HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/12/11
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesdav. December 11. 1996
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of November 13, 1996
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUPS-96-06; Request for a conditional use permit to
continue operating a temporary truck terminal/trailer
storage yard at 2400 Faivre Stret - California Multi-Modal,
Inc. and H.G. Fenton Materials Company (continued from
the meeting of 11-13-96) - (to be continued to meeting of
1-22-97)
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of the following applications filed by Rancho
Del Rey Investors L. P. for 28.8 acres located on the south
side of East 'J' Street within Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero
Court within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned
Community:
a. PCM-97-0l: Consideration of amendments to the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, General Development Plan, Planned
Community District Regulations, Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan to
allow a 58 unit density transfer from Parcel R-7c to
Parcel R-6.
(-more-)
Agenda
-2-
December 11, 1996
b. PCS-97-0I: Tentative Subdivision Map for 25.8
acres at Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista
Tract 97-01.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DRC-97-01: Consideration of an appeal filed by Rancho
Del Rey Investors L.P. of a Design Review Committee
decision to deny approval of the site plan and architecture
for a proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres on the south
side of East 'J' Street within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Planned Community
4. Update on Council Items
. Staff recommendation on San Miguel Ranch for Council consideration.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT at
p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of December 18, 1996 at 5:30 p.m.
in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of
January 8, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at leastfarty-eight hours in advance for
meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619)
585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chair Tarantino, Members of the Chula Vi~aJMnning Commission
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Plannin ~
VIA:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
SUPS-96-06: Applicants' and staff's recommendation to continue hearing to a
date specific
Due to on-going negotiations between the Applicants and staff, it is recommended that the public
hearing for the above case, SUPS-96-06, be continued to January 22, 1997. This will allow
time for the Applicants and staff to work out the details on several conditions of approval.
Applicants have agreed to the continuance per the attached letter.
~,_ L_:':3H'1
P.2
. .~,
/~~
/ .
", ~
~
H,G, FENTON Cm,iPANY
--------
-----
n20 TRADE STREET
SUITE 300
POST OFFICE BOX 64
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 'J211?
H.C. PENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
fENTON.WESTERN PROPERTIES
PRE.M1XtiD CONCRETE COMPA"Y
A-I SOILS COMPANY
EAST COUNTY MATERIAL:; COMPA.'lY
WSSTl>1!N SALT COMPANY
\61g) $66.2000
fAX (619) 549.3589
December 5, 1996
Mr Martin Miller
Associate Planner
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re Continuance of Planning Commission
5UPS-96-06
2400 Faivre Street
California Multi Modal, Inc. and HG Fenton Materia, Company
Dear Mr Miller:
As was discussed in our meeting on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, we concur with Planning Department
Staff that the Planning Commission should be continued to January 22, ] 997
The cooperation of all Chula Vista staff members mvolved:5 appreciated and feel that we are making
progress on the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit 'believe this continuance will a.llow the
necessary time to meet and resolve outstanding issues
Please feel rree to contact me with any questions I can be re2~hed at 566-2000, extension 561.
Sincerely,
di i iYldk Ko..\.)~v-....
Linda B Kaufman
Project Managor
MILLtR2.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of the following applications filed by Rancho
Del Rey Investors, L.P. for 28.8 acres located on the south
side of East "J" Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero
Court within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned
Community:
a. PCM-97-01: Consideration of amendments to the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, General Development Plan, Planned
Community District Regulations, Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan to
allow a 58 unit density transfer from Parcel R-7c to
Parcel R-6.
b. PCS-97-01: Tentative Subdivision Map for 25.8 acres
at Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 97-01.
The applicant, Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P., has submitted applications to amend
the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General
Development Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Water Conservation Plan
and Air Quality Improvement Plan to allow a 58 unit density transfer from Parcel R-7c
to Parcel R-6 and change the density range and permitted number of dwelling units
of both parcels. The Sections of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan document
affected by the amendments, as proposed to be revised, have been provided for your
consideration. (see Attachment 6).
The applications also request approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map known as the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Parcel R-6, Chula Vista Tract 97-01 (PCS-97-01) for 25.8
acres located on the south side of East "J" Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero
Ct. within the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community (see Locator). Please note that the
Tentative Subdivision Map involves only 15.2 of the 18.2 acres of Parcel R-6. The
remaining 3 acres have been designated for a forty unit affordable housing project
which is not a part of this Tentative Map application (see Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3).
The proposed SPA amendment however involves this three acre portion of Parcel R-6.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new or supplemental
EIR is necessary and has prepared an addendum to FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey SPA
III, which must be considered and certified by the Planning Commission prior to a
decision on the project (see Attachment 4).
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
The unresolved issues are for the most part site design related and are discussed in
more detail in the DRC appeal (DRC-97-0I) item of the December 11, 1996 agenda
However, the site related issues are directly linked to the proposed SPA amendments
in that the criteria to allow density transfers as prescribed in the Rancho Del Rey
Specific Plan, requires that, as a result of the density transfer, the spatial arrangement
and functional relationship of the site plan components be substantially improved.
Staff has not been able to endorse the proposed density transfer due to the following
unresolved issues:
1. The building separation, which serves as the main access way for three
dwelling units, is ten (10) feet. Typically a 15-20 ft. separation is
preferred for two story buildings in order to provide a wide access way for
three dwelling units, accommodate more meaningful landscaping and
better privacy.
2. Pedestrian walks are usually incorporated along landscaped buffer areas
and should be linked to all areas of the development. The proposed
project features narrow and disjointed walkways adjacent to portions of
the private streets and parking bays. In order to resolve this deficiency,
Staff has recommended that the project incorporate a ten (10) foot
landscape buffer along both sides of the loop road not only to incorporate
an inviting pedestrian walk but also to be able to enhance the street
scene.
3. The limited building separation and building front setback also limit the
amount of landscaping and relief that can be incorporated along the
streets. Staff has recommended, in addition to the 15-20 ft. between
buildings, a minimum of forty six (46) feet from facade to facade in order
to allow for additional landscaping, better pedestrian walks and a visual
relief on the street scene.
4. The number of dwelling units being transferred, added to the
topographical constraints and the residential product type, produce a less
than desirable pedestrian circulation system, a limited landscaping
program and a compressed arrangement of buildings and other site plan
components.
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt attached Resolution PCM-97-01j PCS-97-01 recommending that the City Council
deny the Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 97-01 (PCS-97-01) and SPA
amendment applications in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
1. Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is located at the east end of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III
planned community and involves parcels R-6 and OS-7. Parcel R-6 is irregular
in shape and contains a total of 18.2 acres. Parcel OS-7 is a 10.6 acre open space
lot located immediately adjacent to the south of Parcel R-6 (see Locator).
The site terrain slopes from north to south approximately 55 ft. to the edge of
the southerly building pad and approximately 100 ft. to the south edge of the
open space parcel which abuts Otay Lakes Road. On this terrain three building
pads separated by 2: 1 slopes and an elevation difference of approximately 20 to
27 ft. were created as part of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III mass grading
program (see Exhibits B-1, B-2 & B-3).
The site is limited to the south by Telegraph Canyon Road, to the west by a
vacant parcel (future community park), to the north by single family residential
development across East "J" Street and to the east by a condominium residential
complex located approximately 20 to 30 ft above the subject site (see locator).
2. SPA Land Use designations and land use.
CV Muni Code
Zoning
RDR SPA III
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Land Use
Site PC, Planned
Community
North PC, Planned
Community
West PC, Planned
Community
East PC, Planned
Community
South N/A
BFA, Single Family Attached
OS, Open Space
Vaeant
Open Space
SFS, Single Faro Cottages
SF homes
P, Park
Vacant
N/A
Multifamily Res
N/A
Tel Canyon Road
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
3. Proposed Development
The development proposal consists of 82 two-story structures containing a total
of 246 condominium units. The eighty two (82) structures are arranged in large
residential clusters linked together by a loop road and a single access point
along East "J" Street. An emergency access has also been provided at the south
end of the parcel. The residential units are served by private streets and a
combination of open and enclosed parking strategically arranged to serve
tenants.
Although not identical to the proposed project, the applicant has indicated that
there are two other developments in San Diego County using a similar design
concept. One project is located in Scripps Ranch and the other in Mission
Valley. Also, there is a very similar project in the City of Chula Vista known as
"Serena". This project is located at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and
Buena Vista Way. The Commission may want to visit this site prior to the
meeting.
According to the applicant, the proposed housing product has been popular,
since it offers many benefits related to a single-family home at a relatively
modest price. To demonstrate the need and desirability of this product in the
Rancho Del Rey an executive summary of a marketing analysis for the proposed
development (see Exhibit C). Within the context of the marketing study, it is
important to note that the Rancho Del Rey Specific plan area, which
encompasses three SPAs, provides a total of approximately 850 units (not
including the proposed density transfer) in five different locations throughout
the Planned Community. The units provided for entry level buyers represent
15% of the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Specific Plan
contribute to the well balanced mixture of housing already provided in the
Rancho Del Rey.
Please note that in this summary an attached residential product proj ect known
as Sanibelle and located on the north side of East "H" Street between terra nova
Drive and Hidden vista Drive, is quoted to be at a density of twenty (20) units
per acre. This density calculation excludes the substantial area absorbed by the
slope banks within the project. The project's actual density is approximately 14
du/ac and utilizes large buildings containing six to eight to maximize the site
plan efficiency in terms of density.
On October 30, 1996, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum at the
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
Rancho Del Rey Information Center. The forum was attended by a limited
number of residents whom expressed concerns about shifting density to the site
near their homes. However, after the project architecture and overall site design
was presented, those residents in attendance indicated their general satisfaction
with the overall development proposal.
On November 18, 1996, the Design Review Committee considered the proposed
project and after hearing staffs and applicant's presentations endorsed the
project architecture, but expressed concerns about the site design. The
committee cited the following major issues:
1. Building Separation:
The proposed buildings are very close together, producing a narrow and
minimally- landscaped access for the dwelling units. Entrances to the
individual units are all on the side of the buildings, are poorly-defined
and provide little shelter. Two out of three entrances are too close
together, providing no privacy.
2. Landscaping:
The compressed street scene reduces the applicant's ability to landscape
effectively. The Planters between the Garage doors are too narrow to
permit the planting of any significant tree form, and since access
walkways must be accommodated between buildings, very little planting
area remains.
3. Pedestrian circulation:
No cohesive pedestrian circulation system is shown, with the proposal
lacking safe separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
4. Street Scene:
The Private streets have the appearance of narrow alleys, with little more
than a 38 ft. separation between buildings. In comparison, a typical single
family subdivision has a minimum 90 ft. separation between buildings.
The proposal result is a very narrow street scene with a dark closed-in
feel to the streetscape.
The Committee offered to continue the project to allow the applicant time to
address the committees's concerns (which most likely would have resulted in a
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
reduction in the number of dwelling units allowed to be transferred to the site).
The applicant indicated that the project economics required them to develop the
site with 246 dwelling units and requested a final decision from the Committee.
Based on the applicant's request, the Committee voted to deny the project by
unanimous vote (see Attachment 7).
4. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment
The adopted Rancho del Rey SPA III plan identifies the subject area for an
allowed density of 12.0 du/acre, or 182 dwelling units. The SPA amendment
application requests approval of a density transfer from Parcel R-7 to Parcel R-6
and reduction in the overall SPA number of permitted dwelling units.
Parcel R-7c was created as part of a recent amendment to the Rancho Del Rey
SPA III and received a land use designation of SFA, Single Family Attached,
target density of 12.6 du/ac and a maximum number of 220 dwelling units.
However, a tentative map for this parcel was recently approved for 120 single
family attached dwelling units (duplexes) reducing the density from 12.6 to 6.9
du/ac. Approval of the project with 120 units left one hundred (100) units of
unused density. Fifty eight (58) of these units are proposed to be transferred to
parcel R-6 which in the adopted GDP and Site Utilization plans has the same
land use designation (SF A) and approximately the same density range (12
du/ac). The remaining forty two units (42) are not proposed to be utilized in the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III and therefore are proposed to be deleted.
More specifically, the proposed SPA amendments request the following:
1. Reduce parcel R-7c permitted number of dwelling units from 220 to 120
(-100 du's) reducing the density from 12.6 to 6.9 du's/ac (-45% reduction).
2. Increase parcel R-6 permitted number of dwelling units from 228 to 286
(+58 du's) increasing the density from 12.0 to 15.0 du/acre (+25%
increase).
3. Reduce the overall SPA permitted number of dwelling units from 1,312
to 1,270 (-42 du's) reducing the overall density from 6.4 to 6.2 du/ac (3%
reduction) .
The Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan allows the transfer of densities within any
SPA without amending the Specific Plan provided the transfer of units does not
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
exceed the total number of units authorized for the SPA and provided the
transfer result in a substantial improvement of the spatial arrangement and
functional relationship of the involved site plan.
5. Tentative Subdivision Map
As indicated above, Parcel R-6 contains a three acre lot designated to
accommodate an affordable housing project known as Cordoba, not part of this
project, and 15.2 acres which constitute the proposed residential development
of the project. The tentative map also includes an open space parcel located
immediately adjacent to the south and identified in the SPA plan as Parcel OS-7
(see Locator).
The tentative subdivision map, which consists of four lots containing a total of
246 condominium units, is solely for the purpose of subdividing the property for
sale. The individual dwelling units will be sold as air space condominiums with
the underlying land held in common by a homeowners association.
ANALYSIS;
Typically a SPA amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map planning
applications do not require a detailed analysis of a specific project layout.
However, the criteria for approval of a density transfers, as prescribed in the
Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan, requires that as a result of the density transfer,
the spatial arrangement and functional relationship of the site plan components
be substantially improved. For this reason, staff has conducted a detailed
analysis of the site design and has concluded that there are a number of design
deficiencies directly linked to the increase in density. For example, the two-story
building separation, which serves as the main access way for three dwelling
units, is ten (10) feet. Typically a 15-20 ft. separation is preferred to provide a
wide access way for three dwelling units and accommodate more meaningful
landscaping.
The limited building separation and building front setback also limit the amount
of landscaping and relief that can be incorporated along the streets. Staff has
recommended, in addition to the 15-20 ft. between buildings, a minimum of
forty six (46) feet from front facade to front facade in order to allow for
additional landscaping and better pedestrian walks.
Another aspect that in our opinion was compromised as a result of the added
units is the pedestrian circulation system. Pedestrian walks are usually
incorporated along landscaped buffer areas and linked to all areas of the
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
development. The proposed project features narrow and disjointed walkways
adjacent to portions of the private streets and parking bays. In order to resolve
this deficiency, Staff has recommended that the project incorporate a ten (10)
foot landscape buffer along both sides of the loop road not only to incorporate
an inviting pedestrian walk but also to be able to enhance the street scene.
With regard to the proposed density, this parcel was established at
approximately twelve (12) units per acre and it was expected to be developed
with townhome residential product. In staffs experience, townhome residential
developments are usually less efficient, in terms of density, than traditional
stacked flat garden apartment projects with clustered parking. One of the
reasons for the loss of efficiency in townhome developments is primarily due to
the vehicular access that is provided to each individual unit. This feature
absorbs significant amount of land area yielding a lower density. The density
efficiency is further influenced by the site topography and units contained
within each building.
While staff is not opposed to a transfer of density, the amount of dwelling units
being transferred, added to the topographical constraints and the residential
product type, produce a less than desirable pedestrian circulation system,
limited recreational facilities, overall landscaping and tight arrangement of
buildings and other site plan components.
In addition to the above mentioned concerns, staff is also responding to
comments received from members of the City's commissions, committee and
Council regarding high density projects. Every year members of the Planning
Commission, Design Review and Town Centre I Committees, as well as a
member of the City Council get together to form the Annual Beautification
Awards Selection Committee. During this program the members of this
committee visit the different projects completed in the previous year and select
the award winners. Members of the Committee also offer during the field trip
comments and make suggestion to staff about the good and bad features of the
project they visited. This input helps staff in the formulation of future
recommendations.
In the last field trip committee members expressed concerns about the tight
building arrangements in attached housing projects such as the Sanibelle
residential project, citing the limited building setbacks, minimal landscaping
areas and congested street scenes. Although building architecture is attractive
is typically attractive, the recently constructed higher density projects all had
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
design deficiencies as identified by the Selection Committee.
Staff has also received input from residents of some of the high density
townhome type residential projects regarding the need of a cohesive internal
pedestrian circulation system and recreational amenities within this type of
developments. It was also noted that safety issues arise when residents are
required to walk in the street.
Based on the above mentioned concerns and the input received from members
of the different commissions, committees and City Council, staff has concluded
that the transfer of fifty eight (58) units to the subject site have a significant
effect on the spatial arrangement and functional aspect of the site plan
components.
Staff is of the opinion that reducing the number of the proposed units to be
transferred by about one half (29) could allow the applicant the opportunity to
resolve the above mentioned concerns. However, if the Planning Commission
deems appropriate to recommend approval of the density transfer (SPA
amendment) and the Tentative Subdivision Map, staff is recommending that the
conditions outlined in Exhibit "D" (see Attachment 3) be considered.
CONCLUSION;
For the reasons mentioned above, staff has concluded that the project site is not
physically suitable for the proposed density of development and is therefore
inconsistent with the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan. Therefore, pursuant to the criteria to allow density transfers
prescribed in the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and Section 66474 of the
California Subdivision Map Act, staff recommends that the applications for a
Tentative Subdivision Map and SPA amendment to allow a density transfer of
58 units to Parcel R-6 be denied in accordance with the attached Planning
Commission Resolution.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinance
3. Exhibits
4. FEIR-87-01 Addendum
5. Public Input
6. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amended Sections
7. Design Review Committee Minutes and Resolution
8. Disclosure Statement
(M,\HOMF.\PI..ANNING\LUlS/pCM.9701.RPT
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-97-0l!PCS-97-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND WATER
CONSERV ATIONPLAN AND DENY TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-01 (PCS-97-01).
WHEREAS, applications for a Tentative Subdivision Map and amendments to the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan
(GDP) Planned Community District Regulations, Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water
Conservation Plan ("Project") were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
on September 30, 1996 by Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P. (Developer); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed SPA Plan Amendments consist of reducing parcel R-7c
permitted number of dwelling units from 220 to 120 (-100 du's) and the density from 12.6
to 6.9 du's/ac (-45%); Increasing parcel R-6 permitted number of dwelling units from 228
to 286 (+58 du's) and the density from 12.0 to 16.2 du/acre (+25%); and Reducing the
overall SPA permitted number of dwelling units from 1,312 to 1,270 (-42 du's) and the
overall density from 6.4 to 6.2 du/ac (-3%); and,
WHEREAS, The Tentative Subdivision Map known as the Rancho Del Rey SPA
III Parcel R-6, Chula Vista Tract 97-01 (PCS-97-01) consists of subdividing 25.8 acres (15.2
acres of Parcel R-6 and 10.6 acre Parcel OS-7) located on the south side of East "J" Street
between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Ct. within the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community
and P-C zone District into four residential lots containing a total of 246 dwelling units and
a 10. 6 acre open space lots; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within
1,000 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place advertised, namely
December 11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new or
supplemental EIR is necessary, and has prepared an addendum to FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del
Rey SPA III, which must be considered by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on
this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DOES hereby find that the addendum FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey SPA
III, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City
of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council resolution denying
the project in accordance with the findings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PROJECT DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this December 11, 1996 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Frank Tarantino
Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\1uis\PCM-9701.PCR)
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY
SPA III SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PCM-96-05); AND DENYING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-01 (PCS-97-01)
T. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and commonly known as Rancho Del Rey SPA III Parcel R-6 and
OS-7; and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 25.8 acres located
on the south side of East "J" Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Ct. within
the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on September 30, 1996 Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P. ("Owner") filed
applications with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting
approval of amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, General Development, Plan and Planned Community District
Regulations Rancho Del Rey SPA III Water Conservation Plan and Rancho Del Rey
Air Quality Improvement Plan. The applications also request approval of a tentative
subdivision map represented in Exhibit B-1, B-2 and B-3 in order to subdivide Parcel
15.2 acres of Parcel R-6 into 3 lots containing a total of 246 condominium dwelling
units and a 10.6 acre open space lot. ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of 1)
a Specific Plan, El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan previously approved by City
Council; 2) the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15993 ("SPA"); 3) a Master Tentative
Subdivision Map, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16222
("TSM"), Chula Vista Tract 90-02; 4) an Air Quality Improvement Plan, Rancho Del
Rey SPA III Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP); and 5) a Water Conservation
Plan, Rancho Del Rey Water Conservation Plan (WCP); both previously approved
by City Council Resolution No. 16220 and 16219, respectively on July 9, 1991.
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on December 11, 1996, and voted ( ) to recommend that the City Council
deny the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and,
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 21, 1997 the Project and to
receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public
testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on the Project held on December 11, 1996 and the minutes and
resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
III. PREVIOUS FEIR-89-10 AND ADDENDUM FEIR-89-10 REVIEWED AND
CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed,
considered, approved and certified FEIR-89-10 and has considered Addendum
FEIR-89-10; and,
IV COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that FEIR-89-1O and the addendum has been
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and Environmental Review Procedures of the City
of Chula Vista and hereby certifies the addendum to FEIR-89-1O recertified the EIR
/ addendum.
V. SPA FINDINGS/ DENIAL
A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED IS NOT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN AND
THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
Based on the topographical constraint and the effect that the transfer of 58
units have created on the spatial arrangement and functional relationship of
the site plan components it is concluded that the project site is not physically
suitable for the proposed density of development and therefore inconsistent
with the density transfer criteria prescribed in the Rancho Del Rey Specific
Plan.
VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS/ DENIAL
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.b & d of the Subdivision Map
Act the City Council hereby denies the Tentative Subdivision Map for
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Parcel R-6, Chula Vista Tract No. 97-01 (PCS-97-
01) for the following reasons:
. The Tentative map is not in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan
because the transfer of fifty eight units (58) to the subject site have a
significant effect on the spatial arrangement and functionalrelationship
of the site plan components and therefore inconsistent with the density
transfer criteria prescribed in the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan.
. The site is not suitable for the proposed density because the proposed
fifty eight (58) unit transfer added to the topographical constraints
have produce a tight building arrangement with less than desirable
amenities and deficient internal pedestrian circulation system and
landscaping program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the findings above, the City Council
does hereby deny the Tentative Subdivision Map and SPA amendments
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
City Attorney
m:lhome Iplanninglluislpcs9701.ccr
ATTACHMENT 3
LOCATORS AND EXHIBITS
'.
'\
\,
SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE
/
PROJECT
LOCATION
\
\
~
LOCATOR ti
,
\ \
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Rancho Del Rey PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT.
. Investors, L.P.
PROJECT East 'J' 5t No. of T.C.R. Request: A proposed amendment to the General Development
ADDRESS: East of Poseo Ra nchero
Plan and Sectional Area Plan for SPA III of R.D.R..
5CAl.f, FIlE NUMBER,
NORTH No Scale
z
.::5
a...
z
o
-
~
N
-
....J
-
l-
=>
LLJ
I-
-
(f)
\
-",-~
~... r ~ ..Y"""""!"r"
~,1' '1"'. ......'.... "; -:;loA t...~ .~'_..~
........'V-U ,.",..,.~/--" r....,.....
~'~~">>~'J~~~ ~/.?\V.~~"";.~ \
1'~~~- ~.l7 ~<\J:,,\c'"K'\:''''''''~-:>~'c:'?~\i~,)\~''''' \.
\,~,,,,,~.~~t~~~~~~;{:~~~~":;"-~:~)r~::.}
,,,. \E'"''''. t;..it"''''- ~.'.~" ,\\.Y '~ -. - .
. --;"" "'} . .,,~V """ .
\:'~1"1:'\-'''''~'''):( . '\\,i:~ ..-.....
\'.=..-~'" . It:,... .
~-;,... I ....-:. It -.0 //y
,\"...~_~r-~\0.;E~. ) \ "~ Jy
""'...\:~.'O:.I,\:\ / t N
\- ~)\.-.;tt"'C;..,....... \ I
C"";-;;:;"\:~\\ - :t"r: . e<
~~/~~f~jt~:ll::;
''ii.C::J~~: . fr
~\tf'~":'\. \, (/)
,,",\i"1- \-~i" ~1tJ. \ V>
\\'1 j~~B.\~~ \ ~
HI:~, ,..~.,,:(~> .
...,.1li't:DI...>>....
1= -')':1" ..
'(~~
~...-' ~"'
o
.N
ON
-" -
uEEg
r--. :J e..-
I C4-'
~Q)U>-
-U~CI
~-60~
cE~o.Q
\
",-,
""
" \'
'-.;.
\. M
\V\ J,
\~ C;.(
I., ~)
\~L.- "
_j'J
~
I (/)-0
,. "-....
(/)e<
I
.)LJ
'--l
1/ j
I I
I :
/I /
-_-.1 L ;4
1 ri r::~
1/ I: 7
(~) J I i
I I ,
/1 I'
/. ,
// i
/ I i
::::::;/"7 I'
/, <fJ
'i 0:
I I.J
Ir
i~
~
e<
I <<! .. ..., '" ~ .. ~ :; : :; ~ ~I"...;
~5!-~!!!..N - -N-'",,",,
l~J !!ii!ii!j-
I. I, J!!!!!!!!SJ~
li0000rn[!J[!][!J[!]mrnD~ I
iilli! : S :II
'il; ~ ~ ;;j
I
!, !
:;i ~
B~~~~a!~:::~':
(I') ... i 2
Ilu~fhfh !
i~li0GG00000G J
J~$I
~:~I ;:
<t
....
-
m
-
:c
><
&II
~ ~
-,
!I!:m
~~d :~i
~!! E ~ ~ i
~~~Io ~~
: Q ~ e, ~~!
~ii,~ ~a
~..~~ h.
~!!!;; ~;~
~H~~H~!
CD
~d:
ii....
I-W
zO
wa:
:iE<Cii>
~c..~
..J_,...~.,...
w-c..a:~
>-<1:0",
w<t:;~o
co..U::u~
wCl)~g~
I- if~>-
->LL5~
cnWoi3>
oesa::;:s~
D.. .w~Q
<( ii:P~ u
:iECif
w -
~O
!;t:I:
1-0
zz
w<
....a:
, ! ~ ii'
,~ '. ~
. i i; ~!~ ;~ H
_c~~.'r.J~~
,Ii !mm 1!a1
,,'I ~ih}~~i ,,~t..
! ~ ~">~~II ~~~i.;:
,It ~q~~-- _ s!=.1
;;~ ~; rrhr ~~~p
~Jf i:~I=,<~i. "~~i~
~)t ~~Q ~~I~"ipjj~
H~IP~i~~.!~H~;~a
_.,>z~~i~~_ o!.~,,,.~~
j;@>
,
!~
;i
f~
a
d
I'
!..~
!!
~ !
H
.il
",
,.
"
Ilm!!;1
,;,., '!"
;'!H ~ii"
.i~h!: ~.~!
ig :~~ gj!~
i[i;~~ asi
0. c'" ~. f~l ~
! ! f ~ ' ~ I "
o
i
!
dHill!iLI.!liQ
5d~d~~-,-~t~~~~!~~
- .. ..,. ~ ~ ! . ;; ! , ~ ~
----------,-
.'
:!i~ '
:;~:
..
~d :
...~ :
f,
~"
~
I
,;
I:
fi
j L
~H 11
I ~ t
'j ~H
I'~ ' ~ ~
'C
":
,;
,d,
,im1
L,,,,
~ t; ~. ~
d~H~
~g~;~~
- - ~~
h ~;; ~ ~
"
I
~
~~
,
!
t"7t=
...!.----
o
~
.
!:
I if (
';tj
! i [
,
'; I
, ,
I~
A~
-,
. ~ i:
~ i [
'n
" ~' .
" ,
~ ;:
..
, ~
H
"
e ~
!!
"
~2
:1
~~
i~
~J
, ;;~
!gO
. ~ 1
, .
o,i!oj
~;~~ ~~
:',[
,j ,
"
i'l!
ri~~ :i
gr5~ ~~
!!I!!,!
; : ~_ ;'~ !~~ n= !~~ Ei ~~~ :i ~i
',-! ;,,', '" -!! ;.! " 'I!' ;,;,
~~ ;: F r~~ ~I~ i~! ~~~ ;: ~ i'"~;
~~ <~ ~f e:' ~~t ~~~ ~~~ H ~~i ~~ ii
~~ s~ ~[i;~ ~if i~~ p~ ~i 3H ~~!~
~; ~; ~~ .g: ~;; ~~: ..~~ !L ~;. "~!~
0'" ,,!h ", ,8' !I, "!I'! 'r Ii.
~! H ~~ pw p; ~~~ ~'i g~ I: h c.:;
P !i ~~ !~~' ;i~ .~~ i'!r~ ~i,r ~~~~ H ~o~
~t . ~ o!_ ~~. ~ - ~ - ~- I~ ~"I
U ~ I~~! iH '1'1"-" h! ii'~ ~}I~ ;~,h il 1!1~
..~. ~ _. ~ ; ,: i "! I! . "! "
il ~I i~ ~~~! ;d~ ;f ~=~[ ~ R;~~ i s I
~i ~~ ~~ ~~~i ~~;~ ~~i ~~;!i ~;~ ~1,li ~~ d~
;~ h ii g~r ;r!~ a~ i~ I i~~ i~ Viii .! '<8S
~! ~i h ~;~~ ~;.~ ~=II ~n~ ~~~ ~d~ ~~ n~i
H ~~ u ;:!h ~~~r ~ H h~~ HI t~~~ t~ n
::>Bee, .~, ,~ .'" e 0 <f'@
II
10
~!
.'
.>
.-
1I!!1i
'r.r2
-, ~;
~-
. ,r
!'
If 11
,
..
,
I
I I
- :+-
~
I ~
! ~i
,.
II
'if
,
! V .~
II!, t ~
I L.
Ii
, !
~
~
~!
I
II
" .
~ i
o z
~ z ~> -.
~~ ~ ~~a:'9~!
I,., c C ,-
I'~ t; w-l...J-
w"~ > I t-wo2
.t~:5! iiica..::i
)~~ i "'. ~o .0
9t u CL i
' <II! _-
c, pH I :EJ:=uj
>' 1~t!".! wOc::(o~
2 ~ ~jl(,JI ~Za..~s
i~ ~II ~<(/)~
itf-01 :f ffil%
. ~
@)
!iB-- .
i~- ",
"I
1 .
I '
.d=r- .....;
i;;;;-.t __~
~
I
!XI
E-t
-
I;Q
-
::I:
><
~
II
0,"!'
~!h
~ - <~
~~~~
:/!~~
~~~.
"~ii
n~~
Iii,
~i' > 2
~~~ ~i
Hi!'
~~~!~
!LSi
!i,1;
'I t: II~ ~
~ ~ i ~..- = .
.Ii iU
iI~~
,
~t: ~~ ~
it: ~,~~
j'
t ~ ~!
"
I' .
~t ni.
II< I'
U~ +-
a ...
i'
.
.
~
5
.
~
5
~ !
"
I,i 0
~ ~ ~
~ i
'-
"'~
\../
../,'@
.,.' ,,,.. . .
I 'I
I:;:
"~",,..
,.,.~~.4
.,.~
......-J'
"-
"-
~
~
>'.
~~~S'
"
'-....
..........
'-....
~
~
"-
..........
~ ,
..
.,
0/"
~i
....
~e /<:
--::.
<( ~
:w
t-.u
c;f
O~W
oz
"w
...I 2.
,
,
"
.8.
\~i:
.
~
"
",-0'
fij,',
~",.
~~~!
n.~'>'"
""!i\
lli~~
.,"
,..,.-::>
/~'//
f
"
./
',::::'/
~l . ~
11 ;~
,. . ~
F ~~
n h
.,.t;:; ,
-<
Z:6 ,
:s~
- ,~ ,
:tS
~i~
Hi
,j~
t:~
~h
~."
~~i=
~h~
--_/
,
"
. ~
.
<
00
"0
3D
,
.
d
CC
~[{JD
~.-
",0,),;;;
:;@6g
-"~~~
dO
~:; .
i 0: i
! i'I:,;,
~~ ~ ~Hi
~, ~ L ,
J;
~~
"
"
~
~.
~~
<~
o.~
~
,i
..
tt I"
iJ~ ~; r
'1 ~ ;: ~ ~~ "I
~" I ."0 nil '_~_ ....
~ ~i; d,~ ~#i
~ t ~~ ~ " 11 .
. . (~~
II
"
~
'!
i,
. .
iN~M : C'..:I
z
~ ~>- - I
Q,.w~"" IXI
~a:a:~!
d c-' .
z
ti l!!uJ'",J::I E-t
~ UiQ(.)a..;!
.. Q.I.I.!
Co.Oloi -
~ 0( -0'" IXI
~ ::E:I:=irl
~ ~~<~l!i -
f fic(Q.cs ::I:
f.J 5:a:CJ)&,
w
.. :><:
~~~:!
II .n ~
"
, .1
."
1.
"
"
~L
ii
~
,
Ii ,
,
,
t
I
,
,
t
"
,
=~
.0
3%
~
o
m_
;;0
~Z
~
(Ii
.
e"'~"'li ~ ,
ii JJ I
~~~Je! r:Q
.. 1:ia:a:~ !:.........
~ ~...J...J:I E:""""
. WOo. _
g 1iiCD..~i ,..,.,
!; "0' ~ _
~ i:r:=~! ~
~ ~~If~~ t-r-4
· ~-cn.. ~
~ ~ii: - ""'"
: w ~
U 0-
i~ f!~~ ~
,~r,.
/
'0_,_ _~ ~.
-::/ l._. /_. J;
~::::/~;: - .
~~/ .
'/ " , \ .
c~ . .#'/ ;1 j, <( ~ ~ l(~
;/ '., ~;
!, ~" .
<~ )1M I!AI---
.~ . ~
"'." '"
...~);". ~'~ ~:
.l.....I)~~ .... I.. }~ 32:
<.~ ., " ~
.,
g ~~
JJ~
~t
15'::.'
"''0'"
"'~~
u <
tj:S:g
::~-
.00
.n
ou
""~~
"'~
'0
gz
~
Rancho Del Rey - Neighborhood 3340
Market Feasibility Analysis
Executive Summary
I.
Subject Property & Proposed Product (Appendix Section I)
*
Neighborhood 3340 (also known as RDR6) is located in the SPA III portion of the
master planned community of Rancho Del Rey. The project is planned for a total of
246 units in 82 three unit (tri-plex) buildings, and includes a recreational area with
cabana, swimming pool and spa, and several "pocket parks." The site is also located
directly adjacent to the planned Voyager Park, which will have extensive recreational
amenities including such items as tennis courts and ball fields.
*
Three floor plans are proposed at the subject property ranging from 1,025 to 1,355 square
feet. The project is similar in design to two fast-selling projects now on the market in
other parts of San Diego County: Triana (Scripps Ranch Villages), and Union Square
(Mission Valley). However, in comparison to those two projects, the subject
property site is tiered (both Triana and Union Square are flat sites), which creates
view opportunities and breaks up the massing of buildings on the site, the subject
site will incorporate more extensive landscaping creating a more pleasing
streetscene, and the architecture of the subject unit buildings will be enhanced
beyond what is seen at Triana and Union Square. The target market for the homes is
primarily first time home buyers consisting mostly of young singles and couples.
*
Rancho Del Rey has established itself as one of the most desirable communities in all of
San Diego County. Rancho Del Rey is typically among the top three best selling master
plans in the county on a year-to-year basis. However, there are currently no attached
for-sale projects (condominiums or townhomes) on the market in Rancho Del Rey,
thus limiting the number of potential buyers who can afford to buy in the
community. Attached product is often the only way first-time buyers can afford to buy a
new home, and the subject property has been designed to fill a need for affordable entry-
level homes in the City of Chula Vista.
II.
Housing Market Overview (Appendix Section II)
*
Attached product represents a viable opportunity in today's market as evidenced by the
fact that average sales rates are higher for attached product today than for single family
detached projects. A total of 1,599 attached unit sales are projected for San Diego
County in 1996, with 171 sales in the South County market area. Peak sales in the
1990s in the South County market occurred in 1993 when 362 units were sold.
EXHIBIT C
13601 Etude Road. San Diego. California 92128. (619) 673-5930 . fax (619) 676-0781 1 f 3
sheet 0
McMillin Companies
November 21, 1996
h_eb Development Consulting
Page 2
*
The current development environment severely limits the number of builders who can
build attached product, and the number of projects offered on the market has
correspondingly plummeted in the past four years. From a peak of 103 projects in 1993,
there are currently only 39 attached projects on the market today in San Diego County.
South County has experienced a similar trend, dropping from 12 projects in 1993 to
only six today, and all the South County projects are expected to be sold out by mid-
1997.
*
The lack of new attached for-sale projects on the market is severely impacting the ability
of first-time buyers to purchase a new home. Attached homes are typically $15,000 to
$40,000+ lower in price than the same size single family detached home. County-
wide, the median priced attached unit is almost $80,000 lower in price than the median
priced detached unit (not accounting for differences in unit sizes).
Ill.
Competitive Market Analysis (Appendix Section Ill)
*
There are currently only four actively selling attached for-sale projects in master planned
communities in the Chula Vista area. All combined, there are only 69 units left to sell
in thosc projects, and all are expected to be sold out by mid-1997. Prices range from
$104,900 to $169,900, averaging $135,948 for an average 1,333 square foot unit.
*
Sanibelle is the best selling and highest density attached project on the market,
averaging 1.19 sales per week (62 sales per year), with a density of about 20 units
per acre. Sanibelle's buyers are mostly first-time buyers from the local area, and are
mostly young singles and couples. The project offers two-story townhome units and
single level flats, all with one-car garages.
*
Single family detached homes on "small lots" (lots under about 4,500 square feet) in
Rancho Del Rey average about $162,000 for an average 1,500 square foot home,
while homes in Eastlake average about $170,000 for the same size house. The lowest
priced detached homes are offered at the "cluster home" project, Aspire, with prices from
$129,990 to $163,990. Aspire's lots range from about 1,350 to 1,925 square feet, and
homes range from 940 to 1,527 square feet.
*
There are only two planned and proposed attached projects in Chula Vista area
master plans that are likely in the next two years - a duplex project in Rancho Del
Rey, and a stacked flat project in atay Ranch. The duplex site is now being graded and
home sales will begin next year. Homes will range from 1,588 to 1,849 square feet. The
atay Ranch site is currently raw land, and home sales are not expected to begin until mid-
1998. The atay Ranch site is expected to have product at 20 units per acre.
*
The demand potential for new attached for-sale units in the South County market
area has been estimated at about 150 to 250 units per year over the ncxt year or two.
It should be noted however that this level of demand is based on capture rates in the
1990s, which have been limited by the declining number of projects on the market.
Actual demand for affordably priced new homes is most likely much higher.
sheet 2 of 3
McMillin Companies
November 21, 1996
heeb Development Consulting
Page 3
IV.
Triana and Union Square Review (Appendix Section IV)
*
The Triana and Union Square projects are both similar to the product proposed for
Neighborhood 3340 at Rancho Del Rey. Triana, located in a suburban planned
community and selling 2.37 units per week, is the best selling attached project in all
of San Diego County, and is the only project averaging over two sales per week. Union
Square, located in Mission Valley and averaging 1.48 sales per week, is the fifth best
selling attached project in the .county.
*
Both projects attract mostly first time buyers, consisting mainly of young singles and
couples, although both have some empty nester, retiree, and small family buyers as well.
Buyers like the attached garages, light/airy feeling of the plans (created by the tri-
plex configuration which limits the number of units attached to each particular
home), the community amenities, and the affordability ofthe homes.
*
Although both projects are among the best selling new home projects in San Diego
County, there is room for improvement. Based on il review of the projects, the subject
property incorporates more landscaping, has more open space in the way of slope
areas which not only open up the project more, but also creates view opportunities,
and the building's exterior architectural elements have been enhanced.
V.
Conclusions and Recommendations
*
The subject property represents a viable development opportunity as proposed. The
development concept has proven to be highly successful in other parts of San Diego
County (including a similar suburban location), and Rancho Del Rey represents a highly
desirable residential address. The floor plans proposed are appropriate for the market,
and the building configurations minimize the sound issues sometimes found in attached
products, while still providing direct garage access, and light and airy plans.
*
As an affordable alternative to more expensive single family homes, units at the subject
property could represent one of the few new home options available for first-time buyers
in the South County market area. Given the current development environment, it is
highly likely that there will be even fcwer attached projects on the market in the
near future, further limiting first-time buyer new home options.
*
The "entry price" into Rancho Del Rey is currently $129,990, which buys a 940 square
foot cluster home on a 1,350 square foot lot at Aspire (the average price at Aspire is
$148,790). There are currently no new attached for-sale units on the market in Rancho
Del Rey, effectively pricing many would-be residents out of the community. The
offering of a product such as proposed for Neighborhood 3340 would give more
people the opportunity to live in Rancho Del Rey.
*
We recommend proceeding with the development of the subject property as
proposed.
c:\msofficc\winword\96sd62ex.doc
sheet 3 of 3
EXHIBIT D
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AMENDMENT AND
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................'....................................................................................................................................................................................
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS;
1. Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the directors of Planning and Parks
and Recreation departments of all recreational trails associated with this
project.
2. Prepare and submit fifteen (15) copies of the final revised sections of the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated
documents prior to approval of the first final map.
3. Prepare and include in the project's CC&R's a comprehensive fencing
program incorporating the following fencing standards:
a. Where privacy fences are installed directly over, or immediately
adjacent to retaining walls, the overall wall! fence height shall not
exceed 7 ft. Where higher retaining wall/ fence conditions occurs, a
four foot landscape transition strip between the wall and the fence
shall be provided.
b. Fences, retaining walls or a combination of both located within the
established front setback area shall be limited to forty two inches (42")
in height.
c. Provide a design and install five feet (5') high decorative fences along
the exterior side yard of all comer lots.
4. Provide a ten feet (10') wide landscape buffer along both sides of the loop
road, access driveway and the project's side along East "J" Street.
5. Prepare, submit and receive approval by the Director of Planning of a parking
plan illustrating the distribution of all required and guest parking spaces as
prescribed in Section VI.6-A of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional
Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District Regulations.
6. Provide the required parking within one hundred feet (100') and guest
parking within two hundred feet of the unit it is intended to serve. but in no
instance the required and guest parking shall not be located outside the
residential cluster area it is intended to serve.
7. Design all internal pedestrian walks and street crossings in compliance with
the American Disabilities Act.
8. Comply and remain in compliance with items 1,4 and 6 of the Special
Standards for RC Districts prescribed in Section VIII.3-G of the Rancho Del
Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District
Regulations.
9. Comply and remain in compliance with Section XII.2-C, Handicap Parking
Requirements.
10. Provide a decorative wall (RDR theme wall) along the west property line,
East "J" Street, main access driveway and loop road.
11. Design the project landscape in accordance with the landscaping criteria and
check list contained in the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Residential Design
Guidelines (pages V-23 and 24).
12 Provide a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet with no dimension less
than ten (10) feet for all units with ground level private patio areas and an
seventy five square foot balcony or deck with no dimension less than six feet
(6') for all second story units.
13. Provide a fifteen (15) foot setback for all building facing the loop road.
14. provide a fifteen foot setback from the established fence line for all buildings
which backup on to the main access driveway.
15. Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the director of Planning of
development standards for patio additions and other accessory structures
prior to approval of the final map. The development standards shall be
incorporated into the project's CC&R's.
16. Incorporate provisions in the CC&R's prohibiting RV parking within the
project.
17. If the project is proposed to be developed in phases, prepare, submit and
obtain approval by the Director of Planning of a construction phasing plan
prior to issuance of the first building permit.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS;
GENERAL/PRELIMINARY
I. Comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval applicable to Parcel R-6 of the
Rancho del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02, Tentative Map established by
Resolution No. 16222 approved by Council on July 30, 1991
II. Install public facilities in accordance with the Rancho del Rey SPA's I, II, & III
Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to
meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer
and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
III. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps,
submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map. Improvements, facilities and
dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as
determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the
right to conditional approval of each final map with the requirement to provide said
improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate
circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City
Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
STREETS. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLlCIPRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
IV. Design and construct all streets to meet the City standards for private streets, or
as approved by the City Engineer. Street grades steeper than 12% shall be paved
with portland cement concrete with cutoff walls. Submit improvement plans for
approval by the City Engineer detailing the horizontal and vertical alignment of said
streets.
Replace existing AC curb, sidewalk and pedestrian ramp at the project entrance
on East J Street with monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalk and cross gutter in
conformance with City standards.
Provide decorative concrete pavement delineating the boundary between the public
and private streets.
Align project entrance with Camino Calabazo.
Street light locations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District that the
subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water storage
facilities.
Comply with the City of Chula Vista private streets design standards including
minimum horizontal curves radii of 150 ft or 100 ft depending on street length.
Provide paved access (minimum 12' width) to all public sewer manholes
necessary to serve the subdivision. Design access road to accommodate H-20
wheel loads and maximum 15% grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Maintain a minimum 5 foot horizontal clearance between sewer manholes and
edge of paving. Do not locate public sewer manholes in designated parking
spaces.
Relocate the existing public water, sewer and storm drain facilities between sewer
manholes NO.7 and No. 11 (as shown on the Tentative Map dated 9/27/96) to
align with private street "8".
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Submit a precise drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit or other
development permit. Design of the drainage facilities shall consider existing
drainage patterns. The drainage study shall show how downstream drainage
facilities are impacted. The extent of the study shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
Submit a detailed geotechnical report prepared and signed and stamped by both
a registered civil engineer and certified engineering geologist prior to approval of
grading plans and issuance of grading permit.
Design all retaining walls to Chula Vista standards as determined by the City
Engineer. Show details for non-regional standard walls on the grading plans and
submit structural calculations for said walls for review and approval prior to
issuance of a grading permit. Include design recommendations for retaining walls
in the soils report for the project.
Provide improved access to all existing public storm drain cleanouts or as
approved by the City Engineer.
The proposed onsite storm drain system shall be private. Designate storm drain
facilities as private on the improvement plans.
Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for an erosion and
sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans. Comply with all the
provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
the Clean Water Program
Show the location of existing cut/fill lines on grading plans unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations
shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer and Planning Director.
AGREEMENTS
Agree that the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any
one of the following occur:
A. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
B. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
C. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to
satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing
and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements
affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City
Planning Director and Public Works Director.
Agree to participate in the monitoring of existing and future sewage flows in the
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the financing of the preparation of the Basin
Plan and, pursuant to any adopted Basin Plan, agree to participate in the financing
of improvements set forth therein, in an equitable manner. Execute said agreement
prior to final map approval.
Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and
employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its
agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section
66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider
of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense.
Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase
flow of drainage resulting from this project.
Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company")
are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television
service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only
those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance
with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further
compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating
and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been,
or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
Offer to grant in fee on each Final Map all open Space Lots within the subdivision.
Prepare and record a grant deed for each open space lot. The minimum width of
each open space lot shall maintain a 10-foot wide landscaping area behind the
back of sidewalk.
Submit a list of all facilities located on open space lots to be maintained by the
existing open space landscape maintenance district. This list shall include a
description, quantity and unit price per year for the perpetual maintenance of all
facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls, fences,
water fountains, lighting structures, paths, access roads, drainage structures and
landscaping. Only those items on an open space lot are eligible for open space
maintenance. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of
acres of turf, irrigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid the estimation of a
maintenance budget thereof.
Prior to final map approval or other grant of approval for any phase or unit thereof,
the developer shall pay all costs associated with: reapportioning assessments for
Open Space District 20 (Zones 3, 7 and 9); and apportionment of assessments for
all City assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary.
Complete and submit application for apportionment and provide a deposit to the
City estimated at $25 x (units + Open Space Lots) x assessment districts to cover
costs.
Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyer acknowledging that
additional fees have been paid into the Assessment District, and that these
additional fees are reflected in the purchase price of the home for those units
which have a density change from that indicated in the assessment district's
Engineer's Report. Submit disclosure forms for the approval of the City Engineer.
EASEMENTS
Grant to the City a general utility and access easement over all private streets and
secondary access road for public sewer maintenance and emergency access
purposes.
Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along Telegraph
Canyon Road and Buena Vista Way frontage of the open space lots to be granted
in fee to the City.
Grant on the associated final map a minimum 15' wide easement to the City of
Chula Vista for construction and maintenance of all sewer facilities within Lot A.
Indicate on the final map a reservation of an easement to the future Homeowners'
Association for private storm drain facilities within open space Lot A.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include provisions
assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways and drainage systems which are
private. The City of Chula Vista shall be named party to said Declaration
authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the
same manner as any owner within the subdivision.
Show on the final map, a table indicating the number of dwelling units per each lot
and the total number of dwelling units for the subdivision.
Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI (NAD '83).
Submit copies of each final map and improvement plan in a digital format such as
(DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided
Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry
calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for
Digital Submittal in duplicate on 3-1/2 HD floppy disk prior to the approval of each
Final Map.
Code requirements to be included as Conditions of Approval:
Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation
of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and
Subdivision Manual.
39. Submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and
Recreation of the formation of a Homeowner' Association (HOA) which includes
all the properties within the approved tentative map. The HOA shall be
responsible for the maintenance of the improvements listed in condition of
approval number 26 of this tentative map. The City Engineer and the
Director of Parks and Recreation may approve that some of those improvements
be maintained by the Open Space istrict. The final determination of which
improvements are to be included in the Open Space District and those to
be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the open space district
formation proceedings.
40. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
41. Pay Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with Ordinance 2384.
42. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
D. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
E. Signal Participation Fees.
F. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
G. SR-125 impact fee.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
ATTACHMENT 4
ADDENDUM TO FEIR-89-10
ADDENDUM TO RANCHO del REY SPA ill EIR (89-10)
PROJECT NAME: Rancho del Rey SPA ill Sectional Planning Area
Amendment/Parcel R-6 Tentative Map
PROJECT LOCATION: South of E. "J" Street, west of Buena Vista, north of Telegraph
Canyon Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillan Project Services, Inc. for Rancho del Rey Investors,
L.P.
PROJECT AGENT: Cinti Land Planning
CASE NO.:
IS-97 -01
DATE:
October 21, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent document shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of
the following conditions exist:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted
has become known.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available
after adoption of a Negative Declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR
if required under subsection (a). Other wise the lead agency shall determine whether to
prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis
concerning impacts as a result of the applicants decision to change the project description. As
a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the FEIR-89-10 have not changed.
Environmental impacts are found to be equal or less significant for the proposed project as
compared to the original proposal.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared
the following addendum to EIR-89-1O.
II. PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located in Rancho del Rey SPA ill specifically Parcel R-6. Parcel R-6
is located south of East "J" Street, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of the proposed
Middle School & Park and west of Buena Vista Road.
The project site is currently graded (not final grading) and is vacant. Zoning on the property
on the site (and the surrounding properties) is PC (planned Community). Surrounding land uses,
existing and proposed, include a community park and middle school to the west, single family
vacant lots to north, condominiums and Buena Vista way to the east and Telegraph Road and
SPA I of the Otay Ranch to the south.
Because of the past grading of the property there are no biological, archeological or
paleontological resource currently present on the site. Any previous environmental mitigation
was completed in accordance with previous documentation.
Public Services are present or are planned to serve the project area.
ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey SPA ill Sectional Planning
Area Plan and General Development Plan for the transfer of 67 dwelling units from Parcel R-7c
to R-6. This proposed amendment will result in a decrease in the permitted dwellings units for
SPA ill of 33 dwelling units. The average density for attached housing in SPA ill will be
slightly reduced from 12.3 to 11.4 du/ac. No change is proposed to the proposed development
in Parcel R-7c from the approved 120 dwellings, 100 less than was allowed by the General
Dev1eopment Plan and SPA. The following table reflects the existing and proposed statistics.
Attached Housing Parcels R-6 & R-7c - Proposed Deusity Transfer Statistics
36.5
Existing Plan Proposed Plan Net Change
du/ac du du/ac du in du's
12.0 228 15.5 295 +67
12.6 220 6.9 120 -100
12.3avg. 448 l1.4avg. 415 -33
Parcel No. Acres
R-6 19.0
R-7c 17.5
The housing proposed for most of Parcel R-6 consists of 255 dwelling units in 85 two-story
buildings (three units/building) taking access from private streets. The primary project entry is
from East "J" Street. Common open space, trails and recreation area are included and will be
maintained by a Homeowners Association. Two of the units in the tri-plex have private patios,
while the third unit has a private terrace.
The balance of Parcel R-6 consisting of 3.0 acres is not included in this Site Plan application and
is subject to separte application/review.
IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with see.15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines I hereby fInd that the proposed
projeet revisions will not require major revisions to the SPA III EIR, that there are no changes
in project circumstances which would require major revisions to the SPA III EIR nor is there
any new information of substantial importance which would result in a requirement for further
environmental analysis. Therefore, FEIR 89-10 is adequate for CEQA review of this project.
~L~" iIJJ
Douglas:P Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
References
General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Final Rancho del Rey SPA III TraffIc Analysis (BRW, Inc. January, 1996)
EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III, and appendices
ATTACHMENT 5
PUBLIC INPUT
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A PUBLIC FORUM
AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC FORUM HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT for the purpose of introducing to area residents
a private development proposal for the property located on the south side of East "J" Street
within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III planned community (see locator). The applicant, Rancho Del
Rey Investors L.P., has submitted applications requesting the following:
1. Amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan and associated documents to transfer density (67 dwelling units) from Parcel R-70,
which is approved for 220 dwelling units, to Parcel R-6 approved for 228 dwelling units. The
receiving parcel maximum number of dwelling units would increase from 228 to 295 (see Exhibit
A).
2. A Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 16 of the Parcel R-6 nineteen (19) acres into 255
condominium units.
3. Design Review for the construction of a 225 condominium complex and all associated site
improvements.
The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the proposal and obtain input from residents of the
area and other interested parties prior to the formal public hearings which will be scheduled
before the City's Planning Commission and City Council.
Chula Vista Planning Department staff will be present to explain the review process and make
notes of comments or concerns of those in attendance. Graphics illustrating the site plan and
architectural design for the project, and the public hearing schedule will also be available at
the meeting. Copies of the Initial Study, amendments to the General Development Plan and
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Design Review and Tentative Subdivision Map are on file
in the office of the Planning Department.
THE PUBLIC FORUM WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 30, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Rancho Del Rey Information Center located at 820 Paseo Ranchero, Chula Vista, CA. AIly
person desiring to receive information or provide input and ask questions regarding this
proposal is encouraged to appear at the meeting where City staff and the applicant's
representatives will be available to answer questions.
If you have any questions in regard to this matter prior to the meeting, please contact J. Luis
Hernandez at 691-5090. .
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Tbe City of Chula Vista. in complying with the American With DisabiUties Act. requests individuals who require
special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting. activity or service request such
accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and IS days for scheduled services and activities. Please
contact Nancy Ripley for .peclflc Information at (619) 691.5101. California Relay Service I. available for the
hearing impaired.
Date:
Case No:
NO/! 0 1
.. 199[,
October 22, 1996
PCM-97-0I, PCS-97-0l, DRC-97-0l, IS-97-01
,;2.9 cPa / if ? ~
119.LIIC. 'fYJ-t. ~'-"~b:1 . ';th.. ~
J A..-u ,lJf11...~~,I)a~ ~~~ ...A .J.~_: A~
'J ~'" " . , ~ ....v-o...""'t .---- __I"
~~~, -""",e~d. v
.6-ttd ~ Jut.. ~ U~.,,, ..k ~ U> ~ fJ--r.~ .
t~ tJ,1:I'~"'qr~' I07t>';"$ t,,~-- U- C!../) 9/~/(j
"
SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE
---~
\
\
\-
\
\
PROJECT
LOCATION
~ ----r \
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Rancho Del Rey PROJECT DESCRIPTION,
C9 APPliCANT:
Investors, L.P.
PROJECT East 'J' St No. of T.C.R. Request: A proposed amendment to the General Development
ADDRESS: East of Paseo Ranchero
Plan and Sectional Area Plan for SPA III of R.D.R..
SCALE, FILE NUMBERo
NORTH No Scale
RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
ATTACHMENT 6
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AMENDED SECTION
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
Adopted by Chula Vista City Council, July 16, 1996
by; Resolution No. 18366
and
Planned Community District Regulations
by; Ordinance No. 2686
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Draft dated: November 26, 1996
SB~Q~g = Text Added
Stlil..'out Text Deleted
Prepared for:
Rancho del Rey Investors L.P.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 92050
(619) 477-4117
Prepared by:
Cinti Land Planning
2932 Poinsettia Drive
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 223-7408
FOREWORD
The amendment proposed is minor in scope and limited to a transfer of units from one parcel to
another in SPA III, resulting in an overall reduction of total units permitted. Due to this limited
scope, this amendment package contains only those pages from the adopted SPA III SPA Plan that
are being amended. The entire SPA III SPA Plan is available from the Planning Department or the
Project Sponsor if additional detail is desired. A Chapter Identification Page precedes the pages being
amended in that chapter for reference.
11I26f96
2
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
n)zMQ~ 3
Density
2-4
4-6
6-8
TOTALS
Table 1
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Specific Plan Versus General Development Plan Consistency
Adopted Specific Plan
Character
Description
Single Family
Detached
SmaUlot single
family, zero-lot
line patio homes,
duplexes, multi-
plexes, clustered
development.
Townhomes, patio
homes, duplexes,
multi-plexes, condo-
miniums, clustered
development
General Development Plan
Units
Permitted
Product
Units
Proposed
314
550
zze
120
22S
~$ii
t;3-tZ
1270
..-,..-...-.-....-..
Units
Transferred
+152
-205
~1.0.0
=+5
+43
=6S
-IW
WUitQ$ 4
162
Single Family
Conventional
975
Single Family
Duplexes,
Townhomes
243
Townhouses
1,380
"_', ,_,_w." ,,_,.~____ _._.,__,_.~__..____.,__,__.. ___.._'_'>_
-cc
Q).m
cna..
o
a.......
o c
'- Q)
a..E
Q.
o
~
Q)
o
~
Q)
c
Q)
(!)
.
~ ~
j: !
: : ~
c: ~ ;; -:
...
! ~ ~ ~
~ ~ :
ioi!~
..iijo
! ... ~
~". iH
en" ,"OJ
o \' "-. i i ~
'"" ~~.
\ '\'\ iq
. .\'1.
: < Ii:
en .
o \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ }\
\ i\
i\
i
-I
I
I
I
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
j
.
" 1 c
: ~ i
tii_
!:i
.; -2: .5
: :i j
; a:: ..
i" J
u ~ "iI
5 . .
.0 .
);.! j
.. .
.:;; c:
.. ~ -;
& 1 ~
-= u <>
_ i 0 ij
OBi
1
o
~ ~ ~
"~ . ~ ~ 0 0
0 , ,
en c ~ " . ~ ~
"
u g>
< m . .
3 . " 0
c ~
"'''' I
"'w . , '" 0 . m m I m N
o~ ~ N ~ ~ '" g ~
~u ~ ~ " ~ N ;; 0
,,. N
u ;0 '?
,
~ . ~
iJ~ ~ ~ ;;;
~~ . ~ ,
'" ,
"'0 " '" .
oZ . ~ ~ 0
w< .
Q
~~ " " '"
~z . . . ~ <
~ ~ ~ ~ .
0< .. ": .. .
c~ 0 . Q
<~ . . '" ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~
~ . .
! ~
.0 . u
.
~ F .
" .
zw ~ > 0
<'" < ;; , .
~~ 0 Q
~c ~ u i " ~ '"
, 0 . <
<z c c < . E .
~< " " 0 0 Q
"'~ '" '" '" ~ u 0
..
"< "
[!J~~ [3GGJ0 0 ~
" "
., .
e ;;
6 0:
1-9
f
~jr (\/
....
l5~: :c
:c
~~ x
w
EJ
'"
'"
<0
~
-
~u
~~
C5i
~~
.
c - r C\J
< 'E'
~ . -
v < 0", :a
. .
0: . ~
. ~ E
. ~
. ! x
" ~ W
I , v
-+-- v ! .
C ~ .
i .
, i
Q) . .
~ . ~
E <
v . f
. v
I .
.
Q. .
.
. ~ EJ
0 . >
~ ~ "]
Q 0
~
Q) .
~
0
@
Q)
c
Q)
~
,
~<v (/)
0
__J'
(Q/ -,
~ i (/) (/) . .
I ... 0 .~ . c . ~ ~
, (/) ~ : ~ ~ SJ
0 ~ ~
I
., I . ~
"
JL---' < ~ . ~ .
~-l 3 . ~ . ~
0 .
I} I
I ww I ~
Ww ~ , ~ c . ~ ~I ~o:
0," ~ '" . ~ ~ ~ .
! '"" . ~ .. c . ~ 0; ~ C3j
~< . .
" 'i' '?
~ . .
u~ '" '" '" @i
~~ . .
, , ,
Wo 10< 3 ~ .
oZ .. .. .. u
w< .
~~ . . . " it
Oz . . .
0< ~ ~ ~ 0 " " c
o~ ": . '. ~ ~ ~ &
. .
<0 '" '" '" W 0 0 0
.. . .
c . i ~
0
. . ~
~
zw ~ ~ ~ " .
<w Q > u
0 .
~~ " " J " , Q
00 g W
, , 0 " !
<z e 0 ~ E
0< " . 0
w~ W W W 0 " .
"c "
ill[!]~ Gt]~01 "
0 ~
" i
~ "
u ~
1-9
CHAPTER II - PLAN CONCEPT
11/26196
6
-cz
0><(
C/).....J
~a.
o .'~
~Zi:'
a..O\-'
~
~
F=
:J
LlJ
~
\.
.,
....
\\
\
\
) ..~
//\'
:\
'I'
\
\
n-'
"
- ,
. ~ .... .... "' "' '" '" ... ~I 0
]" 0
, ; '" ;! ~ '" ~ '" ~ ;! ...
'" '"
I
I ~i ; 0 0 '" '" "' ~I
'" '" ,.; ,.; vi ,.; .. W
I"
I ~ ~ '" '" 0 '" 0 '" '" ~[ '"
,,; " .. M ~ '" vi W
'" '" '" '" '" 0
'"
~ ~ ~ ~
~ . ~ ~ 8- 8- }
J!! J!!
. ~ .3 8 r= 8 ~ r=
]j!h ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .,.
!!~~j~G~r;lr;l0GG ;Q
~
''::I~~
fi~:
"1_,
5
EJ
~,
;E
."
?
w
'"
'"
;0
~
z
<(
.....J
a.
.,-.
Zi....
0\ ~ ,
~ \ .
.,
~ '"
\\ \
F \
\ \
:J \\ ..-,.r.::
;,
//\
W :\.
~ \ .
-. '. ,
,-
'-1".'
..... ='
\j.Si.:.'
~.
~f
5
EJ
or.
;E
~
'"
w
m
"
"
~
"~ I,{) 0: C\I
i I~ g ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! M
I ' -
; ~~:; ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~
I~~~~~~~~~~.~
, N
, ~ & ~ ~
I~ ~ ~ ~ :3 S ~ :3 :3 ~
i~ cO cO cO cO P < cO cO <i-
]l1"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iJ5 ijj ~ ~ 6 .,.
jlS nnrJ~l.ll.1ll.lr:1rJ ;2
l~~LJtJLJ~~~tJLlLJ j
~ '" '" - '" c '" ~ ~ '" ~ '" N'''' '" SJ
O-CO(7)C\lNr-..Q:la::ICON_CO..,.
...... N_I.() .... ......C\I-(J)O
, - ~
I ~
. u.. ~~..~~~i
]III ~ i J ~ f j i i i i i ! j ~ ~
jlS nnn'.lNN81.lr:1r:;lr;10! ~ d~
~I ~~~CJ~JJCJ~LS3~CJ~ ~ ~ Q j
~j
a~
(I
\\-5
",.._~.........__.~--_._.. ------- ---------
TABLE 3
Rancho del Rey SPA III
statistical Summary
site utilization Plan
Land Use
Acres
Averaae Density
ID.!
Residential
SFD - Conventional
SFD - Cottage
SFA - Duplex/Townhouse
Residential Subtotal
63.8
106.3
36.5
206.6
4.9
5.2
T2-';-9-
W~P@
'6-;-4-
314
550
-4-4it
~Q!>:
T3'H
Wg~Q
Non-Residential
Junior High School
Public Park
Community Facility
26.1
10.8
.L..2.
Non-Residential Subtotal
38.8
Open Space
Circulation
148.3
.l.L.2.
TOTAL
404.9
:r.-z
T3'H
1:a1()
11.3
DENSITY TRANSFER
As noted earlier, the EI Rancho del Rey Specific Plan is intended
to allow for a degree of flexibility for SPA (sub-area) Plans to
respond to changing conditions, markets or design issues. One
aspect of this flexibility is the Density Transfer provision which
permits the transfer of residential units from one density category
to another.
In the preparation of the SPA III Plan, a conscious effort was made
to create a predominately single family detached community which
could be well integrated into the existing residential area. This
effort resulted in the selection of single family detached products
for most of those parcels designated by the Specific Plan as 4-6
du/ac and all of the parcels designated 6-8 dulac, instead of the
attached products which were included in the development character
descriptions.
In addition, the plan was designed for sensitivity to existing
adj acent residential uses. This required that single family
detached products be located along nearly all edges of the project
to be consistent with existing products. Also a larger lot size
11/26/96
8
"--_.~"'-"--'-'----'--'-~""'--'" ..-.-.....--.
was utilized in Parcel R-2, adjacent to canyon and park open space
areas. The inclusion of a new 10 acre park site converted an area
designated for 4-6 dujac to open space. These choices resulted in
a reduced yield from these parcels.
The displaced units were allocated to a single SFA parcel located
next to the neighborhood park site which was designated 4-6 dujac
by the Specific Plan and into Parcel R-7 which was also designated
4-6 dujac. The location of the SFA parcel was carefully selected
to adjoin an existing condominium project and buffer the large park
and junior high school sites. An increased number of units in
Parcel R-7 will permit a wide range of housing products (attached
and detached), increasing the viability of an independent
neighborhood.
The result of the transfers is a redistribution of units with
preservation of the character and pattern of development set by the
Specific Plan. The predominance of single family detached products
has been achieved with the creation of a single SFA parcel. A
semi-independent housing project has also been created within the
SPA to respond to the local need for housing.
The Density Transfer Map (Exhibit 6) depicts the residential units
which have been transferred in this SPA. The exhibit compares the
unit count from each density category of the Specific Plan to the
number of units provided by the SPA Plan in the same area. The
density transfer statistics are summarized in Table 4 below. The
actual number of units within each parcel, and accordingly in each
densi ty category, will be established with the approval of a
tentative map or site plan.
TABLE 4
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Density Transfer statistics
Den7ity .
Deslc;matlon
units
Specific Plan
units
SPA Plan
units
Transferred
2-4 dujac
4-6 dujac
6-8 dujac
162
975
243
187
~~O!}
174
+25
-z-4-R~~
-69
-----
-----
TOTALS
1,380
Htl
;1.270
~
:".j,16
11126196
9
""0 .~
~~
0-
Q.Cd
o C
~<(
a.
"-
J!2
C/)
c:
~
F
>.
........
"00
c
(])
o
a:J 2
~ ';- i +:
]r>..,...,. ~(Q~~ '~"" C\J
0"": ui ~re ~:! ,\ 1:] co
C\/ M ) Q.. ">(" j~'
..... m o~" CO) ~ q ",,' , N
(\1<0(0--" NO(O.,', ,~:'\\ 0";0
...:-, i'" '" '.' ~ ~ '" " ,~~,\',' -
_"t: .,)-......--<'! 0 \,.... (J p)\,~"
; ~ -.." ,J,' => () co \, ~::> 0 a:I /' ://, C\I"" q
- .:;~---:-, '0 0 .. 3 ,,is 0 .. 'Ok:---;"'/"--~ '0 <0 0 <0
'.,'f;~\t-..... JL' r c( 't)' c( 't:I -"1. Q) ...
:\: i .,'" \' I ,'''0' r ,.,t '-x_ 7 ,,' ,1: g
','. \\-:.J.', \, I I \"'~'~.,.,t "~, ""~, I", ~ 3 ~ 3
'If. ,V ,I' Y~Bt ,,~< ",\,.. '0 It)
,~( 0> '\\'~~ "<-\ ~\'S OJ C)I
, "$ + \ "'~. It ~' ," '" ',,,, ~
'(-,:~':c: Q 0 '" --: \ ,\".1 \,J" ~/'~~}''': (."".;:.,T x. '~," s. 0 ~ 0
, ,.- e C\I (OJ Ii) I, \: p\)1{' - r- ;. ,~, ct
--< a.. \ t': ,\ \. ,\\ \ ~\\
'\ -"'''' ~'[) 'I.' "".,'" I. I II &',~~
i ' . -yC ~ \ U5 ~ \'~1 - ()
C, "0 g '1 \!<.?~" ':1:"" \~ '\'.,~j'I,.g 3 ~ ~
\'\ is 3 ~ 3' '\ \~(":;::v\i~ . .>'-,1 ,~.. .a
.. '0 , 1'~?,t -',~', . ~\
\ \ ."', ~~'_j" \; A~ j......--t....yftJ~ ~. \~
\ \, ''!'': ' '" ~.~ .1:>-, ~ O' ,
\ -3F"=' =,,--. l:l-\:~ '" 'Ii '<t.\ .
//, ''f7 ~r~';' ~;.\ ~. '<t
, iii" ~~\?;~', \ ~ m ; ~ ~ +
\ ~ j II '.1/ 1\~1i\)\' .,z,"o Q. ~
\ ' , ~ -~!'IJi~~,~g-uf it'" '" ~ 0 1 0 '" -
) \ ~ I j -t;,' ft; I- ~ /"-ii-~ L - ~ (0 co CO) ,... 'V \
I ' t I ) 1* I r ,(, .. .....fJi#......r~. - 'E ...-
-ljjlr!!r\'~'\.:'F,,(..~~.<.!..k"rlt!a :
"..:\~ ~'I'\,i .' ~ ',Iill 1'" <-"~'JI'JJ::. i~ 5 ~ .,,11 '0 ~;g ~
" ",1< 't / ,,, ~rt ~~ ,'/-,':- <: 15 J ~ \
--~- . i ~, . "i "~~ ~\~"~~;:'" ::-. 1\ '>, ~ 3 ~ ~ \
i ..- '~'" )1 ,,'S: \ ~. . .;f,'W' 1\ I' \
~ ' / - ~ 'J!rr!' 'r- '71 ~~ '\ _""'-- 1\
go",~ ,I "'>>-z'r, ,J C I' C'~ I, ~_ ,
e C\I N L() - .I!!y",.'ft. ~";>-1 ""~;-:-,.:, IS"..:../I ' ~ ~I
a.. ~ co \ "--1. I< I~~( '1- -". ~"1', 'N.~ :~~j ~k:\\ ~
(()coo,,\1 ""..,," ,r~r-.c . '-.\ I
OJ ~ g <0' \. ~,., !( "< N "'""",---.,,:1; ~~"
- (,) -"",,! {\:Q Ii "-g:;: ---.;,.:-- 11, , I
.g B C,) ~~ t' ",-",,)-'1 ~ (/) 0) " I
<: .. ~ J'F1- )r,_I,,, 8.::; '" '" '0 N ",,'
:J } ,r.'I. ~ - ~.,. Q . - -
- '. -;)"L f!~! U') L() 0 R II) U') OJ I \
- ---:' II I C\I 0 'Ot e CO V r.n
'f "''': 'i.... CO) a.. ....
/ j -..:..t J~ I.... (,) '<:t CO) a
~.J_ ii' I .g 3 ~ ~ 'O::;! ai
.'v--- ,-'1 . y. <: .a! 0
~.,-l-".~'I' :i 3 ~ ~
J-.~~ ,~~ .:-J~,' ,~:~,
fr,:.jl/
'. .... IL~}''''
~ L&'/
./: i,7 ."
/_~
~p or~V"
-0.' '-i "f
.0\'. 'J j
\Wi <\~l
_~,I'.!i'l ~l:~
. '\\I'I'\'\l-~'
J \\\ \'\'.\\r-~- j
~\\ \ \'t~:-~
~ II t'~~~'(>..~1:\-
Il~~;
I ["'''iI!
.g
'13
Q
c.
CfJ
.,
Q.
0-
C):g
~ c:
c...
~CL
:;;
~
1!CfJ
.9 (5
1;; c:
'S
0"
<i ~
o 0
~~
.Vi t:
c: ..
~E
;,;
o
z
11-8
5~1 ~
.c
s~
EJ
'"
'"
;0
'"
-
-
~j
~~
csi
~j
a~
[I
ll)
-g 0
~ ;::
R reT", ~
~ e C\/ 0)..... \ "'"
. N '" 0 ,', Q. - - , ' C\J
" .,:>_ -g '" ~ <D' ~.; 0 ,'.' -g CO
'., '.. ~--II" ~ .', 'C - ~ <D . ~'
t.~';~"," ';, f" ~,\: ! 0 U , ' ~)\\, J 000
, \\,....\;,' I . tJl'~::i' 0 .. - .. -/. ;.-;",:- Q. -
'I: i,.:C:::-'" ( . i<,-~" tJ<;::":':~\ ",,, 0
,'I I 'r>ie- . ~',t ",''Y' -g <D ~ <D
, ,._\:,~~_ ~m- ~.." ll~
,',<" '9. ~ I \\ -..~~r~ <:, ~""t" 'C is,~ ~
'..''':: ill ,\ Yo{_ n ~ ' · '-~.., tJ
.. '._ 0 '" .;.;:!,' >Rc"', "< \lli;./\
_;~ '" '" ;;i,,) \ ~8 -t~":' 'VS~" 'C ~
,'" f- \ ~;c\' 0.. ~ '\j' ,,"\ ~ '
\ ';']j;: ~ ~q '~~~~~~\C~i-:/1:' 1t~*.'\, 10 ~ 0
\\ ,110 u ,., ,,"' ~" " """.;.c
\ l.;:1 ..:;' ",._'1''Y- ,~,eI; \~\~~\ ~C\lO
~ 'C _~ \ - ~ \ ,~\i\\ U ~ co
\ ,;~ \\' ::.1 \~v-:.-'.;"I:: ~' ~ \ \'\ $:
;~\ ' ,"_ ': \ ;x- ~ ,~;-( ~. I \--,/1", ij'" U
_ ..' '" ~"- _,~j' ,\ jl <. '5 0 ~ ~I
// ~_ '=;,-- ="" ~,J~e.ftJ' ~J.~ !C '- ,\.\"" ~
_ ,"_ y--- "'<:~ r~ '-- ''-'
j /I ...1rro.:, ;0- --, 1,'
\' : /l ,'tr~~f It i ~ I'
\ r J Il ~~~;;~,l~ 10 ' r- ..:...
1\ ',f?1 ,/~' \.~~W1~" I .~\:'- gJ:i:;jI' v
"-:"'\ iI,l, [', "" ';':( ,~~,-" k"X C - i +
u I' ..,,'" ,h .c'~'
, '-\ J,,' i ~ "J; ,,~. !!.. 'Ji):o,,; ;, · g "- '
co "~' 'f," '-;::'i :~~/li: c I 0. ~.... ..
-g <0 k ,,'~ ~ ~ \\:" .'~L_ , I iJ '" U ~ \
~ 0" < ':: ~ .'), .,\ ':~ ' ,) ~ ":--""" 1\ ~J - \ \
^ "; : ,",.-..J.; .,:", 'Ct.',t" "If a",; \1\
",<DO \ ,.-,-" ~' ,::h.a: "tJi
'C ~ 0 <D \" ,["" .::.;;->-LJ " ~, \
s '" . ~," \1" '1 , r-,; ," ..---\
I"" · r r ,.. ,. ' r~J--.-- I
11 51 ~ ~t '; ,C'~A ,,'< -g C\J '<:.;:.~\ 'N~,' : , i I
-~tJ ~Ir_'\''t--, 0 _-:...:,...1:1' ,;,:, I
- I' ,'" ,'---;:-
" j J, '" C'J ~,'" I
, 'f" ,,',' ",.j -g C\J' -, ".,
7J ---1 -: i ~ ~ q ~ '" ~ '" ~ I,' \
I -g - g" e '" .j .,; "~
- Q. , I
, ' ' / B 51 U ~ .. '"10
~~ t1 ~"~/' .. .. ~ ~ is ~ ~
<t-~ r ,', ./1 '
~~\) ',' ,'. t I ;';) "r;:!
\)V' ~ 7,;' /
, .~rC!'/j
~!i._'f;:J
~.,
",/ :J'
'\W' j
) ~,,(,,'l'
_ ' ,0}(*;;.
7,.t(~"1' "I:;yft:~~
J ~\\\{~,\'~~f
II,,,/:,b-.
"I~M~;"
\ ',ii,"
.(/')
~
"ffi
c
<(
\...
$
(/')
c
~
F
>.
.~
(/')
c
Q)
o
-r ~
co
-g '7
o
I! '" .;T"
I~ ~ M ui
-
~
'0
~
c.
'"
'"
0. '
0:;.':'
<0"
<=
:E;
c.m
,,0:
~"'
00.
<='"
go
.!!! <=
~ '
U-
_ 0
m 0
U 0
~CI
'ii)~
~!2
00.
Q;
;;
Z
11-8
JI~ co
~~ ~ :~
O~;o -C
- 1:
s~
EJ
~
~
o
~
~
~I
~g
C5i
8}
a~
[I
CHAPTER IV - PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
11126/96
II
Table 5B. A population of 11, 773;!i~ij;!$$ is expected at project
build-out. Using this population estimate, the facility standard
yields a requirement of 16.36 +Rill acres for the Rancho del Rey
community (11,7731!)~i$?$ x 1.39/1,000 = 16.36~J;1;7J.
c. consistency Finding
The standard adopted in the CPF Ordinance requires that 16.36
~€@? acres of net usable site area be provided within the
planned community for community purpose facilities. The sites
designated on Exhibit lOA total 19.7 acres of net usable area,
exceeding the adopted standard by "3-;-4'~;$acres. Adoption of
the use regulations and development standards provided in the
following section of this text will assure that only
appropriate CPF uses will be allowed on these sites. Because
acreage exceeding the standard is designated and the land uses
on the designated sites are restricted to those meeting the CPF
criteria, the Rancho del Rey Planned Community is in full
compliance with the requirements of the Community Purpose
Facility Ordinance.
TABLE 5B
Rancho del Rey
community Purpose Facility Acreage Determination
Residential Area
Units'
Pop. IDU2
Project Pop.
