its development. Due to the strong citizen interest in that property over the years, the Council also appointed a citizens committee called ACCORD and charged that committee with the responsibility of working with the consulting firm of Sedway/Cooke. ACCORD's responsibility was later expanded to include all of the undeveloped E1 Rancho del Rey area. The members of ACCORD were appointed in October, 1975 and began meeting with Sedway/ Cooke in February 1976. The last meeting of that group was held in the middle of January, 1978, after they had worked on the plan with Sedway/Cooke for nearly two years. While working with ACCORD the staff continued to meet with Otay Land Company and their engineers and consultants and to review different plans and different densities. The plan now proposed by the staff calls for a little over 5800 dwelling units; Otay Land Company feels the proper number is 8,350 units. In developing the proposed plan through working with ACCORD and with E1 Rancho del Rey, the staff tried to strike a balance between the open space and the density proposed earlier in the Hillside Sketch Plan and the plan which the developer thought would be desirable and feasible. In speaking of the Plan diagram which was displayed, Mr. Peterson pointed out the areas proposed for very low density--one to two units per acre--areas for 2 to 3 units per acre, for 3 to 5 units per acre, 6 to 10 units per acre, and up to the medium high density of ll to 18 dwelling units per acre. He also pointed out the areas designated for commercial development, and the areas~for schools and park land. In general, the areas close to Telegraph Canyon Road are designated for a density which would allow development of the type approved in E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5, while the areas on either side of "H" Street and in the vicinity of the commercial development are generally higher density. The area near the northern edge of the property is designated for one to two units to the acre due to the topography and the difficulty of access. Mr. Peterson pointed out that in the commercial area it is recommended that the primary commercial area be on the south side of "H" Street, approximately 40 acres gross area, and not exceed 300,000 square feet in floor area. He further pointed out that the alignment for "H" Street as recommended by staff is somewhat in contrast to the alignment recommended by Sedway/Cooke. The Sedway/Cooke plan located the shopping center on the north side of "H" Street. That plan also shows "H" Street leaving the ridge top quite early and shows the intersection between "H" Street and the northern collector route designated as Ridgeback Road quite close to the 1-805/"H" Street intersection. The engineering division did not support that alignment due to the tight radius of "H" Street. This lead to the staff's proposal to locate the shopping center on the south side of "H" Street. Within the 450 acre area the Sedway/Cooke plan would have allowed approximately 1,000 dwelling units, whereas the staff proposal allows 850. Under Cooke's plan -8- February l, 1978 the units would be required to be cluster quite tightly on the tops of the existing knolls to minimize the amount of grading; that plan would retain 65% of the 450 acres in natural open space, which would be accomplished by the clustering of resi'dential units of a type other than detached single family. Cooke's plan is very responsive to environmental concerns, but according to the major property owner, it is not responsive to the market demand for housing. In the staff proposal an attempt has been made to respond to the housing demand. This would require more grading than w~uld have been allowed under Sedway/Cooke's plan, but the details of the grading would not be known until a grading plan has been prepared. Mr. Peterson advised that one issue has not been resolved between the engineering division and the Planning staff. That issue pertains to Paseo Ranchero and whether or not it should be extended to the north beyond "H" Street to connect with Otay Lakes Road. To do so would require the crossing of the major leg of Rice Canyon which, in the opinion of the Planning staff, is the most significant area of natural open space in E1 Rancho del Rey. The traffic engineer feels that the extension is desirable to provide improved traffic circulation; the Assistant Director of Public Works will address that issue. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt commented first on traffic circulation, in general. He noted that roads are classified into several categories starting out with freeways, which in an urban area are spaced four or five miles apart, then major arterials, which in a flatland area would be spaced one to two miles apart. Such arterials are major highways, up to six lanes in width, with controlled access and a very limited number of driveways. Minor arterials are usually four lane and allow easier access and a greater number of driveways; they provide the link between the land use and the major highways or freeways. Collector streets are then provided to take the traffic from the neighborhoods to the minor arterials. The area of E1 Rancho del Rey is comparable to the developed Chula Vista area west of 1-805, in size. In that developed area, collector streets are spaced approximately one quarter milea~'art, which would not be allowed in an area as rough as E1 Rancho del Rey, however, for good circulation the streets must have some sort of grid pattern. In the proposed plan, Ridgeback Road extends for approximately three miles without an intersecting road. The engineering division recommends the extension of Paseo Ranchero to intersect Ridgeback Road and provide another access to Otay Lakes Road, which, they felt, would improve the circulation of the northern portion of E1 Rancho del Rey and also result in far less traffic on Ridgeback Road. The proposed extension would also allow easier access for emergency vehicles, such as fire and police, ambulance and so forth. Mr. Lippitt further noted that extension of Paseo Ranchero would also lessen the traffic congestion at "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road, particularly the number of cars attempting to make a left turn at that intersection. In response to a question from the Commission, it was noted that Paseo Ranchero would be approximately one mile from Otay Lakes Road at its intersection with "H" Street. Mr. Peterson acknowledged that this is an issue that requires careful consideration but he felt the basic issue is the question of density as it applies to the entire area. Mr. Peterson reported on the recommendation of ACCORD which was reached after many -9- February l, 1978 months of intensive study and meetings with Sedway/Cooke. Their recommendation is for approval of the staff proposal with a number of additions; which include limiting the shopping center to 300,000 square feet of retail sales area and that the primary use there be a specialty shopping center rather than a regional shopping center. Secondly, that the Sedway/Cooke recommendation for