Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/09/11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 11, 1974 The regular 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, Rudolph, Rice, Floto, Starr and Pressutti. Commissioner Wilson's resignation, effective on September 3, 1974, was noted. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Senior Planner Pass, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Engineer Harshman, Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Rudolph-Floto) The minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1974 be approved as mailed. Commissioner Rice abstained from voting due to his absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Don Worley, Attorney with Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins & McMahon, representing Dr. Leonard Bloom and the Otay Land Company requested that items 4 and 5 on the agenda be considered in reverse order. This request was based on the fact that three out of town people were present to speak on item 5; both items are quite controversial and may involve considerable time. If either item is to be con- tinued due to the lateness of the meeting, he would prefer that it be 4. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, requested that the agenda be adhered to as pub- lished, based on the contention that item 4 which relates to the application of the Hillside Ordinance to all E1 Rancho del Rey property should precede considera- tion of development plans for a component part of the area. When asked by the Commission Chairman to express his preference, Director of Planning Peterson indicated he would prefer to adhere to the order of the published agenda since it seems sensible to look at the overall area before zero- ing in on a specific parcel. The Commission concurred and expressed the opinion there should be no question but that they could consider all items on the agenda during the meeting. 1. Consideration of request for vacation of Third Avenue from C Street to Seavale, South Bay Pioneers Commissioner Rudolph reported that due to a conflict of interest she wished to abstain from consideration of this request. Mrs. Rudolph left the podium for the duration of discussion and voting on this item. Sept. ll, 1974 Director of Planning Peterson reported that although this item was delayed from a previous agenda on a procedural question, it has now been deemed by the City Attorney'S office that the Planning Commission may consider the request without ic hearing will be at the City Council level. Mr. Peter- a ublic hearing. The p~bl _ ~ ~ ' stalled in this segment of so~ pointed out that no lmprovement~ have be~n ~n be very right of way, there is no need for the street extension, and it would difficult to accomplish due to the topographic conditions. It is, therefore, recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the vacation of the street right of way. MSC (Floto-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the vacation of Third Avenue from C Street to Seavale. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Floto, Rice, Pressutti, Chandler and Starr NOES: None ABSTAIN: Member Rudolph · · Permit PCC-74~ ~[a~rro~w 2. PUBLIC HEARI~IG: Conditional U~e~____~__~ ~ incess Park Estates, Inc. -- ~pit at Melrose and Ota~l~l§~_ .... d, Pr Environmental Review Coordinator Reid indicated the location of the lO acres located on both sides of Melrose Avenue at the north side of Otay Valley Road. The subject application is for removal of 450,000 cubic yards of earth to an unspecified site. An environmental impact report previously adopted covered not only the operatiOn of a borrow pit at the site but development of the property at a later date with single family dwellings. He reported that the grading, as proposed, would crea'te slopes ranging from 15 feet to 55 feet in height, at a l~:l slope ratio along two sides of the property..The staff prefers that 2:1 slopes be used for better maintenance and less erosion. Mr. Reid called attention to the findings for approval of the request and the conditions recommended, which include the requirement for 2:1 ratio slope banks and for landscaping, irrigation and maintenance of the slopes pending development of the site. Mr. Reid also asked that the Commission adopt a motion certifying that an Environ- mental Impact Report has been completed in accordance with CEQA guidelines and that the information in the EIR has been reviewed and considered in approving this project. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Thomas Spade, 4412 Marlborough, San Diego, vice-president of Princess Park EstateS, indicated their acceptance of the conditions as recommended and his willingness to answer any question of the Commission. Commissioner Start questioned the reason for creating a depression or lower eleva- tion at the east end of the property. -3- Sept. ll, 1974 Mr. Reid noted that one point in support of this grade is the location of the 805 freeway to the east, and the high slope provides good sound attenuation from freeway noise for the proposed development. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) The Commission certifies that EIR-74-8 has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines and that the information in the report has been reviewed in considering the proposed project. MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) Conditional Use Permit PCC-74-21 for operation of a borrow pit at Melrose Avenue and Otay Valley Road be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The grading plan shall be revised to show a finished grade two feet higher than is currently proposed and all slope banks reduced to a 2:1 ratio or flatter. 2. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any work; prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit for approval the grading plan and landscaping and irrigation plan and shall post a surety bond to assure that the grading and landscaping is completed as proposed. 3. The operation of the borrow pit shall comply with the performance standards of the City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard to hours of operation of heavy equipment and dust control. 4. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall conform to the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, and to the following: a. Complete Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared for the slope banks. These banks shall be landscaped within 30 days after the grading is complete. b. A plan to minimize erosion shall be prepared for the finished grades other than the slopes. These grades shall likewise be landscaped within 30 days after the grading is complete. c. Maintenance of the slopes for a one year period shall be guaranteed through the posting of a surety bond. However, the owner will be responsible for maintenance beyond the one year period pending develop- ment of the site. Findings are as follows: a. The grading of the property to sell dirt provides a desirable service to other developers and, indirectly, to the community. b. Subject to the conditions of approval, especially regarding noise and dust control, the grading will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, nor will it be injurious to property or improvementS. -4- Sept. Il, 1974 c. The operation of the borrow pit complies with the regulations and conditions specified in the Zoning Ordinance for this use. d. The proposed subsequent development of the property with single family homes conforms to the zoning and the General Plan. 3. Appeal by ~arwi -San Dieoo, Inc. of requirement four an Environmental Impact _ n ~o~_~jn IS-74-3G--f-or resubdivis~on of E1 Rancho del Rey[- Unit 2 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that this is the first appeal from the decision of the Environmental Review Committee in the nearly two years it has · · . e ointed out that a project may proceed without an environ- been ~u~ctlo~lng H ~p ' claration is issued by the Environmental mental impact report ,f a negative de Review Committee and is not appealed. A negative declaration can only be made by the review committee when it is apparent to them that a project will clearly have no adverse effects. If there is a possibility of adverse effectS, then an EIR should be prepared to evaluate those impacts and determine their significance. Mr. Reid reported that the project involved in this application is the resubdi- vision of an:already improved and graded site, previously approved for 180 town- house units and now proposed for development with 98 single family dwellings and 8 townhomes. He advised that one of the guidelines established by state law concerning the requirement for an EIR is the finding of the effect of the project on human beings--this is one of four findings required. The review committee could make three findings that there would be no adverse effect but could not make this fourth finding. Specifically, the committee found that the effects of this project relate to the safety and welfare of the residents of the com- munity in the following manner: The welfare and safety of the residents of the project could be affected due to the amount of common open space in the project that is to compensate for the substandard lot size. Almost 2~ times the amount of open space provided in this project would be required in order to meet the standards adhered to in Unit 1 of this development area. The open space should also be provided in a manner to better relate the open space to the dwelling units. He noted that only one area of .8 acre of usable open space is provided and it relates only to a small portion of the proposed subdivision. The review committee also found that the safety of pedestrians within the project could be adversely affected. In the previous plan for townhomes the pedestrian circulation was provided in open space areas. In this project the pedestrian circulation system is reoriented toward the vehicular circulation routes. It is immediately adjacent to travel lanes with no onstreet parking provided, and with only a roll ed curb, in place of the standard vertical curb normally provided on city streets, which may result in a high potential for friction between pedes- trian circulation and vehicular circulation. It was further found that the project could result in adverse esthetic impact because of a conflict with the scenic route element of the General Plan. The previous plan oriented the front of the units toward H Street, which is an adopted scenic route. This plan would reorient the front of the dwelling units toward private roads in the interior of the project with the unarchitecturally treated side of the units oriented toward H Street. -5- Sept. ll, 1974 Mr. Reid reviewed the six reasons stated in the appeal why the applicant felt an EIR should not be required. These dealt with the requirement for open space, park dedication, the street scene, parking spaces, the H Street scenic route, and the fact that the questions raised by the review committee are planning issues rather than environmental issues, which they felt should be handled during the tentative map process. Chairman Chandler invited the applicant to speak concerning the appeal. Devere Anderson, vice-president of Larwin, Southern California, 7801 Mission Center Court, San Diego, gave a brief history of the development of this property, noting that it was purchased by Larwin as finished lots with the idea of building a town- house development. Models of the townhouse units were opened for sale in January of this year and in a period of 22 weeks only 5 sales had been made, which led them to design the project for single family detached homes. Mr. Anderson submitted photos showing the improvements they have made in the recrea- tion area since purchasing the property--including swimming pool, recreation building, children's play areas and landscaping--to serve this development, at a cost in excess of $130,000. He felt this cost should be taken into account in reducing the requirement for park and open space. He also pointed out that the proposed reversion to detached single family homes will