SPA I Apts. (R-15)
SPA I Condo. (R-14)
SPA I Condo. (R-13)
SPA I Condo. (R-12)
SPA III (R-7)
SPA III Condo. (R-6)
SFD (all SPAs)
500
147
138
180
s-z-e420
2-2i>286
2,268
2.192
2.794
2.794
2.794
2.794
2.794
3.213
1,096
411
386
503
1,4:;3~i~!~
~7$)9
7.287
Totals
3,9813,881
l1,1131ii655
'Count from most current approval (SPA Plan, TM or site plan).
2population factors from Chula vista Planning Department.
Note;
lating
not be
This population estimate is made for the purpose of
the community purpose facilities requirement only and
used to project other service needs.
calcu-
should
l1IW96
12
TABLE 6
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Parkland Dedication standards
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
PARK
DEDICATION PER UNIT
DU/PARK
ACRE
Single-family
Condominiums
Duplexes
MUltiple-family
Mobile Homes
423 sf/du
366 sf/du
325 sf/du
288 sf/du
215 sf/du
103 du/ac
119 du/ac
134 du/ac
151 du/ac
203 du/ac
Based upon the parkland dedication standards shown above, the
following requirements will apply to Rancho del Rey SPA III;
Number
of Units Type of Unit
Park Area/DU
Total Park
Acres
864 Single Family
~4~9 Condominium
423 sf/du
366 sfjdu
8.39
T.--% 3.41
TOTAL
H-i-Z du
1270
~ac
11.80
The total area of parkland proposed for Rancho del Rey SPA III:
Parcel Park TYDe ~ Percent Credit 11==
P-l Neighborhood Park 10.0 100% 10.00
TOTAL CREDIT 10.00
Surplus (deficit):
Recruirement
Park Area Provided
SPA II I
~
11. 80
10.00
NE.1:
(~) t1~a)
The deficit of -2.-r5+t:u:-t:.:~-,~ acres shall be met by construction of
additional park improvements, payment of fees, or a combination of
both. Should the total unit count of the project be reduced during
site plan andjor precise plan approval, a corresponding reduction in
the net deficit shall be calculated and used to determine a reduced
fee/additional improvements requirement.
11/26/96
13
CHAPTER V - PUBLIC FACILITIES
11I26f%
14
TABLE 7
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Domestic Water Demand
Land Use
!lni.t.JI.
Demand Factor
Demand
Residential
Junior High School
(net irrigated)
Park
121PHH
1400
8.5
10.0
490 g/du'
20 g/student
2700 g/ac
2700 g/ac
6-;-&t OUi2
0.03
0.02
.Q.....2.1.
Q;W4
6-;-% mgd
TOTAL
*Assumes 2.74 persons per unit
V.3 RECLAIMED WATER
Reclaimed water mains are proposed to be installed within the SPA
III development. Al though reclaimed water is not currently
available in the vicinity of the project site, a reclaimed water
system is being constructed with new development projects so that
when reclaimed water does become available it can be distributed
with minimal additional improvements. Reclaimed water will be used
for irrigation of publicly owned landscaped areas in order to
conserve potable water for domestic use.
The proposed reclaimed water system is depicted in Exhibit 11A. A
12" line will be located in Pas eo Ranchero, between Telegraph
Canyon Road and East "H" Street. An 8" line will be extended in
East "J" Street, from Pas eo Ranchero to the park site to provide
irrigation water for the park and potentially, the athletic fields
of the junior high school.
Off-site facilities will deliver reclaimed water to reclaimed water
facilities in Telegraph Canyon Road. The SPA III system will
convey the water north where it an irrigation system in SPA II and
portions of SPA I which is being constructed to utilize reclaimed
water. These off-site facilities and future connections are not a
part of the SPA III development project.
V.4 SEWER SERVICE
The city of Chula vista will provide sewer service to developed
uses in the SPA. The local sewage system is connected to the
regional San Diego Metropolitan Sewage System (METRO) which dis-
charges at the Point Loma Regional Treatment Plant.
A preliminary sewage service report has been prepared by Rick
Engineering to document the feasibility of providing sewer service
to
11126/96
15
the project (see Appendix D). The report addressed the entire
project area (SPAs I, II, and III), rather than the SPA III area
separately. An update for SPA III has been prepared by Project
Design Consultants (also found in Appendix D). The information
included here, which focuses on the SPA III area, has been
extracted from these reports.
The Rancho del Rey project as a whole will contribute sewage flow
to three existing sewer drainage systems; the otay Lakes Road, the
Rice and Telegraph Canyon Systems. Approximately 439 dwelling
units will drain into the otay Lakes Road Sewer System, 2,533
dwelling units and one school site will drain into the north trunk
of Rice Canyon, and 956 dwelling units and the Employment Park will
drain into the south trunk of Rice Canyon. The Telegraph Canyon
System will serve 915 dwelling units and a school site. Two
pumping stations which currently operate in the Rice Canyon Sewer
System will be eliminated.
Previous analyses of the existing trunk sewers has projected that
during the final stages of basin development, certain offsite
segments may flow under pressure during peak flows. Subsequent
analysis has demonstrated that the otay Lakes and Rice Canyon sewer
basins will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development
of Rancho del Rey and other anticipated projects (see Addendum to
Sewer Study, Appendix D).
within SPA III, the South Trunk of the Rice Canyon System will
drain the northernmost portion of the project and the existing
Candlewood subdivision, the sewage from which is currently pumped
to the Telegraph Canyon basin. Sewage will be conveyed in
underground sewers constructed within proposed and existing streets
or easements to the trunk sewer which will be located at the
southern edge of Parcel R-7. This system is depicted in Exhibit
12. The southern portion of the project will drain by gravity to
the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
The generation rates listed in Table 8 have been used to estimate
waste water flows.
TABLE 8
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Waste Water Generation
Residential
Density
Idu/ac!
Projected
Population
l'Imp. /du \
projected*
Flow
loal./du/dav\
Jln..i.tJi
Project
Flow
Ima/dav!
4
6
12-20
School
3.38
2.66
2.30
1400
270
213
184
20/student
314
420
U#~4~
0.09
0.09
~;l;);
Q.JU
~ mgd
9;;12
.Assumes 80 gallons/day/person
) )J2619~
16
ATTACHMENT 7
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES AND RESOLUTION
U~t."",",: .f"'~.,A."
,If> ~. ~ ~,~ ~ tlTII!S
q '~,I -.!,.j D ~
EXCERPT
FROM NOVEMBER 18, 1996
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 18, 1996
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
4:30 p.m.
3.
DRC-97-01
Rancho del Re,y Parcel 6
South side of East J Street between
Paseo Ranchero and VaQ,llero Court
246-unit develo,pment. in 82 buildin~s on 15.20 acres
Member Pat Kelly excused herself because of conflict of interest.
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee gave an overview of the existing Rancho del Rey area
which he explained is broken into actually three SPA's. He pointed out to the Committee
that of 4100 units proposed in Rancho Del Rey, about 1/4 are an attached product. He
continued with a history on the adopted Rancho Del Rey SPA III plan which identifies the
subject area for an allowed density of 12.0 du's/ac, or 188 dwelling units. Mr. Lee
indicated that the applicant has proposed an amendment to the SPA plan, whereby density on
another parcel (Parcel R-7) located north of "H" Street is to be reduced. This would leave
the potential to transfer unused units, approved as part of the SPA plan to the subject
property. He explained that the density increase would result in 246 units on the 15.2 acre
site or a density of 16.2 du's/acre. Mr. Lee explained to the Committee that any
consideration for approval of this project would be subject to the applicant successfully
completing the SPA amendment, which would be subject to public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Lee went on to show the layout of the
proposed project and pointed out concerns of staff which include the following: limited
building setbacks along the street which reduce the ability to properly provide for
landscaping areas or create sufficient room to accommodate a reasonable pedestrian
circulation system; minimal setbacks (10') between the 2-story buildings do not provide for
individual privacy or security, and adequate landscaping. Mr. Lee presented a sketch done
by staff which addressed many of the staffs concerns by providing at least 15' between
buildings which access 3 entry points, and additional front setbacks to accommodate
landscaping and a pedestrian system. He indicated that with this proposal the applicant
would lose an estimated 6-10 buildings from their current proposal. Mr Lee also indicated
that with the reduction of units, required parking would be reduced, and thus some of the
setback and landscaping issues would be resolved.
Design Review Committee
2
November 18, 1996
In closing, Mr. Lee indicated that in terms of the architectural package, while staff has some
issues, they are not of a significant nature.
Ouestions of Staff
Member John Stokes asked staff if there had ever been a plan done with the allowable
12du's/ac. Mr. Lee responded that he had no knowledge of any such plan, but indicated that
there had been a previous developer interested in the property, but he did not know what
density was proposed with that development. Mr. Craig Fukuyama, with McMillin
Development Company, confirmed that there was not a plan done at the 12 du'sIac.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Craig Fukuyama, with the McMillin Development Company, walked the Committee thm
the project. Mr. Fukuyama started the presentation by reviewing the project setting and site
characteristics. He went on to explain to the Committee the reasons for the proposed high
density. He also went over the grading exhibit which depicts 3 major pads, which step down
from East J Street towards the south which results in substantial topographic relief. Mr.
Fukuyama continued with the review of the tentative map and pointed out the gated entry,
the circular road system, public park and park access. He indicated that all parking spaces
are located within 100 ft. of walking distance to each individual units. He explained that
each building represents three units, with the smallest unit having a single car garage, the
second unit, a 2 bdrm unit, has a single garage, and . the largest unit, which is a 3 bdrm unit,
has a two car garage. All garages have direct access to the units, and the two smaller units
will be assigned an open parking space within 100 ft. of the unit.
Mr. Fukuyama continued the presentation with an exhibit of an enlargement that showed
typical landscaping treatment between, in front, and to the rear of the individual buildings.
He stated that the amount of setbacks along the street frontage various between 6 and 9 ft.,
and the minimum space between the buildings is 10 ft., with some up to IS ft. Mr.
Fukuyama reviewed the landscaping between the buildings and along the street frontage. He
went on to present schematics of the entry monument and gates, and the fencing proposal.
He mentioned that onsite amenities would include an outdoor recreation area and reviewed
the three areas labeled "barbecue areas".
Mr. Fukuyama stated to the Committee that he understands what Mr. Lee is talking about
relating to the setbacks, however, addressing staff concerns would result in the loss of 10
buildings, making this project financially infeasible at the proposed pricing.
Design Review Committee
3
November 18, 1996
Mr. Russ Haley, project manager and representative of Shea Homes, went over the
elevations and floor plans for the triplex project. He explained that the ownership of the
units are fee simple. The project includes a carriage unit which is approximately I, 025
s.f., 2 bdrms, and a balcony out front. He went on to review the floor plans of Plan 2 and
Plan 3, which are 2 and 3 bdrm, 1135 - 1355 s.f. townhome units with attached garages. He
indicated to the Committee that all rear elevations have enhanced detailing.
In closing Mr. Fukuyama wanted to add that he apologizes that they were unable to resolve
their differences with staff, but felt that they have a product that they can build, are ready to
build, but to accommodate what staff is asking for, would make it impossible to build this as
a cost effective project.
Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Fukuyama concerns and indicated that the City has processed a
number of projects within Rancho Del Rey, and have in the past been able to reach mutually
acceptable solutions between the applicant and staff. He indicated that in this case staff has
gone out and looked at previously approved projects, and tried to determine what went right
and what went wrong, and what could be done better. He stated that in this instance where
there is an approved density of 12 du's/ac, and by viewing this site layout with this particular
product, it appears feasible to add up to 30 additional units and end up with a plan that
address staff's concerns. Mr. Lee mentioned to the Committee that this is not a case where
this applicant would be losing 10 buildings as an example, but it is a case where they would
likely be able to add 10 buildings to what is already the established density for this site. He
reminded the Committee that the applicant's proposal to increase the density from 12 dIu to
16 du's/ac is not a matter of right, it is something that has to be determined by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Lee again stated that staff is in basic agreement with the floor plan and
the primary architectural theme.
Committee Ouestions/Concerns
Chairman John Rodriguez started off by making a comment that he would of liked to have
seen a 12 du's/ac design for comparison. He continued his comments addressing the
elevations. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that he does not ever like to say there's a back side to
architecture, and was pleased to see the extended elevation on the back side of the units.
One concern of Mr. Rodriguez was the applicant's comments about the play in lines. Mr.
Rodriguez indicated that he saw score lines in the stucco. He asked for some clarification on
the relief, he was not able to see any detail over the windows, or the entry ways.
Mr. Jamie Stark, architect, responded by indicating that they do have score lines, and do
have trim around the windows with dimensions at approximately 1-112". Mr. Stark
continued to discuss in more detail the various elevations.
Design Review Committee
4
November 18, 1996
Mr. Rodriguez questioned Mr. Fukuyama about the width of the walkway between units.
Mr. Fukuyama stated that the sidewalks were about 4 ft. wide, with a minimum of 6 ft. left
for landscaping. Chair Rodriguez indicated that the architecture is fine, but stressed his
concerns with the site design. He stated that a big design factor for him is pedestrian
pathways. Chair Rodriguez indicated that he would not like to see this project developed at
16 du's!ac. Member Richard Duncanson asked staff to again clarify the process of the SPA
amendment. Mr. Ken Lee responded that said matter is a separate public hearing to be
considered by the Planning Commission and added that if the applicant does not have a
product that works from the stand point of design review, they would have to me an appeal
of that decision before Planning Commission. Member Duncanson indicated that he too has
concerns relating to the setbacks, distance between the buildings, and the pedestrian
circulation. He stated that he would have to agree with staffs aforementioned preferences.