the residential portion of the 450 acre area, with regard to clustered housing and limited grading, be not limited to the 450 acre area but extend all the way to the east to Otay Lakes Road to envelope all of the area along Ridgeback Road. They recommended that the densities specified in the totals should be considered as absolute upper limits. They also recommended that Paseo Ranchero not be extended to cross Rice Canyon as proposed by the engineering division. Commissioner G. Johnson asked about the preservation of viewpoints within this area. Mr. Peterson agreed that those viewpoint areas as formerly identified should be designated as park sites, the same as an area adjacent to each school site. Commissioner O'Neill asked about the reference to the services of a grading consultant. Mr. Peterson advised that the Council had considered the need of hiring a grading consultant, but that would have required a mid-year appropriation which could be accomplished only by a 4/5 vote of the Council and the proposal failed to obtain that vote. Commissioner Smith questioned the procedure of the purpose of the reimbursement districts referred to in the plan. Mr. Peterson explained that this would be a procedure through which all developers would be required to contribute a fair share of the cost of public improvements which serve the area, even though a particular development did not front on that improvement. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Sam Blick, attorney with Higgs, Fletcher and Mack, of San Diego, advised that he is present to represent Otay Land Company but did not wish to make a presentation at this meeting, but would rather reserve his time for the next meeting after he had additional time to study the final text of the plan. Gilbert Dreyfuss, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, advised that he is the principal owner of 16 acres which is designated on the map as open space. They had developed a plan in the early 60's for 3+ units per acre, but did not develop at that time. They would hope the plan would be modified to allow some develop- ment of their property. Mr. Peterson pointed out the location of the 16 acres referred to by Mr. Dreyfuss, noting that it is located on very steep terrain which the staff does not consider to be developable, and it does not have access to a public street. Kenneth Kolk, 4190 Bonita Road, co-chairman of ACCORD, spoke of that committee's lengthy study, of their many meetings with Mr. Cooke and consideration of his viewpoints and recommendations. H~ pointed out that some of the approaches suggested are not familiar to soutbe~nCalifornians--they were imaginative, creative and different from what is normally seen here. He noted that while there is a good deal in the text of the plan about uniqueness and differentiating in housing types, he had observed remarks that tend to mitigate that text, regarding the housing mix and what's selling. He stressed the importance of condominiums or clustered -10- ~February l, 1978 developments to minimize grading, preserve open space, and economically affect -the provision of utilities. Mr. Kolk spoke of the strong concern of ACCORD for limiting the amount of commer- cial usage to 300,000 square feet and the desirability of making this a specialty center of high quality nature, which would be a complement to existing shopping facilities in the area and not a direct competitor. He affirmed ACCORD's recommendation that a north-south connector road across Rice Canyon not be included in the plan. He suggested that consideration should be given to what effect such a road would have on sewer and utilities, as well as on traffic circulation. He expressed the hope that the Planning Commission and Council would give weight to the recommendations which the ACCORD committee had hammered out with intellectual integrity and honesty and with a good deal of reflection and help from both the staff and from the consultant. Peter Watry, also co-chairman of ACCORD, pointed out that Mr. Kolk had covered the planning aspect of the work of ACCORD and he wished to cover the political aspect of that group. He recounted the devisiveness that separated the community during the referendum campaign on the two previous plans approved by the City for the Rice Canyon area. As a result of the outspoken concern of citizens, ACCORD was composed of eleven members, with two appointed individually by each of the five Councilmen and one member at large appointed by the Council as a whole. He also reported that both he and Mr. Kolk had been actively engaged in the referendum _elections on opposite sides. He felt that the fact that they had served together ~n the committee and reached agreement on a plan spoke well for that plan's acceptance by the citizens. He stressed the fact that ACCORD and the Planning Commission are composed of citizens and have the responsibility of reporting to the Council the viewpoint and recommendations which they feel serves the best interest of the City as a whole. He explained that the recommendation submitted by ACCORD had the full support of five of the eight members who were active at the conclusion of the committee's work, and that a sixth member supported the plan with the exception of the 300,000 sq. ft. restriction of commercial use--he felt that should be limited to 200,000 sq. ft. Mr. Watry expressed the hope that both he and Mr. Kolk could be of further service to the Planning Commission and the City Council in determining what the ultimate plan for the E1 Rancho del Rey area should be. James Bennett advised that his home has been located within the area covered by the plan for 20 years and he is concerned each time a new map is brought up. He reported that the most recent map shows a high school on their property and "J" Street, if drawn to scale, going through their residence. He has been advised that such designations are tentative, but he~ is concerned about receiving full information on the plan as it will affect their property. No one else expressed a desire to speak at this time and the chairman asked for a motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of February 22. MSUC (Renneisen-R. Johnson) The public hearing in consideration of proposed amend- -~qents to the General Development Plan of E1 Rancho del Rey be continued to the ~eeting of February 22, 1978. ~ -ll- ~February l, 1978 DIRECTOR'S REPORT ]irector of Planning Peterson called attention to the budget for the Planning Commission for the next fiscal, which is similar to last year's budget. He asked that the members review the budget and if it meets their approval, so advise the staff, or if they wish changes to be made that will be done. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Pressutti commented on a workshop he recently attended in Coronado concerning the responsibility of boards and commissions, also the conflict of interest provision of the state law and the Brown Act. Commissioner O'Neill expressed interest in obtaining full information on the Jarvis-Gann amendment. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary