Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/04/16 Item 5c COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: GPA-83-7 - Amendments to El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan - Gersten Company SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ,(4- REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x ) The subject of this hearing is a request by the Gersten Company for certain amendments to El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. Included in this proposal by staff are 10 "out-parcels" not under Gersten ownership but within the specific plan area. Three of the out-parcel owners have made separate requests for their properties and have been so advertised. In addition, staff has included for continuity purposes, but not for amendment, the remainder of the entire El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. RECOMMENDATION: That Council : 1 . Based on the discussion contained in the Issues and Recommendations Sections, staff recommends that the City Council approve in concept the proposed amendments to the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan map and text as modified by staff. 2. Refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission for consideration. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 27, 1985, the Planning Commission denied this request by a vote of 6-1 . DISCUSSION: I. Introduction A. Setting and Site Description The subject of the proposed Specific Plan amendment consists of the remaining 1 ,582 acres of undeveloped property within the approximately 2,373 acre El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. This property has been renamed the Corcoran Ranch by its owners, the Gersten Company. The area requested for amendment is generally located east of Interstate 805 adjacent to the east boundary of the Terra Nova development presently under construction. The eastern edge of the property lies along Otay Lakes Road while Telegraph Canyon Road delineates the property's southerly boundary. Existing low density residential development (Rancho Robinhood) bounds the property to the north. The ridge and canyon topograhy of the site is dominated by Rice Canyon and its tributaries, drainage from which W2-"-,---e9---eA€ee,,or' )1,1 by the City Council of Chula Vista, California , Dated / - �/ Page 2, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 flows east to west ultimately flowing north into the Sweetwater River. The site is bisected by East "H" Street and eventually East "J" Street will also traverse the property. B. Historical Perspective The subject property is a portion of the 3,140 acres acquired by the Gersten Companies in 1968 from United Enterprises. Planning and engineering studies were conducted during 1969 and 1970 culminating in the preparation of the Rancho Bonita Land Use Plan approved by the City Council on September 15, 1970. This plan, originally proposing 13,193 dwellings, 148 acres of commercial development, 291 acres of parks and open space and 84 acres for school purposes, was incorporated into the 1970 amendment to the General Plan by means of general land use designations necessary for its implementation. Subsequently, these General Plan designations were superseded by a General Plan Amendment in 1978 when the adopted specific plan for El Rancho Del Rey was approved. The project was renamed El Rancho Del Rey in 1971 . Dr. Leonard Bloom acquired options on the approximately 1 ,400 acres north of East "H" Street in 1971 and proposed the "Sports World" development which featured a sports arena and a regional shopping center on a westerly portion of the property. This proposal was defeated by referendum as was a subsequent plan for a regional shopping center at East "H" Street and Interstate 805. Most of the land optioned by Bloom reverted back to Gersten ownership following the referenda. Portions of the El Rancho Del Rey property were annexed to the City beginning in 1972 with the last parcel of the Gersten ownership annexed in 1980. Development of portions of the property began in 1973 and continues today. At the time of the preparation of this report, about 45% of the original property has been developed or are in the development process. 1 ,582 of the original 3,140 acres of the Gersten ownership are left to be developed and, along with several out-parcels, are the subject of this Specific Plan amendment request. Page 3, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 In 1978, the City Council approved a City-prepared specific development plan for the then-remaining acreage of the Gersten property which included several parcels outside the Gersten ownership. This plan accommodated 6,002 dwelling units, 63 acres of commercial development, seven school sites, 44 acres of public parks, 780 acres of open space and a fire station site. By 1983, ten amendments to the Specific Plan had been approved resulting in new totals of 6,843 dwelling units, 46 acres of commercial development, 56 acres of public parks and 735 acres of open space. In 1983, the Gersten Company applied for an amendment to the 1978 Specific Plan citing increases in the cost of housing developed at low densities, changes in the housing market since 1978, and difficulties in implementing portions of the adopted plan. The first proposal provided for 5,338 dwelling units and 93.4 acres of office/industrial uses/employment park and filling of the bottom of the north leg of Rice Canyon. Subsequent draft plans, based on a new grading plan for the property and negotiations with staff, have reduced the dwelling unit count to 4,634, increased the employment park acreage to about 150 acres and retained the north leg of Rice Canyon as natural open space. C. Method of Processing Request Only the development potential of the 1 ,582 acre Gersten ownership and the 10 out-parcels will actually be affected by the proposed amendment. However, the entire 2,373 acre El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan has been included in the specific plan amendment for continuity since the residential land use categories in the amended version differ from those in the original plan. The remaining 700+ acres of the specific plan, while receiving new land use designations, will be allocated only the number of dwelling units previously approved. Since nearly all of this property is either developed or approved for development, few parcels outside the Gersten ownership and the out-parcels would be affected by this specific plan amendment. \\ Page 4, Item 5 c Meeting Date 4/16/85 II. Background Proposed Amendment to the El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan A. Land Use 1 . Residential a. Density categories - The adopted specific plan provides density ranges as follows: Very Low [1-2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)], Low (2-3 du/ac), Medium Low (3-5 du/ac) , Medium (6-10 du/ac) and Medium High (11-18 du/ac). Associated with each range are corresponding dwelling types. The proposed specific plan amendment changes the density ranges to 0-2, 2-4, 4-6, 6-8, 8-12 and 12-20 dwelling units per acre, each range signifying the density permitted in that category and those housing types which characterize it. The adopted specific plan permits a maximum of 4,215 dwelling units on that portion of the plan proposed for amendment while the requested amendment to the plan indicates a maximum of 4,634 units, an increase of about 10%. Due to the introduction of the employment park, however, the "net" residential density increase proposed is actually 37%. The 10 out-parcels are allocated 375 units on the existing plan and 507 units on the proposed plan, based on property owner requests and on staff density allocations for those properties which no specific land use requests were made by their owners. The adopted plan provides a net residential density of 4.4 du/ac and a gross density of 2.7 du/ac while the proposed plan provides net and gross densities of 5.6 and 3.2 respectively. By comparison, the EastLake development received approval of a net density of 5.9 du/ac and a gross density of 3.4 du/ac. (Note: acreages devoted to employment park uses on the proposed plan and the EastLake project have been deleted in compiling gross density figures. ) b. Housing types - Both plans promote a variety of housing types and endorse a "fine grained" mixture of housing patterns. Following is a brief outline of the types of housing associated with each of the density categories. 7> Page 5, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 0-2 du/ac - Single family residential on estate-sized lots. 2-4 du/ac - Single family residential on minimum 6,000 square foot lots. 4-6 du/ac - Small lot single family, duplexes, and other cl uster-type devel opment. 6-8 du/ac, 8-12 du/ac - Various cluster and condomi ni urn-type developments. 12-20 du/ac - Multifamily-type developments. c. Housing Type Locations - Housing types and densities have been grouped in homogenous clusters. However, density transfers among categories are permitted by the specific plan text if deemed appropriate by the City. Generally, densities increase in a north-to-south direction for the area north of East "H" Street. The area north of the main (north) leg of Rice Canyon features two dwelling units per acre (du/ac) estate and 4 du/ac single family areas with 6 du/ac clusters at either end of the neighborhood. The ridge, between the north and center legs of Rice Canyon, west of the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way is characterized by groupings of 6, 8 and 12 du/ac. The area east of the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way along the north side of East "H" Street is the location of approximately 33 acres of medium high density residential at 20 du/ac. South of East "H" Street, the plan features a mixture of densities ranging from 4 to 8 du/ac. The densities allocated to the area are somewhat similar to those provided by the existing plan. Page 6, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/1b/85 2. Employment Park About 151 acres (141 .3 net acres) located on either side of East "H" Street between the center and south legs of Rice Canyon are designated as an "employment park," the activities in which would be limited industrial , office and support commercial uses. One objective to the provision of this use, in this location, is to provide employment to some of the present and future residents of El Rancho Del Rey. Permitted uses in the employment park would be those which are compatible with residential areas; substantial landscaped areas along East "H" Street would be required; no direct industrial lot access to East "H" Street would be permitted; and signing would be limited to monument and wall signs. 3. Retail Commercial Major commercial uses are presently confined to the south side of East "H" Street near its intersection with Interstate 805 in the previously approved Rice Canyon SPA. No new commercial areas are proposed for the Corcoran Ranch SPA. 4. Parks and Open Space The amended plan allocates about 56 acres for park purposes and 613 acres as open space. Based on the 4,634 dwelling units proposed by the applicant, the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan requires approximately 25 acres of neighborhood park and an identical amount for community park purposes. In addition, it is anticipated that private recreation facilities will be provided for the future residents of the areas designated for eight dwelling units per acre or higher. Many of the areas reserved for open space will be undisturbed, but manufactured slope banks on the perimeter of natural areas have also been included in the open space calculations. Most of the identified rare or endangered plant and animal species are located in the natural open space area. The parks and open space components of both the adopted and proposed plans are similar. While the adopted plan provides about 40 acres more open space than the proposed plan, it also provides about 25 fewer acres of park land. Figures 1 and 2 depict the adopted and proposed specific plans, respectively. rte.' •�•..o....o . ._.. . _ .. _ Page 7 , Item 5c d n P. PI P. LI b3 •D toll O .O r rt , • CO kO Il 111 Y ON.* .--I /R N N VO `.J *�� a _ u aral _z 00 N t` t0 N I k,0 .r N t\I� N i Page 8 ,Item 5c . . . • Is 1 14 . ' :II , Z 6 . . -_4— I t I 1 S ett . i . . .: If - -,,.. _J I— 5 1 61 I 1 i" 'I I d '11 ' I: 'i :r, :: F. : • 0.4 iM Q_.z w iI g! al . . al - - • - i - * I : i 1, 2 : . • ti- i 1 i • ••- :02 ' .... .. . ! i II li CV LL ' • ... . - : . .—: g 0 I . g i ii . • vIti .. h e h .. ,, i =■. ' .. , . ... . . : . \ '. .. . I ? 44 ?, ;21 . Iti I li Is . („)6. ::::' :•,- ,' ....i ''. • '7.,..',l :,7: 6 1 1 4 6 a i ; ;f 1 Lut7....,i..'',%:-..7.,., .. .".::: .,:: :: f' .•\,... ... '.,;;^ ... y1,1:1121! i . 1.1.. 81 k a 3 1 LL .,......., ;, 4 ii li- g • a.,E . .. .. S. • .. ..,- ...., .., ....-:...„ • ..-. ..-. , ... : . (1)0 ".... : .•.:- /i '.;.- '--Z'•".* ' - C.. s 1., ..::'.-:•::. Lit " . irt ,14. ;'..:':'....2.-.-L- 4 ./' ,., -:',•:- . .. ,... s--, .... :--.,.....,.._■.,,,-. -, .1 .'-', . 4 .' 1 * ....1 1-.1. ' ... '; . ;././.1-1,:•-• 1 ..r."'s...-.• •,..' . -...... "4, y.,', -'.-...‘ , . A.-.- • . • . ,{,.:-.• , . ---`--- "... L., :a..;::,,..„,,i:.:z..i,\,( ....1:......::::::/".... ' :.-1, -- -.\\,% i /./ , .')".:.,r..„-,...,-;.--.----'--. ',...,....'\._i_.4,..i.).„...4,.......-;.---?;;;-?f,,.f.....i7,'--.-,L:y.....„1,- "--'---/-:-'''-:\..77 ::...Y/f.-:...\'.i',....:.:'.'fc.1-7,4,:t. v E) . UJ--...;•,. %‘..,.,—)7-,=',"-A,; --.1.-!,:; t,,,;,;..„ki / . vj_4„,..)27.- 7.,,,• — ---s, ;;;. ,,/,,,, ' — . . .• T....,-..-..;..,-,.-- •.t.•,.:-. , •' I--,9 ,..5 ' '- -...''.ii.:. !..--_-------,--, / i • -t-eA:..\\--A.......,,... ..,,,,..;.:!....., ,v t •..• ..":"--....,..0.,,,kl' • ''..' . -• r ' : l • '•,‘I.,'7-...::p/74, Cl.P). Vl,\ ';'-':-/-5--------:.--■ ',---- v 'k•lr".•".---"k"-Y1.4-. .. T .. . , .,..r... _.,....,...,,,,f) ''? ,,,..4.-_;••,,,.-1-..... r . 1..,..7,:-..?i.. N'ei-?/ "■ ral;---,k--.:-,..2),..:.,- / 11101 * . ''Cl •:: ili N ---/ -;_...- /. .-..........-.4",..„:„.....4,,...-...r•,,,-,,,,,,,,...,..., 1 !..• 100 ., „,.,,i,,,,t,..:.\,.:...45:..r\.,,,,,=... 4-11 cc: -4--•,. -:,....-2..„- . , „..../...;■fr. 1..... I • t.-..,---n 4 1•, -•:1-.pr rx '• T 0.;.J•7••?,,,-...,. ', ••lc,-----1, .,‘:\ */ r ,_„.7.... ,-N '.--..;:',:k3',-;.;.,(1,-://,2...-",::','• ' s' y --z,,,,..,4 Y.4. 8 . :7---•. 'i,-/J Ili '..iTeTilr- :0.,,,-..)-,et,, - .../ / . .. ,..-.....z4., lii.tv7:71,-,,......t._-':: ;"f.,:i:Toi---ri, . .L; ,-Ii1-',, 8 \....\-' ., .t..-...■111 1.'' •li,‘yin-.1,',;;;;;.,,,,,_/, , 4,.7,4,,..r„.;,;,. ,...1. . - , S7).%.(•'t 1-' .'")>`.,:•,...-' '1;,-, .',...;:,,,.-.7.:-.. -.......V:•% ■i 0 . -...;'!f:i% '..Z.'2 8 :-:'-'/,. , •;_,..,.../1/7 i; ' Z.:-"J-;-.7{,-..):i.,,A;,-.• . ..‘:, ,ttv.- ', ', .;.,7. ;1(2-,tt '-' ''•-•- 1:.1.‘, -','••"„ia,•••41.•1 :i'A A.tiC,), -1- 'ft 8 ..:.--.. '• ,fb ,,.,' .e.:.e" 2>\'s'Niele:OV,.=,,f*3' '..)‘•. .4 •,'-1 eS :•,g.• •.- ,. ..lit,J)",..,?,- ...,s". -of.i.ft..„—..-.;.--,,...-- ..{.4(• s',,•'t, '''- ' --'''''';-N.fi•-•'.., . ,..-t •— •,--,-_,.L.,..--:. I i ''7': .1i...',4-$ANt-k-, ' , s> z!..-----:-4-1 Iv-..:-...._.-.1. iz,,,, ,.11111 it...-,.... -----i,-;‹,...,!....., — .„... Tbr :•• ,•,,,,..-.,.. .,..,:c..-. --.... .v.te,".•Qtk,...:... --- -,-•-,- ',-..:••'11 Oi;---.1:/' ,.:(i.s.f:::;,,.., ;;'. - -''-,.•,,c-'''?,.‘"It-..1r•-r-F.::'P 1kt....\‘• / 1 -.", . 1.,/"...-.07-4="s? 1117 1' "1, 1,. ./,", •''1 .'" '• ..:(..f.,,-..1_,, y . 11111' ..1- ... ' .T.'•?..41.--•-:- ,,,, „c...-,1 ..riVT:---:-:.•' 1.. •-s ,....:,' •,-.......54-..'"",. ., , ,..• '..\. :'= .7?1,....1:',.,:._:.:-.:•• •.:1A:-:-......•. 5.;c:...i:'''..,r-.'i...7•':i-11...1zz-:::::/:::7(1.,..e......,\;r1#•-%::,r•It.,..t........c:, :,..:3::........:;.:....'l ,.,, :\ • ' Or r• 8 \I ‘"VI . . 1'..........1., . \.•„;e-),;„;•:. i., 8...,..._ . 8 '' ,'---;1,."-...::!:-=- 1.-.•,. '11•;!.,././'' -,-4:-1:`..T.'''C'' -,-...;:,;-":...r.:' ..f.:4'.....;k‘g'1.1'..".:.). ' 4.. "'",......- -...1.:`:.-..f- .s:\, - ' NMI .f.....,71.-- -,-----;.- ,......• •• • ••;•,-.,.--z--v i ;..- •%.:• - 4'• •: ' ' ' ' ‘ . <-‘,J! S('': ••• wij .5 • va . . - , , •., , : y". , : . • g • ,-z_-,:a.:ET-;,-.5,' "41-1'..."- - •1 t,:(4.• ( ...• .. .,4t- . ---... .,_...,- „. - ...ir •e"." gri. ••I.. • • slr I'.k• ‘k - 1'- i „._, ,.......L„.„..,....,....- , ;,...‘ .,,,,„ .: 4,-,., fr, , , „.. 0,.„-A . 1 ..:,.:-. ..i.,,,;,,,,:,...= Iv •' "k . ‘‘',.1.-:- './.-- :2'•.',is ' ,‘.• •' . . t..-;■,'''" il'.."_,P ■.•. '.'.... :.., '.'071 , .,-.: -:;.■-...,' .k4V.; ‘ eil‘;,..\. ,. : ,,.).4 . ,. \,. % • . . ■-... ,.. .. .-.-`:.: ':'. ,zo.*.,:. .-. tii ..;;;..-- ,,, ":-.,,..._----:,..,....1_ 1 : • , : r•- , -,:' ,..I.,(....../....•.:,:....,--• ,; -...., •. •:\•.:,.,„ :-4• ‘I„.r. ....k-=-t r 7". ..-.01-:- :-4 • ' , .;••••• :V.. 5•■.'A v- '. ".0? . ..... . .1. J .. .k . l , I... • .11.• . , : • • 1,• :-; ( ..' s k•. ..' ‘. ;.• ...rr. '.••., ... r,....,,••••Wr.,,,,.... .-.,I i• ....-„c4...., '` , ..! '''.. k - .. = a `k... • . ' . .... • * ' ' '':'• • .r. --.• • -'1•',4` .:.--. / ;.:1';'-',.., . ' . . r • • .. ,4. A( .• • Con, a . ' ' ' ...)1‘,.; - ,•,: • .!•,':: .',." .4....-,:., !I , i'.1..• I. .! . 1,• \%. "t.: • .'1•''' 1 .!■..i. 7 111,..4. ;I•ii -,;• . II a - ' l' ii 0MI : ' ' .•'; .: ...V4. ';:.''.... 1:'%••%:....",...•., '• I . .. ■ . 1 "■•7‘.. ...::.:.'' ‘ '?. • : = ........ N*;.. ,..., • !‘ ... ... .,'‘."' 1, Ye . All- " • ,‘,-...-.:".... • ..r',•'•-•,,.‘ . .- k: 0-. ''':'''' s• .\ •., A ' ,---- ,...) \-.-1• .- '' -: -' ...::..:V '( :." f.,i-'7' . ' ce,, .‘ *. , 1 •• CE C". ., - y. '. -.. ..,• !,:s..: 1;:,f.;'. -.. .k..i.:-V . .• . ' . 1. ‘••• ' ■ , . ,,, ....i. ';. 7 4;;,..:,• -.• '•,-. •...• 1C,. 14 ; '. • t•• - '••:;.. • • I ,• '•• . • r- - •' ,.., • • . . • i 4 '‘' \V•;•, '.1,s •4 ,s 4•;; 1 . ,...,...-,-...,• /..,. „ 0 •..,.... „,„... .. ' ' . .. \ ,. .?'•'....- .:-. % -% ••• -- ). , • .1 -- , *-: t- , ./.--A,'. .' ‘,----, %, •r: ', . " , .-• .. ! ---!. '," .' :';' -i'l.! 1 ' • • '■-• ' "''' . ' I. Noll d, •. . " )........--•--.....,•;..• • ..'.• -,.;r ." . ' ca. • • • .. ...o',c`.4• . ,;•-. , , , ... . . . ..... , . 1 i, . 1 ja acc _ . . ..:(,)•.• - , 11,- . .. • . • • , •--.•... .-.. ,......-...,.:.,),, , , ..•,, • ,, k,1. • • . , : , .......i... , . t.__.... ..;\,\ ..,:tr,-r, ‘'','' '.:5•:' • ::'7•'''''. ..'••••' !‘ "-\r,."se 'A ,-•'-', -J A, /..'I. -• . „._ .„.....„......„...., _ Page 9 , Item 5c + en N1 H d .O NO O H r` N • ^ .O H H S•1 O H 111 CO d 4-1 43 O g 0) •• r` M tr1 .0 H .0 N C+ C) N H Cf) O H .0 y • • • • • • O O C+ C• .O M O R N d H O IN .0 C7 n M O PO U O O H .0 r■ M co u1 •7 111 H •0 •0 '0 C, H N Cr) H CO H u1 IN .O O H a) aCA CA H d•) I O n O N 1 N. M O a) .rl .7 OD O CO 0 • CO 0 0 H N in co .-1 La A • a O .. 44 03 •C) U) O r- tr H CO 0 C+ H 0 f) 0 W L+ 10 M N U1 I H I O r` 1 NO H CO •U : H H H N .O H N CO N a) N O v) C+ +) 00 V f+ e) v C) ) 1) .7 H C+ .0 7 0 -7 .0 v) C •.4 Hi-IN- NOON 01 • N Z 0 f+ O N n � O .7 'O - tt1 a o a a) a w s.1 O ▪ a) N r\ C• 00 .7 .0 CO .0 N Al H N 0 CO Cu Cn i+ C• .0 C• IN .0 N N H O 1 .0 H C• N d H W C) O C• C• •7 •7 M on u1 on to H At OD b U a) 44 HHNH CO H to r, WI O W C.0 H rn G A NI e) e) CO +) N .0 C• M 00 00 t11 a) O e) •..1 O .0 N O CO 00 • 00 `aa "' .DONH �o ai � CO a + 4 A O ,C e) N. C+ r` r to C+ 0 0 .7 .7 C) Z H 4) a) • • • • • 4 O tr O H Cr) 0 0 CO O H M -7 M • PO U 441 N O N H O N. Ch trl 111 .0 +) O d N N H 0 01 .0 0 co v CH/) .-1 N 0 X a 4-4 .r1 I M 41) O C• N. • E W C) C) 0 H H CO .0 CO °w 0 CO N (1) CA O c•) O H .7 O C+ C• M O W CA 0 i.+ 1 OOOtr1 111 O I 111 tr1 H O O O H M H t11 N N 00 a. c23 a) Ix 4) a) W <4 tr -0 N d C• M r� 411 Q ya CC a) •.-1 O ) t- O C• H • .0 A 0 A u1 .O CO H - 7 b a) Z a 4) C) a� a d N r` C+ .7 H -7 4r1 0 0 to to O W 0) G+ 0 H If) O t1) Cl) 0 H N- 00 CV CO S4 U III H r\ H t1) in M .7 N CO 9 Q, N N M H as tr1 .0 in O ..1 4) L+ O a -- .. a) r .. ° C- 0 0 o , p`a., :a CO a di aa)) CO CD CO 0 0) H COA 0 ° `) e H cn r) - v)) .°N c4 0 co cu o'0 N CO 111 H CO N -7 .0 CO H N A 0 . I x O 0 v H i 'O •. I I I I I I I I I I I 0 O -- 0 CO N CO A Pa U 0 14 0) CO E-4 H 0 1-3 a H H W v) a a o is Page 10, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 B. Traffic Circulation A transportation analysis for the project was conducted by Urban Systems Associates (USA) which included an assessment of a cumulative impact study prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) using its computer model . Estimates of the number of trips that could be generated by the proposed project were developed and distributed to the street system, and intersection capacity analyses were completed for key intersections to identify potential problem areas. Following is a table which compares the estimated average daily traffic generated by the adopted and proposed plans. Land Use Adopted Plan Proposed Plan Residential 43,100 46,400 Employment Park --- 21 ,200 Schools 3,800 2,600 Public Facilities 500 500 Parks 1 ,300 2,300 Out-Parcels 3,400 4,500 TOTALS 52,100 77,500 As is evident from this table, the proposed plan would increase weekday traffic by approximately 25,400 trips per day, 21 ,000 of which are directly attributable to the employment park. Mitigating some of this increase is the fact that most of the peak employment park traffic would be going in directions opposite to peak residential traffic and that access to the employment park would be restricted to two or three access points on East "H" Street. In addition, the USA report used "worst case" traffic assignments, all of which were considered external trips. In reality, the report notes, 10-15 percent of the trips generated will remain localized to the project area. In their subsequent report dated March 20, 1985, USA evaluated the latest El Rancho Del Rey plan to address (1 ) the traffic impacts of the new modified plan which reduced the number of dwelling units from 5,338 to 4,634 and increased the size of the employment park from 93 acres to 141 acres; (2) the cumulative impacts of this plan and other projects on the East "H" Street/I-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 roadways. A copy of that report is enclosed. Based on USA's recent transportation analysis, the environmental impact report concludes that, if the mitigation measures outlined in the analysis are implemented in conjunction with need as development proceeds, traffic impacts can be reduced to insignificance. v Page 11 , Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/65 The specific plan text requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for any sub-area plan to identify and analyze anticipated impacts on I-805 and its interchanges at Telegraph Canyon Road, East "H" Street and Bonita Road caused by each sub-area plan. C. Public Facilities 1 . Water Service - The subject property is located entirely within the Otay Water District (OWD) Improvement District 22. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would increase the daily water consumption by about 24% or about 700,000 gallons per day. This water would be provided from one future and several existing reservoirs via numerous existing and future water mains. These facilities would be constructed by the developers of El Rancho Del Rey in conjunction with OWD in conformance with a water supply master plan prepared for the project in March, 1982 by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. The water distribution facilities outlined in that plan would adequately serve the uses proposed by this specific plan amendment request. 2. Sewer Service - The City of Chula Vista would provide sewer service to the project via its present approximately 19 million gallons per day capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewage System (METRO). Most of the effluent will be transported to the METRO system through the Rice Canyon sewer outfall. Based on the plan originally submitted, the Rice Canyon outfall has the ability to accommodate the projected sewage from the project. However, a portion of the 15-inch line west of Hidden Vista Drive would be under pressure during peak flows and could require additional facilities to handle peak flows. New trunk sewers are proposed to be located in the north and south legs of Rice Canyon. 3. Drainage - While most of the property drains into the Rice Canyon drainage basin, portions of the project drain into three other basins--Bonita, Otay Lakes Road, and Telegraph Canyon. Existing and proposed drainage improvements including improved and natural storm drain channels, culverts, and siltation basins will accommodate storm runoff in the project area. 4. Police Protection Service - Police protection is provided by Patrol Beat 32 of the City Police Department. Beat 32 is patrolled on a 24-hour basis by one squad car. As development of the project occurs, Beat 32 is likely to be split into two beats with additional personnel and equipment required to provide service to the area. Page 12, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 5. Fire Suppression Service - Two fire stations will serve the site dependent upon location of the fire. A new station planned at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and Ridgeback Road will be in operation by the time development occurs on the project site. Station #4 on Otay Lakes Road would serve the eastern portion of the project area. No significant problems in providing fire protection services to the area are foreseen. 6. Library Service - A branch library site is tentatively proposed for a location near the intersection of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. This site would be between one and two acres in size and would provide service to the area east of Interstate 805 and north of the service area of the branch facility planned for the EastLake development to the southeast. Whether a site will actually be required and its precise location will be determined during the SPA plan process. 7. Schools - Sites for two junior high and three elementary schools are depicted on the specific plan map. In addition, the existing Bonita Vista Junior High School , Halecrest Elementary School and a district-owned elementary school site on Buena Vista Way also serve portions of the specific plan area. Whether all of the junior high school sites will be utilized will depend upon the results of the future studies by the Sweetwater High School District which is now contracting to update its facilities master plan. Elementary school sites will be developed if/as needed. The district-owned elementary school site, located at the southwest corner of the extension of East "J" Street and the proposed alignment of Paseo Ranchero may be traded for a parcel at the southeast corner of East "J" Street (extended) and Paseo Ladera (extended) to provide for better attendance boundaries. In addition, as development occurs and SPA's planned, it is quite possible that individual school locations will change to accommodate changes in circumstances. The text of the specific plan provides for flexibility in choosing school sites. The Chula Vista Elementary School District will soon undertake a facilities plan study to evaluate their future school needs. School financing will be addressed as part of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan review process. Figure 3 depicts the locations and attendance radii of existing and proposed schools serving this area. Page 13, Item 5c Cf) il Cid - g ;I op; .co sip i 0 • • I g § t- ..i.: — ci7-----:----. r - . ,i i g i . . ...i. I . iv 12 i II_ i . d 1 Z --- 0 • 0001 ...01,11m. , 0 ::.. .` .• o .4. : . . ....... \ . • .. :••• • . ... i . .. 9 .. .., • ... •. . .. .• ... .‘ ,. . - .... . . . • . ;:-.i-. .•• • •• • ‘ • \17 • • : • • . .... . .... 0 • '• • . ... ., • • • ‹N . . c...) ..•...„..-- .1- . •/ ,:, . . ---A. • •_ L- / •ls..,.: .;''. 0 • . . ,...=,•-\.,'"(;'-1.,:,./ „\.) • . -. . . . •.. • . ,,3.-t-:,7.,•:-,,. k , ,. . i 1 •. .,....."._-,...,....,,;..:.. : .• - ; ..qz.',:,;;•.;;.4/ 111111 ID CC ' .■,.... .1. /1 .'.•.'...j 7 34/ ,'‘',.:..... ', .:-•:-./' , ..... ,..;I'''''':. •j'ow' / . , „ . .... . ....7..,......,.....,,, .. • • -.:,..tz„,•),•!',. 7';, ''• 7 /-;•• :',4i•..;:.1.",. :..=';.?.-':.:i'A.'. z/ . = ev i it,,--% :.'&•'''S'1■1. /...;. •':". ".•:.. .i.r. ....t:-.:. ...• ''.% • ..,...1--.\\.......---,:,...., .:, .' . ._ ...-:.72,:.:1; ,s . _..04/7..2:.... N. %!7;..7.''4 ''', r , ;=-' ''.. • '', :1 ,._, UNA g _. . , .,.......„,...:,. ,. • • ,_,:•. .::„ „-i. Cill CI '.;::•,=,*".,S.-:-r... '"" . r .. . --.'-..,.'i.:..-- • . . . . liti.. .... ,...:......_:,., ....,....(..._.. .., =1E3 -- r-o--- • • . . .. . . • % ::., 6 :. , • =2 61--- , .- , .' • i a . . . . — Irma•E ' '■. ' . re-'. . ,..,- . 4 . • • I A lia: e . • • . . .,,,,,/,-/, . . .,• . . . . . ... ... ..• •. . • . . MIMI Cl/ . . • . • • • . .7 • '• L61 ; .- • . . . . . ./..\ . .' • ■ ,••••., • ......... _..............., . . . . Page 14, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 D. Fiscal Impacts An analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed plan on the City was prepared by Public Affairs Consultants in June, 1984, which compared the effects on the City's operating revenues and expenditures of the buildout of the adopted plan with the buildout of the proposed plan. This analysis evaluated operating costs and revenues attributable to the development of each plan using existing service levels and revenue sources. Based on this evaluation, Public Affairs Consultants projected that additional annual net revenues (revenues less expenditures) gained by the adoption of the proposed plan over the existing plan would be approximately $398,000 annually after five years, $874,000 annually after ten years, $749,000 annually after 15 years, and $826,000 annually after twenty years. These projections are based on the proposed plan which was submitted in late 1983 before the revisions which are reflected on the plan under consideration were prepared. Since the number of dwelling units have been reduced and the employment park acreage increased subsequent to 1983, these estimates will change somewhat, but the amendments are not expected to reduce projected revenues. Without the employment park, the project would have a negative cost impact on operating revenues. E. Financing of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Facilities - Water usage is estimated as follows: Gallons per day Residential 2,520,000 Employment Park 493,500 Schools 53,600 Public Facilities 30,800 Parks/Recreation 40,000 Open Space TOTAL 3,137,900 Water facilities to serve the plan area will be provided by the developer. Estimated cost for those facilities as of January 1 , 1984, is as follows: Reservoirs $ 1 ,200,000 Transmission Lines 1 ,300,000 Local Distribution 11 ,190,000 Meters, Hookups 5,390,000 Fees 1 ,470,000 Employment Park Facilities 1 ,405,000 TOTAL $21 ,955,000 Page 15, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 No City expense would be incurred to provide water service or to maintain the water transmission facilities. The Otay Metropolitan Water District will be responsible for the cost of maintaining the water distribution system. 2. Sewer Facilities - Sewer facilities to serve the proposed development will be provided by the developer. Anticipated effluent generation upon total buildout of the project would be approximately 1 .6 million gallons per day. Estimated costs for on-site facilities to be funded by the developer follows: Main $ 7,050,000 Laterals 2,800,000 Lift Station and Force Mains 300,000 Fees 1 ,150,000 Employment Park Facilities 470,000 TOTAL $11 ,770,000 In addition to the costs for on-site facilities indicated above, the developer will also be required to participate in the funding of major trunk lines in varying degrees in four sewer improvement districts. The City will be responsible for the on-going maintenance of the sewer distribution system. 3. Drainage Facilities - The drainage system will be constructed by the developer and subsequently maintained by the City. Costs for these facilities to be borne by the developer follow: Trunk Lines $2,000,000 Connector Lines 2,700,000 Catch Basins 2,400,000 Energy Dissipators 60,000 Employment Park Facilities 470,000 TOTAL $7,630,000 4. Circulation System - The on-site circulation system, consists of six classifications of roads. Estimated costs for the circulation system follow: Arterial Roads $ 6,025,000 Collector Roads 1 ,160,000 Residential Collectors 2,265,000 Residential Streets 10,000,000 Major Road Widening 750,000 Employment Park Roads 1 ,875,000 TOTAL $22,075,000 Page 16, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 III. Phasing The adopted plan requires SPA plan approval before any tentative maps or other plans for development may be considered. These SPA's are delineated on the specific plan map on a geographical basis and each SPA constitutes a phase. The proposed amendment would create one large SPA (Corcoran Ranch) which would subsequently be divided into several sub-areas. The sub-areas, however, would not be delineated on a map at this time but rather will be established by a process of negotiation between the City and the developer. Each sub-area would constitute a phase and would be processed in a manner identical to a SPA. This method is deemed appropriate since the project can be phased in several ways because of the property's "hole-in-the-doughnut" situation; that is, since the property is nearly surrounded by existing development, new development can be logically established in a variety of locations. However, the text of the proposed plan sets forth several guidelines with which to evaluate boundaries of proposed sub-areas. These guidelines relate to size, contiguity to existing development, access to existing public facilities, sufficiency of public improvements, provision of community facilities, public and private economic concerns and environmental impacts. This method of phasing the development of this large property provides the flexibility required for land development in response to the vagaries of today's market and economy. IV. Out Parcels As mentioned elsewhere in this report, in addition to the 1 ,582 acre Gersten ownership, there are ten parcels containing about 81 acres not under that ownership. These parcels have been included in this proposed amendment by staff because they are also located in those SPA's which are being combined to create the Corcoran Ranch SPA, the subject of this request. These properties are indicated on the map following this section. A brief discussion of each follows: No. 1 : 10+ acres adjacent to Bonita Vista Junior High School designated for residential uses at 3-5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on the adopted plan. Since the property owner has made no request for any specific land use changes on this parcel , staff has advertised it in the 4-6 du/ac category in conformance with the densities proposed around it by the Gersten amendment. No. 2: 5+ acres on the north side of East "H" Street west of Otay Lakes Road, designated for residential uses at 11-18 du/ac on the adopted plan. The property has been recently improved with 60 condominium units, thus staff has assigned it the 8-12 du/ac category in conformance with its existing development. Page 17, Item 5c Meeting Date /1b/85 No. 3: 10+ acres on the north side of East "H" Street just west of its intersection with Buena Vista Way, designated for residential uses at 3-5 du/ac and Open Space on the adopted plan. Preliminary plans have been filed for a church and church-related facilities for the property so staff has assigned it the PF Public Facilities category in conformance with parcel 's proposed use. No. 4: 4+ acres on the southeast corner of East "H" Street and the uture extension of Paseo Ranchero, designed for residential uses at 3-5 du/ac on the adopted plan. This parcel is owned by the Roman Catholic Church but, lacking precise information as to its development, staff has advertised it for the 4-6 du/ac category in conformance with neighboring parcels on the proposed amendment. No. 5: 10+ acres near the northeast corner of the future intersection of East "J'r Street and Paseo Ladera, designated for residential uses at 2-3 du/ac on the adopted plan. Since the property owner has made no requests for any specific land use changes on this parcel , staff has advertised it for the 2-4 du/ac category in conformance with the densities around it. No. 6: 10+ acres at the northwest corner of the future intersection of East "J" Street and Paseo Ranchero, designated for residential uses at 6-10 du/ac on the adopted plan. 102 dwelling units were approved for the property by the City in 1982, thus the 8-12 du/ac category shown conforms to the approved project. No. 7: 10+ acres at the southwest corner of the future intersection of asst"J" street and Paseo Ranchero designated for use as an elementary school on the adopted plan. Since the property is already owned by the Chula Vista Elementary School District, staff has assigned it the School category. No. 8: 10+ acres at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada just south of out-parcel No. 7, designated for residential uses at 3-5 du/ac and Open Space on the adopted plan. The property owners have requested that this parcel be redesignated for 8-12 du/ac and it has been so advertised. No. 9: 10+ acres on the north side of East "J" Street (extended) east of the future extension of Paseo Ranchero, designated for use as a junior high school and a small amount of residential at 3-5 du/ac on the adopted plan. The property owner has requested that this parcel be redesignated for 6-8 du/ac and it has been so advertised. No. 10: 2.5+ acres on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road east of its future intersection with Paseo Ranchero, designated Open Space on the adopted plan. Property in this category is permitted to develop at a density not to exceed 2 du/ac. per the zoning ordinance. The property owner has requested that this parcel be redesignated for 6-8 du/ac and it has been so advertised. Page 18, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 One additional parcel has, until recently, been referred to as an out-parcel. This is a ten-acre piece located on both sides of the future extension of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera and owned by the Bennett family. Staff excluded this parcel from special consideration since it is not located within the SPA's which comprise the Corcoran Ranch and because the City has already assigned the property 46 dwelling units via a 1980 amendment to the Ranchero SPA. To accommodate this amendment, however, staff has applied the 2-4 du/ac category for one lot depth on both sides of East "J" Street and 4-6 du/ac for the remainder. See Figure 4 for precise locations of the out-parcels. 1 Page 19 , Item 5c • i :!:::i- I e i °g C1.0 `a gds fY li ��g it 11 3 _ - - « - � - : , ° I I e �� • 0 1 JI!! !II *+ .�. Jj! ! •/fj ; 1111 el% LL •(J) I' . . s I = • 1;....„ ....., ..:..,,,, ,, , . W o r �`\1�+tip. . ?r6i i�l i / ,,�J ~ / O ).. . ',• . '•/-' % � + . }11V11 il\, Q - / ,v .S / • jO -Al'j .- ham s11 \. . a +'r�� 'l l � ��—t. i N • ,...z.--,--.--.51._:j.''/ ij I/: ;.."`—t,,,,,,,l I .I I: 10:1 , _.-', it� %ms- f$ !,,,\,t, a ji ti.+ d r4k-4:::' , i :I 1 s .l f k i L ,_I r' , �a1 � y - �' a a T, ; t r �;`,�' 1 _41--..! �'1, 1"/9 �a r� :iEt'' F9',• r+! .,: 11 4�r♦ :14...,, \-• , If �� �.. . i e cz ,ci f 1 -111 �. ...„.,,..,,,,,_„3.,,, :wi,,,,,,._-„,/../..,..,.., ,,,,. ' ,.*-':-;\;,',-..t-;:.::'(?.--.:• 1 '1t I'' jf' ..,.4x„ Lim `,,Ir -. •'1 1 ) -7),-i: . ; 1.''.:-Irt t;'±.,. 8 \ .ire, ,,,,, ,,, ,_p_11...1.,,.....i„,:;;, . ,,,./. ..i..-,..-,-,41:-,...........;)-- .,...,...,.s 7 .. .__... ....,--,„ .,, i,..o....._..i.,. r'',I 1 , '.---- --..-- ;.:A;i \.‘ Zr !� 1 , f J i �I ♦1 /�, �° 11 .=<! _' _ .+'\ 'C '• �l t\ 1 ,:l. I .it 4 r ! t Lill I ' • rrrVii.. I � 1 '1‘ al (r- ..., ` '' < •� :� � /' i,• ,, , : 1 . ^a a'' I , #1, '' f�, 11 ' .'•I ' ?i' %4'r / i E:1"'t-c 1 '. Y L` \ ••. . i r .\__,,.' . i _. , `.? . ►; y� ;, ,' , '. ".' '1, . • •,, r .1 J.(`"7'', ' ♦.•./-.•' 1♦_. Ill %. y;'i,f • 1'i- ,i '� ,ter.. .r . �`" : ':Y. s `� -%1 1 2.-,--. .•'•' \l Page 20, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 V. Issues As perceived by staff, the primary issues associated with the proposed amendment relate to residential density, the employment park, traffic circulation and biology. Issues related to biology are discussed in more detail in the environmental impact report while traffic issues are covered in Section II D of this report. The remaining two issues are discussed in detail below. A. Residential Densities The proposed plan would create 4,634 dwelling units on 833 acres of residentially designated property in density ranges up to 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The adopted plan presently permits 4,215 units on 954 residential acres in density ranges up to 18 du/ac. Amendments to the proposed plan suggested by staff would reduce the number of units to 4,228. Tables located elsewhere in this report compare the adopted plan to the proposed plan and the proposed plan to the suggested staff amended plan. The primary difference between the total residential acreage of the adopted and proposed plans is the redesignation of about 150 acres from residential to employment park uses. The adopted plan allocates about 1 ,150 dwelling units to these 150 acres. These units have been relocated elsewhere on the proposed plan map. The result of this relocation and the 419 additional units over those permitted by the adopted plan is a 10% increase in the total number of units. However, the actual increase, considering the relocation of the units presently allocated to the site of the proposed employment park, is about 37%. The key density questions, therefore, are (1 ) "Is the requested increase in the number of dwelling units over about 150 fewer residential acres warranted? (2) Are public facilities in the area adequate to accommodate the increased density? and (3) Would the increases in density have a detrimental effect on the community character? The following paragraphs attempt to answer these questions. 1 . The adopted plan projects densities emphasizing housing types appropriate to 1978 when it was adopted, i .e. , a preponderance of single family housing on standard lots. While clustering is permitted by that plan to provide opportunities for varied housing types, the low permitted densities tend to discourage such variety. 2. Of the 4,200 dwelling units permitted by this adopted plan, 72% are at densities of 5 du/ac or less. Staff believes that densities which, for the most part, retain the City's basic single family character, while at the same time permitting a Page 21 , Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 greater yield, would result in the opportunity for builders to construct housing at affordability levels of a greater number of families. 3. The property has good freeway and arterial road access; it has a close-in location; it is nearly surrounded by urban development; and all required public facilities to serve the project are available. Because of these facts, the property can easily accommodate an increase in dwelling units. 4. The VTN grading study indicates that the proposed plan can be accommodated with basically the same grading plan as that which would be required for the adopted plan. 5. The proposed housing mix responds to changes in market characteristics and provides the opportunity for a more comprehensive mixture of residential products than does the adopted plan. In their market analysis for the proposed project, Market Profiles, a marketing consultant firm, concluded that ".. .the future of El Rancho Del Rey lies in providing a well-balanced mix of product that can be delivered in orderly yet fast paced sequence. The current land use plan doesn' t allow for flexibility in product planning. That is, due to the heavy mix of detached units, the future products will become more expensive while the consumer will desire less expensive units." They state further that ". . .the existing land use scenario is out of balance. The objective of a well balanced and phased community cannot be achieved unless the land use is altered." While staff concurs with some of these conclusions, we believe that, over time, the adopted plan could create a viable and prestigious community which would be an asset to the City. An exception, perhaps, would be the overabundance of low density areas (1-3 du/ac) in the adopted plan and the concommitant lack of opportunity for townhouses and apartments over 10 du/ac. Staff no longer believes that the amount of low density shown on the adopted plan is appropriate nor is the absence of higher density products due to changing market conditions, increases in interest rates and affordability and demand changes. 6. In the original specific plan amendment submitted, the applicant had deleted the 0-2 du/ac estate category in its entirety. Subsequent negotiations with staff, however, led to the application of this category to the north side of the project's north ridge. Staff believes that an estate product is essential to have a balanced development and is marketable. At least 100 acres should be devoted to estate-type lots. Our rationale is that such lots are saleable on the north ridge which provides outstanding views to the west and south. An estate lot enclave can be created Page 22, Item 5c Meeting Date /Ib/85 to assist in providing the "high-end" housing which is desirable for the City of Chula Vista and the El Rancho Del Rey community. 7. The staff recommended amendments to the proposed plan would create a density range dominated by the 4-6 du/ac category. We believe that this particular category provides for a variety of single family-type developments which are consistent with the texture of the area while providing the opportunity to construct a variety of housing types. 8. The City's basic character is in the process of evolution. The older areas west of I-805 and east of downtown are basically traditional single family neighborhoods with isolated areas of higher densities. East of 1-805, the land use densities are more integrated but overall densities are, for the most part, only slightly higher than the older areas. Staff's recommended density mix should be compatible with existing abutting development since the mid-range densities (6-8 du/ac) , which are somewhat higher than existing development in the area, would, for the most part, be located in the interior of the project. The higher density areas (12-20 du/ac) are located near existing similar areas and in close proximity to the future commercial area at the East "H" Street-Otay Lakes Road intersection. The lower density areas (2-6 du/ac) have been placed near and adjacent to similarly developed and planned areas as well as inside the confines of the project. B. Employment Park Perhaps the most significant departure from the adopted plan is the proposal for a 141 acre employment center on East "H" Street. In its report, Market Profiles recommends development of a well planned business park offering a quality working environment. They state that the property offers the unique opportunity to create a business park in a quality rural setting, yet within close proximity to downtown San Diego and other central county areas. The topography of the site will enable many sites to have territorial views of the surrounding countryside. Market Profiles recommends that about 90 acres be devoted to this use, including a retail center on a portion of the property. Staff, however, believes that the entire 141 acres should be designated as Employment Park and only those commercial uses appurtenant to the park be permitted. Page 23, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/1 b/85 Staff's rationale for its recommendation follows: 1 . While the employment park would occupy a prominent site, standards requiring landscaped setbacks from East "H" Street and strict architectural control could create an aesthetically pleasing environment similar to the industrial park at the entrance to the Scripps Ranch development in San Diego which is superior to many residential environments in the area. There is little doubt that the intrusion of the employment park will affect the character of the area, but staff believes that, overall , the employment park will be a benefit to the City and the community. In this case, basic development standards have been written into the text of the specific plan. In addition, specific standards will be required as part of the first sub-area plan submittal to assure that the employment park is functionally and aesthetically acceptable to the City. In addition to the East "H" Street streetscape, special care will have to be taken to assure that views from affected dwelling units are not adversely affected. This will take the form of special architectural and landscape treatment of the rear of both sections of the employment park and should be required during the sub-area plan process. 2. Another major consideration is traffic circulation. As stated elsewhere in this report, the employment park will , upon its complete buildout, generate about 21 ,000 average daily trips. This traffic generation is equivalent to that produced by a residential project at 18.6 du/ac on the 141 acres devoted to employment park uses. Before any portion of the park is approved, additional traffic studies to consider access points, peaking characteristics and turning movements will be required at the sub-area plan level. 3. In its report, Market Profiles states, "A wide variety of locations and quality of business space is available in the Central and Northern County areas. In contrast, the South Bay is limited in the amount and quality of sites and building available. This circumstance is both a limitation and opportunity for the development of new South Bay business parks. The limited amount of large-scale, new industrial parks in the South Bay is a disadvantage from a market awareness standpoint. Less industrial sector marketing and merchandising effort is emanating from the South Bay in general . Thus, the market's awareness and overall image of the region is below that of Central and North County. However, the relative absence of business park competition creates an opportunity to fill a void in the South Bay for a business park offering a quality working environment. No such development exists to accommodate firms who desire a South Bay location, or to compete with North City and County for the attraction of firms. Hence, the opportunity exists to fill an identified market need." Page 24, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/Ib/85 4. The advantageous fiscal impacts to the City by the proposed plan determined by Public Affairs Consultants is based primarily upon the presence of an employment park because of its positive effects on the tax base. 5. The employment park would provide additional jobs for the City. 6. It would assist in dispersing industrial areas within the City's planning area. 7. The property is located on a divided six-lane major road with easy access to I-805, about a mile away. 8. Public facilities required to serve employment park uses are available to the site. 9. The site would provide canyon access and views to employment park employees. C. Biological Impacts Development of the proposed project, as revised, will result in the loss of some biological resources which now exist on the project site. This would also be the case with development under the adopted plan. The impacts of the two plans are similar because the pattern and extent of preserved open space is similar. For specific detailed information, please refer to the environmental impact report. D. Traffic Circulation Traffic generated by the proposed plan would exceed traffic generated by the adopted plan by approximately 24,000 average daily trips. Mitigation measures and future study requirements have been incorporated into the specific plan. Please refer to Section III.B for more details. VI. Recommendations 1 . Specific P1 an Map During the review process of the application, many of staff's land use concerns were able to be resolved and the application amended accordingly. One fundamental issue not resolved was the project density. Concerning the total number of units to be permitted in the project, we believe that 406 additional units should be deleted from the applicant's proposal , in spite of the fact that they have already reduced their originally requested total by 704 units at staff's request. A discussion of staff's rationale by area proposed for change follows. Figure 5 depicting staff's recommendations follows this section. Page 25, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 (1 ) North Side of North Ridge Expand the 0-2 du/ac area to 100 acres of level area. While the proposed plan indicates about 109 acres in this category, only about 85 acres would be level. The expansion as recommended would provide a more viable level estate area which would also allow for split-level parcels at its perimeter. (2) Ridgeback Road Intersection with Loop Street Change from Residential 4-6 du/ac to 2-4 du/ac. This area is at the west entrance to the north ridge which features densities of 0-2 and 2-4 du/ac. The recommended density would continue this pattern at this key neighborhood entrance and provide more compatibility with the remainder of the north ridge. (3) Center Ridge Add a 5-acre neighborhood park and change east end from Residential 6-8 du/ac to 4-6 du/ac. There are no park facilities on the center ridge. While adequate park acreage is already provided, the plan is deficient in useable park area in terms of locations in proximity to the neighborhoods which will use them. Regarding density, staff believes that the lowering of the density on the east end of this development area is necessary to reduce the intensity of development on this relatively narrow ridge while still providing a good density and product mix. (4) North Side East "H" Street at Buena Vista Way Change from Residential 8-12 du/ac to 6-8 du/ac. This proposed change would (1 ) provide a better density and product mix in this area, (2) reduce the intensity of development in this medium high density quadrant, and (3) be more compatible with the existing single family neighborhood across East "H" Street to the south. (5) Northeast Corner East "J" Street and Paseo Ranchero Change from Residential 4-6 du/ac to 6-8 du/ac. This proposed change would add a 6-8 du/ac category in a location that staff feels is more appropriate than some other areas where it has been proposed to be deleted. It is well located at the intersection of two arterials across Paseo Ranchero from a parcel previously approved by the City Council for 10 du/ac. Page 26, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/85 (6) South Side East "J" Street East of Paseo Ranchero Change from Residential 6-8 du/ac to 4-6 du/ac. This proposed change would provide more compatibility with the existing neighborhood to the east and the 4-6 du/ac category to the north. (7) Northwest Corner Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero Change from Residential 6-8 du/ac to Open Space. This proposed change would be in conformance with the Open Space Element of the General Plan which indicates open space uses along Telegraph Canyon Road, a scenic highway on the Scenic Highways Element. (8) East Side Paseo Ladera West of the Casa Del Rey Subdivision Change from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Park. This area of the plan is deficient in park acreage. The recommended change would provide a small linear park of about three acres on an area which is underlain by a trace fault line. Improvement of this property with lots would result in such lots having frontage on Paseo Ladera, a residential collector. No other lots have frontage on this street. 2. Specific Plan Text The writing of the specific plan text has been a continuing process between staff and the applicant. Most issues have been resolved and text changes made accordingly. However, a few changes remain to be made, in staff's view, and are as follows: (1 ) Pages 7 and 8 Changes to the tables on these pages will be dependent upon any amendments to the specific plan map made by the City Council . (2) Page 19 Delete paragraph 3 if the Council agrees that a neighborhood park is appropriate on the center ridge as recommended by staff. Out-parcel s Staff recommendations concerning the 10 "out-parcels" are based primarily on the land use around them on the specific plan map as recommended by staff. Should your Council approve land uses on the specific plan which are different from those recommended by staff, it may also, in some cases, be appropriate to Page 27, Item 5c Meeting Date 4/16/35 change the land use on an abutting out-parcel for consistency. Following are staff recommendations on the out-parcels as numbered in this report and on the accompanying staff recommendation map. No. 1 , APN 594-120-02: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 60 dwelling units, to conform to the density around it. No. 2, APN 642-020-30: Residential 8-12 du/ac, maximum 60 dwelling units, to conform to the 60 dwelling units previously approved for the property. No. 3, APN 642-010-39: PF Public Facilities to conform to its proposed use as a church and related facilities. No. 4, APN 642-010-03: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 25 dwelling units, to conform to neighboring property. No. 5, APN 640-090-01 : Residential 2-4 du/ac, maximum 40 dwelling units, to conform to the density around it. No. 6, APN 640-090-05: Residential 8-12 du/ac, maximum 102 dwelling units, in conformance with the 102 units previously approved for the property. No. 7, APN 640-090-06: School , since the property was acquired by the Chula Vista Elementary School District for school purposes. No. 8, APN 640-090-07: Residential 2-4 du/ac, maximum 40 dwelling units, to conform to and continue the density pattern established on the property abutting to the west. North of the parcel is a school site while south of the property is recommended for open space by staff. No. 9, APN 642-040-15: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 60 dwelling units, to conform to the recommended density bounding the property on three sides. No. 10, APN 641-040-01 : Open space in conformance with the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The property owner would still have the ability to develop his parcel at a density not to exceed 2 du/ac pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Based on staff discussion in the issues section of this report and subject to the amendments to the map and text as outlined above, staff recommends approval of the El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan Amendment. WPC 1845P Page 28 , Item 5c in` w .. Q s z 1 W � o 1Z a.2 i' l' ' f ct2. — U lall . .. ' f IL z CI. , .,,. a� ; '.I I. ; / '_ . ED s,:„,.. . ../▪ p..:...•rf: �• ,`1 `, a / t •i ,' • ♦ 'r ,�,� . ; T • ..-.• •,-.;'--;.'•;!. • *1151‘ • � \t• /, : i A ii r� 1 iF � j dNwy• owV��• ✓ i / „,,.........A.11',4(. .. T � � i 7 it� lff !/ I O ♦ Y/ ti. :' i ti 0 .,1 -,. •', ...-. ii.s:ii?i,,-./.,-,1,--..,' -;..,-- . .._ . . ' '� !'l • . .' '7: �' : � • ...t :_—• '�:+�(: I, •(;,..,-,..a, ,._3\ i/-/,' yam/,.{ 5',. ? O 3• .: .�CF"f '{.c?o '`�r ,1 l- hi✓' ✓ / / a 'c,•li.�Y��• - ,1 g Its'•`.•t r /` f 3 is �'` t• ■• ., ---, •. - Ns.y.1”. ''',:.a.,Vi- 8 \ .•- -----*C-=-A"-:;I:,.,DEL „ �� ,_ 1, ' ,,it ' 1 1 ti 1- / ;T11, mini ' 1 ' , C.1 1. 1 � I1/ .. /' : - --,:'•, ,1- vr..• • • Page 29 , Item 5c W u W +) 3 rI 3 %D '.D O r1 n Co Co •rl r-I to '.D N '.D N 3 • • • N r\ -1 Is.. ND 1--1 1 b r-1 La r-1 rI in co d is a) 1 +1 O .0 W 3 \r M in •D r-i VD N a• M N N M C H a) O La C+ M O H N 3 H O n .0 M a. M O CO U O O H ..D n M O+ U'1 3 1.0 1-4 •D vD 4.) 13 d, 1-4 N M 1-4 00 H t!1 ) r` r-I .,-1 N 3 r-1 4.) 1 O tf1 O N I r- Cr) W• CO U G I 00 O N I t0 00 CO 3 p, co +) a..'i 01 O t\ U1 H I M 0 a' r1 0 C p W•W M U1 0 La I O N I ri 1 O f\ a 1 N O r-I W d •U O d i H r-I r--I N %.0 I H I N CO W L+ W "4 • b L+ W a..) 0) 0) .1-) 3 r-I ON %D 3 O 3 .D 0) +) ra W •ri r. H n N CO N M • LO.r )al U O LI O N H 0 3 �D U1 W H 0) CO U a .N 01 -a-. n C+ CO 3 .D 00 .D N M H N O b W N La 0. VD a, r\ ♦D N N H O I ■D H C+ N .-1 .O IL L+ v O T as 3 3 M M Lc) M I in r-I 3 CO V N d 1-4 r-1 N ra CO r•1 1/1 I` 1/1 0 to A N W H 00 G Q A.) 0 0 0 N N 3 CON Sr W O W •r4 O M CO C+ 1-4 CO a• • W LOO+ I a) 0 N CO U1 ■D 3 Q to co Cz4 ca d +) d • 4.) H -X O 4 N -X is -X -X -)C -X 3 N at 41 r-i at c' 0) EA 0 H O 40+ -X -X -X -X -X •X O I O r` ill 00 N M 0) E p -1 Lq CO I 4 .D ,-I 00 `D VD E 04 1-4 '0 O a7 0 O V • •r1 N3 44 W co � •ri W +) I %D N I N 1 O ql V Q 01 U ,'0 1-4 H M ∎D W O LL' c/J La O .41 a W O o r■ r•4 • '.D O P+•O L=+ W � L+ I n M I 1n I .D r-I O n• I � 3 r-1 .ri I r-I N I H I try cr) r-I I N CC C/) rd d 0) W O 4) L+ ri • 0.3 44 p cli 0 0 CO f.+ +) 0 3 00 N 0 3 03 r-I N .0 LO+ d N 0) • 0 43 M C■ U1 00 N • r■ n U1 ■ 3 N to ) > co ZN co iC jc iC iC do 9C O .D N r♦ r-I O O La a N O 0 a I-1 U jC iC 3< iC 3< N U1 M I '.D r4 UI 00 0 4' 0) O• d 00 r-1 Ul 'S �- a o C- 1d o N o O L+ 0 f n W co N 0 44 00 b V 0 .r1 +) O L+ .r') 4-4 ) .ri 0 0) co N O .-.1 + U L+ 0) ri •3 b rI ca 0 f0 C) U Co .� W 0) M U O L+ on r1y N 3 .D 00 r-I N .O O O •rl W A H H 0 3 r-I H O ■-f x 0 O O U al •a) O N 3 �D CO ,N-I C/O) A 0 U 0 O a to H a C4 W Cn a a O 4( 3 ,.