Mr. Duncanson also asked if all vehicle access was through the one gateway. Mr. Lee
responded yes, and noted that there is an emergency access provided out to Buena Vista ,
and one access point to the park.
Member John Stokes asked the applicant if it was mainly affordability as to why there are so
many units placed in such a small area. The applicant's response was yes. The applicant
indicated that the going price for these units would be around $115,000 - $139,000. If they
were to reduce to the 12 du's/ac, the price would increase to around $160,000 - $170,000.
Member Stokes made a comment relating to the approval of such proposal and how it would
set precedence for future developments. He stated that he would strongly recommend that
this project not go forward at 16 du's!ac. He made note that the floor plan and architecture
looked fine, but overall project is too tight. Member Michael Spethman complimented the
applicant on the architecture and colors. He felt they worked well and are very attractive.
Member Spethman asked about fire truck access. Associate Planner Luis Hernandez stated
that going through the review of the tentative map it was noted that there are some curve
radiuses in the circulation system do not meet the minimum city standards and would require
adjustments however, the basic layout does work functionally. Member Spethman stated his
concerns about the lack of amenities and open space, and expressed frustration with
applicants that present projects as being affordable as a result of maximizing the density. He
stated that the project is beautiful, and has potential to be very livable with a nice street
scene, but having everything to close, the project loses that neighborhood ambiance.
Member Spethman indicated that he had no problems with the landscaping or architecture,
but his preference would be not to increase the density.
In conclusion, all Committee members concurred with staffs concerns and recommendations.
Chairman Rodriguez stated to the applicant that they would consider to continue the project if
they were willing to revisit the project and reconsider some of staffs recommendations. Mr.
Craig Fukuyama indicated to the Committee that he would prefer a denial, so that he may
appeal their decision to the Planning Commission and present the proposal as is. Mr. Ken
Lee suggested to the Committee, that if they should deny the project, one committee member
if possible should be present at the Planning Commission hearing.
MSC (Rodriguez/Duncanson) (4-0) to deny DRC-97-01
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-97-0l
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE DENYING APPROVAL OF THE SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR A 246-UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ON 15.2 ACRES IN RANCHO DEL REY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on September 27, 1996 by Craig T. Fulmyama for Rancho del
Rey Investors, L.P.; and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of the site plan and architecture for a
proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres on the south side of East J Street within the Rancho
del Rey SPA III Planned Community; and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to EIR-
89-10, previously prepared for this site and has concluded that there would be no potential
significant environmental effects not analyzed in the previous documentation associated with this
proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said
application for Design Review and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its mailing to property owners within an area of at least 1,000 ft. of the exterior boundaries
of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was not held at the time and place as advertised, namely
November 11,1996 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Public Services Building,
276 Fourth Avenue but was cancelled due to lack of quorum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department continued said application for Design Review and
set the time and place for a special hearing by posting such information on the doors of the
Conference Room and Public Services Building, and
WHEREAS, the special hearing was held at the time and place so announced, namely
November 18, 1996, at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Public Services Building,
276 Fourth Avenue, before the Design Review Committee and said hearing was thereafter
closed, and
<,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
1. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
Based on the plans and testimony presented at the public hearing the Design Review
Committee voted to deny the project by a vote of 4-0 with one member abstaining based
on m~ applicant's plans which failed (0 m~e( me Ci(y's Design Manual policies as
identified A through D as follows:
A. Pedestrian walkways be provided to link dwelling units with common open
space areas, recreational and support facilities, parking areas and the street.
The proposed pedestrian walk.-way is inconsistent wim the above-referenced
guideline because me walk 'Way is not continuous and links very few of the
dwelling units with the common open space or parking areas. In addition to its
not being very functional, me proposed pedestrian walk'Way is bordered by plain
wood fencing in some instances and rarely enhanced by adjacent landscaping.
B. Landscape planting shall be used to frame, soften and embellish the quality
of the environment, and shall be in scale with adjacent structures and of
appropriate size and maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.
The proposed landscaping in direct association with the "street scene" is restricted
by proposed setbacks so as to preclude landscaping that would be consistent with
the guidelines listed in "B" above, and the planters proposed for between the
garage doors are too narrow to permit the planting of any significant tree forms.
The separation between buildings must accomodate walk.'Ways to dwelling entries,
and consequently only very limited planting areas remain.
c. That building entrances identify and articulate individual units, providing
distinctive architectural elements, materials and colors to denote entries while
promoting security and privacy.
The floor plans require that all dwelling entries be on the sides of the building,
and on one side of the building there are always two adjacent entries. Thus, not
only is there little identity or individuality expressed architecturally by the
entrances, but individual privacy is non-existent, based upon the limited
separation between buildings and the common walkway serving three units.
D. That internal circulation promote safety, efficiency and convenience, avoiding
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
The internal circulation pattern fails to promote safety, but is instead designed to
accomodate an inappropriate density for the product type proposed. The lack of
"a continuous pedestrian system creates conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians,
resulting in an inconvenient and potentially hazardous situation for guests and
residents, who must walk along vehicular driveways from parking space to
residence or from a residence to the common recreation area.
III. A COPY OF TillS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE
APPUCANTS.
PASSED A\'D APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF CHULA VISTA,
C.-\LIFOR,'\IA. this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
Members Rodriguez, Duncanson, Stokes and Spethman
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
Member Kelly
- '-I' -
I " .: .."
\ / /- . //-,_, ~L:./
. -,/ I
Maureen Casper, Secretary
ATTACHMENT 8
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
11-1.
11' OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE
\ TEMENT
Yuu arc fCtluifCd 10 file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contrihutions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Owncil, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following tnformation must be disclosed:
1. List the namcs of all persons having a financial interest in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e,g., owner, applicant. contractor, subcontractor, matcrial supplier.
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
2. If any person' identified pursuant 10 (1) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individuals o'uning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership intercst in the partnership.
TRIDENT USA, INC
MCMILLIN-RDR, INC
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organi7...ation O[ a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 wonh of business transacted with any member of the City staff. Boards, Commissions,
Committecs, and Council within the past twelve months') Ycs_ No~ If yes, please indicate person(s): _
5. Please identify each and every person. including any agents. employees. consultants. or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this mattcr.
CRAIG T. FUKUYAMA (RDR INV.)
STEVE WALLET (BOWLUS, EDINGER & STARK)
THOM FULLER (RDR INV.)
JOHN PATTERSON (GILLESPIE DESIGN GROUP)
DAN REHM (HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES)
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Couneilmember in tbe
current or preceding elcction period? Yes_ No..-l If ycs, state which Councilmember(s):
, , '(NOTE: Attach additional pages as
Date: SEPTEMBER 27, 1996
CRAIG T. FUKUYAMA,RANCHO DEL REY INVEST.LP
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
. Person iJ' defincd as: "Any illclividual. finn, (n-parmer-ship, joilEt ~'allUrc. as-SOCial/rift, social club, fra/t:nwl organ/zollO!!, corporCJliofl, atoll:, rrust, r~aiva, syndicate.
this and any OIhc; cr.J!.mty, dry arid COWllf)", ciry ItJwlicipaliry, district, or 0I1It'7 poh;ical subdil'Liio1l, or any otht", group or cOIr.bbJQlioll acting as a wIlL"
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
PUBLIC HEARING;
DRC-97-01: Consideration of an appeal of a Design Review
Committee decision to deny the site plan and architecture of a 246
unit residential complex on 15.2 acres located on the south side of
East J Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court within
the Rancho del Rey SPA III Planned Community. Rancho Del
Rey Investors, L.P.
The applicant, Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P., has filed an appeal from the decision of the
Design Review Committee to deny the site plan and architectural proposal of a 246-unit
residential complex to be located on the south side of East J Street, between Paseo Ranchero and
Vaquero Court within the Rancho del Rey SPA III Planned Community (see locator).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES;
The unresolved issues, which are, for the most part, related to the spatial arrangement and
functional relationship of the site plan components, are as follows:
1. The building separation, which serves as the main access way for three dwelling units,
is ten (10) feet. Typically a 15-20 ft. separation is preferred in order to provide a wide
access way for three dwelling units and accommodate more meaningful landscaping.
2. Pedestrian walks are usually incorporated along landscaped buffer areas and should be
linked to all areas of the development. The proposed project features narrow and
disjointed walkways adjacent to portions of the private streets and parking bays. In order
to resolve this deficiency, Staff has recommended that the project incorporate a ten (10)
foot landscape buffer along both sides of the loop road not only to incorporate an inviting
pedestrian walk but also to be able to enhance the street scene.
3. The limited building separation and building front setback also limit the amount of
landscaping and relief that can be incorporated along the streets. Staff has
recommended, in addition to the 15-20 ft. between buildings, a minimum of forty-six
(46) feet. from facade to facade in order to allow for additional landscaping, better
pedestrian walks and a visual relief on the street scene.
4. The number of dwelling units being transferred, added to the topographical constraints
and the residential product type, produce a less than desirable pedestrian circulation
system, limited recreational facilities, poor overall landscaping and tight arrangement of
buildings and other site plan components.
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new or supplemental EIR is
necessary and has prepared an addendum to FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey SPA III, which must
be considered and certified by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on the project (see
Attaclunent 3).
RECOMMENDATION;
Adopt attached Resolution DRC-97-01A denying the appeal in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission Resolution.
DISCUSSION;
A. Project Setting and Site Characteristics
The project site is located at the east end of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III planned
community and involves parcels R-6 and OS-7. Parcel R-6 is irregular in shape and
contains a total of 18.2 acres. Parcel OS-7 is a 10.6 acre open space lot located
immediately adjacent to the south of Parcel R-6 (see Locator).
The site terrain slopes from north to south approximately 55 ft. to the edge of the
southerly building pad and approximately 100 ft. to the south edge of the open space
parcel which abuts Otay Lakes Road. On this terrain three building pads separated by 2: 1
slopes and an elevation difference of approximately 20 to 27 ft. were created as part of
the Rancho Del Rey SPA III mass grading program (see Exhibit B).
The site is limited to the south by Telegraph Canyon Road, to the west by a vacant
parcel (future community park), to the north by single family residential development
across East "J" Street and to the east by a condominium residential complex located
approximately 20 to 30 ft above the subject site (see locator, Exhibit A).
B. Project History
According to Rancho del Rey SPA III, the density for this parcel, Parcel 6, is specified
as 12.0 dulacre, or 188 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed an amendment to the
SPA plan, whereby density on Parcel R-7 is to be reduced from 12.6 to 6.9 du/ac. This
would leave unused 58 units, approved as part of the SPA plan. The applicant has opted
to propose the transfer of these 58 units from Parcel 7 to Parcel 6, wherein the 15.2
acres of Parcel 6 are proposed to hold 246 dwelling units, for a density of 16.2 du/acre.
A Tentative Subdivision Map, a General Development Plan and SPA Plan Amendments
have been applied for and will have been considered before this appeal is heard.
Page 3, Item-L
Meeting Date 12/11/96
C. Proposed Development
The development proposal consists of 82 two-story structures containing a total of 246
condominium units. The eighty two (82) structures are arranged in large residential
clusters linked together by a loop road and a single access point along East "J" Street.
An emergency access has also been provided at the south end of the parcel. The
residential units are served by private streets and a combination of open and enclosed
parking strategically arranged to serve tenants.
Onsite amenities include an outdoor recreation area of approximately 5,500 sq. ft. and
three areas labeled "barbecue area", each approximately 1,000 sq. ft. The one story flat
has a 75 sq. ft. balcony and each of the townhouse units has a fenced rear yard of
between 300 and 400 sq. ft.
Although not identical to the proposed project, the applicant has indicated that there are
two other developments in San Diego County using a similar design concept. One
project is located in Scripps Ranch and the other in Mission Valley. Also, there is a very
similar project in the City of Chula Vista known as "Serena". This project is located at
the northeast comer of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. The Commission may
want to visit this site prior to the meeting.
According to the applicant, the proposed housing product has been popular, since it
offers many benefits related to a single-family home at a relatively modest price.
However, in staff's opinion, while the project combines features of a typical single-
family residence, it has many characteristics associated with an apartment-like density.
D. Project Overview
The applicant has indicated that there are two other developments in San Diego County
using a similar design concept. One project is located in Scripps Ranch and the other
is in Mission Valley. While the applicant has conceded that neither of these projects is
attractive or amenable, the applicant has asserted that the proposed additional landscaping
and more attractive architecture make the subject proposal more attractive.
Citing a similar project, "Serena", previously approved in the City of Chula Vista, the
applicant asserts that, while of similar density, the project is attractive. The applicant
has pointed to a proposed landscaping concept similar to that used in "Serena" as an
enhancement not seen in the other projects, but staff finds that the reasons for Serena's
comparative success is its enhanced architecture, its stepped-back second stories, its
shorter, single-loaded streets and its smaller overall project size. "Serena" is located at
Page 4, Item ---1-
Meeting Date 12/11/96
the northeast corner of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. The Commission may
want to visit this site prior to the meeting.
According to the applicant, this housing type has been very popular, since it offers many
of the benefits of a single family home at a relatively modest price. In staff's opinion,
however, it is the attempt to combine features of a typical single family residence while
maintaining an apartment-like density that causes significant problems. The fact that
these problems have not been solved leads to a recommendation for denial.
E. