HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/09/10 Item 18 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 18
Meeting Date 9/10/86
ITEM TITLE: Report: Consideration of proposed revision of Sectional
Planning Area boundaries for the Rancho del Rey area of the El
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan - McMillin Development Company
Resolution /Z 7 6 Revising Sectional Planning Area
boundaries for Rancho del Rey
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Pllaanni ng cry/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager / (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On November 5, 1985, the City Council adopted the revised El Rancho del Rey
(ERDR) Specific Plan. The Specific Plan established certain criteria for
later dividing the 1 ,582-acre Corcoran Ranch SPA into planning subareas. On
June 3, 1986, the City Council approved dividing this acreage into four
separate SPA' s (collectively called the Rancho del Rey area). McMillin
Development Company is now requesting a revision to those boundaries to
include Rice Canyon (north) in SPA-I rather than SPA-III.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution revising Sectional Planning
Area boundaries for El Rancho del Rey.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The ERDR Specific Plan identifies general considerations to be used in the
determination of subarea - or in this case SPA - boundaries. Those
considerations, which function as criteria, state that each subarea shall :
. Be a contiguous area within the Specific Plan;
. Represent a logical extension of major infrastructure improvements;
. Contain, or make provision for, appropriate community facilities;
. Create a logical "next step" in the community development of the area;
. Be responsive to public and private economic concerns;
. Include areas necessary for the mitigation of environmental impacts; and
. Not create out-parcels or isolate undeveloped areas.
Page 2, Item 18
Meeting Date 9/1U/8b
Inclusion of Rice Canyon in SPA-I or SPA-III does not have a substantive
impact on the City review process of any of the SPA's. The City Council ' s
original decision to include the majority of Rice Canyon in SPA-III was
supported by the fact that the boundaries presented for the four subareas met
all of the above criteria based on the information available at the time.
Since the Council action, it became clear that the relationship between Rice
Canyon and SPA-I would need to be formalized. The backbone sewer for SPA-I
(and SPA-III) will be placed in Rice Canyon; drainage in the Canyon will need
to be dealt with as well . Because this canyon is environmentally sensitive
and the criteria above directs that each subarea shall "include areas
necessary for the mitigation of environmental impacts," the revision is
warranted. Maintenance and protection of the Canyon as a natural open space
area should be assessed up front with the first development unit.
CONCLUSION
As stated in our original report several appropriate boundary proposals could
be devised that implement the above criteria. Based on the latest additional
environmental and infrastructure information, revising the boundaries to
include Rice Canyon (north) in SPA-I is consistent with those criteria. It
would, in fact, more appropriately allow the comprehensive analysis of
infrastructure improvements and environmental impacts in Rice Canyon as a part
of the SPA-I review process.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 3099P
taw City Cc,3-1 i1 cf
Chula Vista, C Jifornia
Dated
S
o ig " elm �� a
w "i� 1 a
CD ¢
p
` a? o'v,: a im _ ff of �
r E ;,=
F vy U,
i .4 Q
IIlli I E
/ 1 ,1 1 ! m R a m ° ° z
M e' / 1 - - '1' '' '..= a g I I °0 / 1" I' 1' 'F''''1`9 1 fbl.L.1. :4,1 ?^Q W
r/L/I—�
VJ
0 n
E . \ . .
, , „... . ,,
HI 1 A° o
it
C I . \.
Q = L CD Mi
LLB � � ��� \C-- „�° Q 23
N / 1 w �/
/I I Itc.° ./.10003101"I ,is.,. ,Siliailt
® 1 1'10',1 7,,..
/ 1 , ,
•
5i
, ,, ,„ ::::: ,,,, ,,,, „ :::: ,,, ,.. ,
V \.‘-'\-,,, ,.,' . --‘*' -.. „''4 i , c4
�f'—tee' si
• i ;T-4
e.„
■ fl ;!
■
e Nr O
■
■
tA
I i g
A U (5,,,....
0 • g —ci.:t
, '' ..„„V 481
_____
_ ________ ________ ___ „ .. , _ . .
McMillin
Development , • Realty • Construction
August 4, 1986 C `: I V T.
Mr. George Krempl
Director of Planning
City of Chula Vista •, �
276 Fourth Ave. t,
Chula Vista, CA 92010
SUBJECT: RATIONALE FOR INCLUDING RICE CANYON IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA I
Dear George,
When the proposed SPA (sub-areas of Corcoran Ranch SPA) boundaries for
Rancho del Rey were drafted earlier this year, the majority of Rice
Canyon was included in SPA III, while initial development was proposed
for SPA I. Although it was known at that time that some public facilities
/infrastructure would be placed in the canyon, the extent of such con-
struction associated with SPA I was not clear. At that time, we were
also exploring options for active recreational uses within the canyon.
The canyon was excluded from SPA I so that the SPA Plan could proceed
while use options in the canyon could continue to be studied.
Soon after the SPA Plan studies began, it became clear that it would be
more appropriate to include Rice Canyon in SPA I. The major drainage
improvements and backbone sewer for SPA I (and SPA III) will be placed
in Rice Canyon. Because much of the canyon is an environmentally sensi-
tive area, biologists have recommended that all such major improvements
be made at one time to minimize disturbance to the canyon biota.
Given the additional information now available regarding the scope of
improvements to be located in the canyon area and necessary for SPA I,
it is clear that Rice Canyon is more appropriately included in SPA I.
In this way, the vast majority of project impacts and mitigation measures
affecting the canyon will be addressed in the SPA I Plan. The treatment
of the canyon in SPA I will also set the precedent to be followed for the
development which will occur in SPA III.
The effect of development on Rice Canyon was a central issue during the
Specific Plan amendment process. The incorporation of the canyon area
in SPA I will provide for the early implementation of the necessary con-
servation measures, along with authorized development, to achieve the
goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. The inclusion of Rice Canyon
in SPA I will improve the Specific Plan implementation process and better
respond to the SPA (sub-area) boundary criteria of the Specific Plan.
- 2727 Hoover Avenue • National City, California 92050 • (619) 477-4117
Mr. George Krempl
August 4, 1986
Page 2
It is, therefore, requested that the approximate 124 acres of open space
be deleted from SPA III and added to SPA I.
Sincerely yours,
Ken Baumgart er
KB/cc
cc: Gary Cinti, Cinti & Associates