result in a reduction in density from 7.8 units per acre to 4.5 units per acre. They felt such a modifica- tion of plans does not present additional adverse impact and they should not be subjected to the expense of preparing an environmental impact report and he reiterated their position that the issues raised by the Environmental Review Committee should be discussed during the tentative map stage. Mr. Anderson then discussed each of the reasons stated in their appeal, expressing the opinion that they have provided 2.96 acres of open space which is in excess of the requirement for the project based on the reduced number of units. Ite also felt there was a discrepancy in the number of substandard driveways and that only 29 drives were less than 20 feet in length. He indicated that the H Street scenic route would be treated the same as it was for the proposed townhouse development. He also maintained the rolled curbs would not represent a hazardous condition for pedestrians. Commissioners Floto and Starr expressed the opinion that the narrow streets and rolled curbs would be very dangerous for pedestrians. Mr. Reid affirmed that this project would not require a full blown EIR since the biological and archeological resources, and the urban support systems, have been evaluated; however, since there may clearly be adverse effects on human beings, the review committee felt an EIR is necessary to evaluate the impact and deter- mine how significant it may be. In response to questions from the Commission as to what is at issue in this consideration, Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that the Commission should determine if the change in land use from townhouse development to single family dwellings on this particular site might have adverse effects which should be set forth in an EIR which this body would adopt and which would be taken into consider- ation in approving or denying the proposed project. Commissioner Rudolph asserted that the proposed change in land use definitely results in different criteria for open space and other amenities. She felt that in considering the project the Planning Commission will need the information that would be included in an EIR and therefore one should be prepared. -6- Sept. ll, 1974 MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) The appeal be denied and an Environmental Impact Report covering the possible substantial adverse impacts be required for the resubdivision of E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 2. Don Worley requested permission to raise a point of order and asked that agenda item 4 be continued to a future meeting in order to allow more time for considera- tion of item 5. Director of Planning Peterson advised that it remains his preference for the Commission to take testimony on the E1 Rancho del Rey plan first. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an amendment to the General Plan and the E1 Rancho del ReS General Development Plan to bring them int~ conformance with the provisions of the Hillside Modifying District Director of Planning Peterson reported, for the benefit of the new members of the Commission, that the history of the E1 Rancho del Rey plan dates back to 1969, with approval given for the plan in 1970. Ite called attention to the exhibit of the adopted plan of E1 Rancho del Rey covering an area of 3100 acres and accommodating approximately ll,O00 dwelling units. Shortly after adopting the plan in 1970, the Council began expressing reservations about it, and later became concerned about hillside development in general and asked for an ordinance to govern development and grading in hillside areas. Before adoption of the Hillside Modifying District ordinance, the Sports World proposal was submitted, and as a part of its approval of Sports World the Council limited the density and the grading to what would be allowed by the proposed Hillside ordinance. The Council at that time directed the staff to investigate the best way of applying the Hillside ordinance to all areas east of 1-805. Mr. Peterson reported that following the adoption of the Hillside Ordinance, its implementation was undertaken in two phases: The first phase included properties east of 1-805 which were outside of the E1 Rancho del Rey ownership. The Council has approved R-1-H zoning to 18 such parcels. The second phase is to address the E1 Rancho del Rey area, and due to the amount of planning that has been done for that area under the P-C zone, it is recommended that rather than changing the zoning to R-l-H, the General Development Plan be amended to conform to the principles of limited grading and maintenance of open space that are contained in the Hillside Ordinance. This recommendation was presented to the City Council at a conference meeting on July 25th, at which time it was referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. Assistant Director of Planning Williams discussed the proposed plan as shown on the map displayed. He explained that the Hillside Ordinance regulates density of development based on average natural slope of the property. The proposed plan covers 2490 residential acres with an average natural slope of 22.5%. Under the ~lillside Ordinance 50% of that land should remain in natural open space and 50%, or 1245 acres, could be graded for development. Under the density permitted in the R-1-H zone, 5720 dwelling units would be allowed on the 2490 acres. Under this criteria the staff prepared a sketch plan for the area attempting to retain the open space in a continuous system and to limit the amount of grading required for the street system as much as possible. He reported that under the proposed plan there would be 1137 acres of residential development containing approximately 5,383 dwelling units at a density ranging from apartments at 17 units to the acre, to single family dwellings at 2 to the acre. Some portions of the single family dwellings would contain 4.5 units per acre and some of the apartment development -7- Sept. ll, 1974 would be at 12 units per acre. The plan includes 1287 acres of open space located in the north leg of Rice Canyon, the center leg--formerly designated as the Wilderness Park area--the south leg of Rice Canyon, two earthquake faults, SDG&E powerline easement, and slope banks along Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road in conformance with the Scenic Routes Element and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Mr. Williams pointed out that five school sites, containing a total of 108 acres, have been included in the plan. He also noted that in some areas there are fewer streets proposed than on the original plan, however, emphasis was placed on providing sufficient access to all development portions without needlessly cutting through open space. Director of Planning Peterson advised this is viewed as a sketch plan and some areas may be revised with regard to location of high density development. Mr. Peterson also reported that at an earlier meeting residents of the Southwestern College Estates area had submitted petitions bearing 84 signatures requesting that the Hillside regulations be applied to vacant property in that vicinity. Chairman Chandler opened the public hearing. Don Worley, Attorney, 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, representing Otay Land Company and E1 Rancho del Rey expressed objection to the application of the Hillside Ordinance to E1 Rancho del Rey since the requirement for precise plans under the P-C zone provides safeguards to protect the topography of that particular area. He also objected to the controlled density on the basis that the low density proposed will render any development economically infeasible due to the high cost of installing public improvements, specifically H Street and the sewer system. Mr. Worley also expressed opposition to the County traffic model for this area, which he stated is fallacious and produces some tremendously inaccurate portrayals of traffic volume. He advised that more importantly they object to the use of R-1 density or the application of the R-1 column of the nomogram of the Hillside Ordinance to this property. If applied at all, the Hillside standards should be applied to separate areas as proposed for development. He maintained that the sketch plan as presented is ill conceived and does not have the required depth for the Commission to consider at this time. He asked that the plan be scrapped and the staff directed to come up with an alternative plan of applying the Hillside Ordinance to E1 Rancho del Rey by subareas. Carol Smith, 87 F Street, recalled the referendum vote of the residents of Chula Vista against the proposed Sports World development and asserted that the main concern of the citizens was growth. She maintained that the Hillside Ordinance controls growth while allowing for controlled expansion and creative planning. She called attention to the cost of providing city services--streets, parks, libraries, police and fire protection--and schools to expanded residential develop- ment. She indicated the Hillside Ordinance is not a cureall for the problem of expansion, but it is a beginning on the only open space which is left within the sphere of the City's planning. She noted that decisions made now with regard to this growth will effect generations to come. -8- Sept. 11, 1974 Irma Morris, 114 Third Avenue, stated that she is for improvements in this city and she feels there is a great opportunity to use the land and to progress. She felt the loss of the Sports World development was a great loss to the city. She pointed out the need for increased employment opportunities and recreational facilities to meet the needs of the residents. She contended that former proposals were defeated by a group opposed to any growth in the city. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, passed to the Commissioners an aerial photo of the City of Chula Vista showing the area under consideration as contrasted to the area behind National City. He voiced his opinion that the application of the Hillside Modifying District to the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area presents Chula Vista with the unique and golden opportunity in the following four respects: First, the proposed plan would provide a break in what otherwise could become a continuous urban sprawl, some day stretching from the bay to Mt. Miguel. This is an opportunity to help prevent another Los Angeles. Second the plan would allow development with nature instead of against it. Warnings have been heard for years against man's disregard of his impact on nature. Some of the repercussions of that blatant disregard are now in evidence. Nowhere in the South Bay area is a minimum respect for nature more important than in this very rough terrain. Third, this plan controls the quality and the character of growth without restricting the ultimate quantity of growth in Chula Vista. It represents an admirable compro- mise between those who want zero growth and those who want unlimited and unplanned growth. This plan allows growth to continue tomorrow in such a way that, hopefully, it will not destroy the Chula Vista of today. Fourth, possibly the most unique thing about this plan is the opportunity it gives Chula Vista to implement a masterful land use mechanism without hurting anyone, including the developer. Mr. Watry acknowledged that decreasing the density of development on the land increased the land cost which must be born by each unit, but he felt this was not significant due to the low initial price paid for the land by the present owner. Mr. Watry reiterated that the plan seems to represent an ideal compromise among the competing factors of orderly growth, preserving the character of present Chula Vista, and the reasonable rights of developers. He strongly urged that the Hillside Ordinance be applied to the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area, including the area to be considered for the development of Plaza del Rey. Jim Hutchinson, Wilsey and Ham, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, planners and engineers of E1 Rancho del Rey for the original plan approved in 1970, pointed out that during the thorough consideration of the Hillside Ordinance by both the Planning Commission and City Council, one of the items added to it was the table of five or six columns for the various types of land use. He acknowledged the intent to preserve a certain amount of open space, but when an approved plan had indicated a certain land use, the density of that use would be determined by applying the proper column of the table. -9- Sept. ll, 1974 Mr. Hutchinson also expressed concern as to how the grading inherent in the staff plan would be accomplished since the canyons are very narrow. He also commented on the difficulty of determining school locations which would not require children to travel considerable distance due to the low density of development. He called attention to costs which will be the same, regardless of the number of units permitted, including construction of H Street, major drainage channels, water system, connection to a second aqueduct, construction of reservoirs. He reported the cost of these externals will be over 10 million dollars and if these costs are spread over half the number of units it doubles the amount to be born by each unit. The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:15 p.m. James E. Bennett, 981 Telegraph Canyon Road, reported that he lives on and owns a 10 acre parcel about one-half mile north of Telegraph Canyon Road on the south rim of Rice Canyon. He noted that part of their 10 acres is proposed for the high school site and part for open space, which will leave them with 3 acres which will be divided by J Street. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the plan depicted on the map is a sketch plan and not detailed as to exact boundaries. He advised that if Mr. Bennett has develop- ment plans for his property, changes could be made in street alignments. Mr. Bennett advised that he has owned the property for 16 years, and that he did not purchase it with the intent of deriving financial benefit, but with the idea of dividing it among their five children with each receiving a two acre parcel. Esther Lassman, 264 Rogan Road, displayed and referred to the last issue of "National Wildlife" which devoted several pages to pictorial illustrations of the first stanza of "America, the Beautiful." She expressed the feeling that under the pressure of exploding growth, the magnificent face of the richest continent on the earth is changing, inexorably for the worse. She felt the entire nation must act to curb suburban sprawl and retain as much as possible of the remaining natural beauty of the earth. Mrs. Lassman spoke to Mr. Worley's criticism of the County traffic flow study which was conducted at the request of the City of Chula Vista to make projections of traffic to the year 1990 with the development of the area east of the City of Chula Vista. She pointed out that this traffic projection study was completed in 1972 and is on file in the City's engineering offices. She called attention to the tremendous increase in anticipated traffic on all east-west thoroughfares through the City as a result of the opening of 1-805 and the development of property to the east. She reported that the conclusion and recommendation arrived at by the County Engineering Department as a result of that traffic study, was, specifically, to pare back the land use in this area and to reevaluate the development patterns. She felt that the City now has the primary tool for paring back land use in the Hillside Modifying District. She urged that this ordinance be applied to the entire E1 Rancho del Rey plan before isolating any portion of that plan. She emphasized that the protection of the community should be the first concern of citizens and the Planning Commission. -10- Sept. 11, 1974 In the interest of reserving time for the next agenda item, the Chairman suggested that a motion be offered for continuance of this public hearing. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) The public hearing to consider amendment of the General Plan and the E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan to bring them into conformance with the provisions of the Hillside Modifying District be continued to the meeting of October 23, 1974. Carol Smith, 87 F Street, raised a point of procedure, pointing out that the alter- native plan as drafted by the Planning Department had not been legally noticed, and therefore could not be considered in a public hearing. She requested that the Plaza del Rey plan be continued to a subsequent meeting in order that the alternative plan could be considered at the same time. Assistant City Attorney Beam reported that in a memo directed to the Planning Commission on this date, he advised that the alternate plan could not be considered as a replacement of the plan advanced by the D.L.B. Corporation. He felt the public hearing for consideration of the plan submitted by D.L.B. should not be continued without opening the topic. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Plaza del Rey amendment to General Development Plan of E1 Rancho del Re¥ Director of Planning Peterson advised that is an application to amend a 450 acre portion of the General Development Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey which was approved by the Council in 1970. Included in the proposal are: (1) A regional shopping center on 85 acres containing 1.2 million sq. ft. of floor area. (2) 24 acres of recreational commercial use. (3) 12 acres of professional office use. (4) Residential use consisting of 1450 dwelling units of various types, including apartments, townhouses and detached single family homes. Mr. Peterson noted that the proposal also involves the filling of Rice Canyon to a depth of 30 to 40 feet, the movement of about 5 million cubic yards of earth, and the improvement of certain streets, H Street primarily, almost to freeway standards with interchanges rather than intersections for H Street and the loop street surrounding the regional center. He pointed out that at the present time the area is inaccessible due to the rough topography with slopes ranging up to 30%. He acknowledged that the proposal is in general conformance with the General Plan and the residential densities are below the adopted General Development Plan densities. The staff, however, feels that those densities are entirely unrealistic. Mr. Peterson pointed out, as indicated in the staff report, that any proposal for a 1.2 million square foot shopping center in a community of 75,000 is a major item, and that a decision on its approval involves a basic policy decision as to the kind of community Chula Vista should become. Such a decision should be made by the City Council, acting on the advice of the Planning Commission. It is not the type of decision for which it is appropriate for the staff to make a recommendation. He pointed out that a decision in favor of this development as proposed would maximize the City's opportunity to capture a regional shopping center and minimize the possibility of losing that center to National City. On the other hand, it is felt -ll- Sept. ll, 1974 that if the proposal is approved it would have a serious detrimental effect to the Chula Vista Shopping Center and would unquestionably involve massive grading and extensive street improvements. Mr. Peterson advised that due to concern over the aspects of the plan, the staff suggested consideration of certain modifications of the plan, but have not made a recommendation for approval of the plan or of the modifications, since the decision as to the kind of community Chula Vista should be is an underlying decision that must be made first before action is taken on either the applicant's plan or a modified plan. He indicated that some of the concerns of the staff relate to the market analysis and the adequacy of the market to support such a large center without adversely affecting the Chula Vista Shopping Center. In particular, it is felt that the market analysis did not take account of the fact that about $28 million is spent each year at the 32nd Street and Imperial Beach Navy Exchanges. A second area of concern with the market analysis relates to the market area which the consultant has defined which extends to Jamul, Spring Valley and Lemon Grove. The analysis indicates that 25 to 30% of total dollars spent on shoppers goods from Spring Valley and Lemon Grove could be captured by this center. It is felt that with the existence of three regional centers closer to those areas, this new center would not capture the high percentage which the consultant assumes in the report. Mr. Peterson reported that those concerns led to consideration of alternatives to the plan as proposed, with a view toward avoiding a delay in approving a shopping center if'the Planning Commission and City Council share some of those concerns. He noted that the suggested modifications involve reducing the size of the center to 60 acres with about 600,000 square feet of floor area, and in terms of residential density, reduce the total number of units to between 1,O00 and 1100 units with a mix of single family, townhouse and apartment units. Mr. Peterson summarized the advantages and disadvantages of the plan as follows: The applicant's plan maximizes the City's opportunity to capture a regional shopping center and prevents its location outside the City. It also maximizes the sales tax and property tax return to the City. Possible disadvantages of the plan are: It may have a serious adverse effect on the Chula Vista Shopping Center. It has densities which exceed those allowed by the Hillside Ordinance by nearly 300%. It involves massive grading and construction of some City streets almost to freeway standards. Mr. ?eterson expressed the opinion that a scaled down or modified plan would provide the following advantages: It would not have as serious an effect on Chula Vista Shopping Center. It probably would not require the same street system as the larger center. It would begin to conform to the Council direction with reference to the Hillside Ordinance. He also noted that the disadvantage of a scaled down or modified plan is that it may not be successful in attracting major tenants to this location, with the result that the center might go ahead in National City, in which case Chula Vista would still suffer some of the environmental detriments without the positive economic effects. -12- Sept. ll, 1974 Concerning the relationship of this 450 acre plan to the overall E1 Rancho del Rey plan, Mr. Peterson advised that he could see no reason for not moving ahead on this 450 acres, without waiting until a decision is made on a plan for the complete E1 Rancho del Rey area. He felt that any plan approved by the Council for this 450 acres could be plugged into the E1 Rancho del Rey plan. On that basis he urged the Commission to try to make a decision on this proposed plan tonight and move it ahead to the Council. Assistant City Attorney Beam called the Commission's attention to the report submitted to them tonight by the Attorney's office relative to an alternative plan as discussed in the staff report. It was ruled that since consideration of that particular plan had not been legally advertised for public hearing, the plan per se could not be approved or recommended to the City Council for adoption. He indicated that elements included in the alternative plan could guide the Commission in suggesting modifications to the applicant's proposed plan. Mr. Beam also called attention to the si× mandatory findings which must be made for any approval under the P-C zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jim Hutchinson of Wilsey & Ham, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, planners and engineers for D.L.B. Corporation on this development, enumerated various large project which their firm has designed, including Foster City, North Star at Tahoe, and the General plan for the City of Irvine. He reviewed the history of the 3150 acre development of E1 Rancho del Rey since it was purchased in 1968, noting that the development was adopted in September, 1970, which included an 82 acre regional shopping center and 2400 residential units in this area, plus a school site and park. 1400 acres, generally the northern portion of the property, was purchased by D.L.B. Company in 1972, and the Sports World project, covering 450 acres, was approved by the City Council in July,~ 1973, but later defeated by a referendum vote. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that an E.I.R. was submitted and adopted on the new proposed revision to the General Development Plan and Schedule. Following adoption of this revision, precise plans and tentative maps will be submitted for approval. He advised that the M. J. Brock Company has plans for constructing 280 homes in the northeast portion of the project and the Huffman Company has tentative plans for the initial apartment house project. Precise plans and tentative map for the first phase of the shopping center should be ready in one to two months. He sub- mitted revised density tables which indicate that the average density of their development would be 5.7 units per acre. Mr. Hutchinson reported that a new street and highways plan was designed, based on the traffic analysis which appeared in the Environmental Impact Report, and the streets are designed to handle the projected traffic. Carroll Sweet, 5452 Caminito Herminia, La Jolla, Vice President of Real Estate Research Corporation, advised that their firm, formed in 1931, is the nation's oldest and largest firm engaged solely in studies of real estate markets and land economics, whose clients include hundreds of the nation's leading business firms. He then discussed their methodology of identifying the potential market for a regional shopping center at Plaza del Rey. This included the projected population growth for the surrounding area and a factor, established by their national head- quarters office in Chicago, for the portion of incomes spent for shoppers goods. On this basis it was their determination that almost 50 percent of the shoppers goods purchases by residents of this area are being made outside the area. He emphasized -13- Sept. ll, 1974 the success of large regional shopping centers, containing four or five major stores, as compared to the smaller centers with one or two department stores. He discounted any major effect that the new regional shopping center would have on the existing Chula Vista Center, citing the continued success of Grossmont following the opening of the Parkway Plaza. He advocated development of the center in phases, starting with two or three stores and expanding the center to meet market demands. Gene York, 72 Sandalwood Drive, spoke of his experience in retail store site selec- tion dating back to 1949. He expressed the opinion that the market analysis for this project was well prepared. He felt there is a definite need for a regional shopping center to serve the South Bay area and that the best location would be one with convenient access from 805 freeway. He discussed the proposed site for Bonita Plaza, pointing out the lack of easy access to the site as well as the limited acreage which would preclude the development of a major regional center to serve the entire South Bay area. Mr. York pointed out that the adverse effects that would accrue from a regional shopping center, such as traffic, noise and air pollution, will effect some areas of Chula Vista as much if a center is established on the Bonita gOlf course loca- tion as if it is located at H Street and 805, and, of course, no benefits would accrue to Chula Vista from a center located in National City. He discussed the beneficial e~fects of having a major shopping center in Chula Vista, in the form of increased tax base and employment. He urged that the Commission approve the Plaza del Rey development as proposed. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, urged that the Hillside Ordinance be applied to the residential development of this project as well as to the remainder of E1 Rancho del Rey, and also that the regional shopping center be reduced to 600,000 sq. ft. of floor area. He submitted charts indicating that the earnings, and therefore the purchasing power, of South Bay residents is below the countywide averages which were used in the market study. On that basis he felt there is not a need for a center of the size proposed for Plaza del Rey. Darryl Robbins, 488 Elm Avenue, expressed the belief that Rice Canyon is a geologically and scenically unique local resource found nowhere else in the South Bay Region. He urged the application of the Hillside Ordinance to retain as much of this canyon area in open space as possible. He presented numerous slides showing the topography of the area, noting the habitat of some species of birds not commonly found in the coastal region, as well as the growth of rare species of cactus and many which are more abundantly found. He also noted this is one of the few fossil bearing sites in the area. He felt that as much as possible of this heritage should be retained for the education and enjoyment of future generations. Carol Smith, 87 F Street, questioned both the need and the probability of success for a shopping center of the size proposed. She felt insufficient information had been furnished regarding the cost of this project to the City. She felt the density of housing over the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area should be reduced and that such a reduction would make a difference in the need for commercial facilities. She suggested that strong modifications to the proposed plan be considered. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -14- Sept. Il, 1974 Commissioner Rudolph discussed the problem of weighing the economic benefits against the adverse environmental effects. She felt that a regional center is a regional issue which should be considered on a regional basis, rather than on the basis of one local jurisdiction competing against another for the location of such facilities. With reference to the residential portion of the development, Mrs. Rudolph pointed to the need for striking a balance between providing a good living environment and the need to provide housing within the reach of all sectors of the population. She felt that if density is the primary factor in providing that housing, then higher densities should be considered, but before densities are granted for that purpose, if such densities are going to deteriorate the natural environment, it should be shown that the increase in density will provide the necessary housing and that it can't be provided in any other way. Chairman Chandler called the Commission members' attention to the six findings as noted in the Attorney's memo which must be made in order to approve the proposed project. Commissioner Pressutti felt that in order to expedite action, each of the findings should be considered in an effort made to determine whether the project meets that criteria. He noted that the first finding requires conformance of the proposed development with the General Plan. This has been affirmed. He pointed out that the second finding requires that residential development will constitute an environment of sustained desirability. This would be a question of determining the most suit- able density. The third finding requires that in the case of nonresidential uses, the surrounding area shall be protected from adverse effects of the development. Mr. Pressutti felt this requirement should be addressed. No 4 relates to the adequacy of streets and thoroughfares. No. 5 requires that a commercial development be justified economically. Mr. Pressutti felt this is difficult for the Commission to ascertain, but if the developer is investing his money it is assumed he has made a study; he suggested there may be some justification in delaying construction beyond 600,000 sq. ft. Finding No. 6 determines that the area surrounding proposed develop- ment can be zoned in coordination and compatible with the development. Mr. Pressutti felt this can be accepted. He expressed the opinion that findings No. 1 and 6 can be made, which leaves 2, 3, 4 and 5 for debate and determination. Commissioners Floto and Rice indicated they were not prepared to make such a finding at this meeting. Commissioner Pressutti raised a question concerning the difference in density between the applicant's proposal and the Hillside Ordinance. Acting Director of Planning Williams discussed the method of arriving at permitted density depending on the average natural slope. Chairman Chandler expressed the opinion that the proposed development is too large, both in terms of area of the shopping center and density of the residential develop- ment. Commissioner Starr voiced a concern which he felt was not covered by any of the mandatory findings but should be considered. This related to the trade from Tijuana that would be attracted to this center and the resulting increased traffic of cars with no anti-smog devices and with uninsured drivers. He felt the adverse effect of this should be seriously considered. -15- Sept. ll, 1974 Mr. Gene York asked to be recognized and requested that since the Commission apparently could not reach a positive favorable decision, a motion for denial of the application be passed so that the proposal could go on to the City Council, rather than continuing it for further consideration by the Commission. Ernest L. Robbins, 488 Elm Avenue, questioned why a decision must be made on a proposal of this magnitude at this meeting, and why it could not be held over to the next meeting. Chairman Chandler pointed out that the applicant has requested action at this time in order that it may go on to the City Council who will make the final decision. Commissioner Rudolph expressed opposition to delaying a decision, and also the opinion that the City Council should have the benefit of the Planning Commission's recommendation with regard to this project. MS (Rudolph-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the applica- tion for development of Plaza del Rey with the reduction in acreage of the shopping center to 60 acres and the square footage to 600,000 square feet, and also the reduction of residential dwelling units in the project to 1,034, with the provision that if an excellent plan is presented at a higher density that fulfills the need for low and moderate income housing, that the density be increased; said approval to be subject to the conditions enumerated in Section B of the staff recommendation and to include the findings as required in the P-C zone. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Chandler and Starr NOES: Commissioners Pressutti, Floto and Rice ABSENT: None Chairman Chandler noted that since the motion resulted in a tie vote, the applica- tion would go to the City Council without recommendation from the Planning Commission for approval or denial. Assistant City Attorney Beam confirmed that the tie vote will be an indication that the Commission has been unable to resolve this particular issue and it will be forwarded on that basis. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Peterson indicated he had no report to the Commission at this time. Assistant City Attorney Beam reported that the City Council had expressed a desire to postpone to a later date the joint workshop originally scheduled for the follow- ing night, September 12th, for information on filing the forms required by the Moscone Bill. He expressed a willingness, however, to hold the meeting as scheduled for the Planning Commissioners and department personnel if desired. He affirmed that the required forms must be filed by the end of September. A preference for holding the workshop meeting as scheduled was expressed. -16- Sept. ll, 1974 Director of Planning Peterson then suggested that if the Commission wished to cancel the workshop meeting normally scheduled for next Wednesday, September 18th, that would be possible. The Commission concurred that the workshop meeting scheduled for September 18 be cancelled. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler declared the meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secre~'ary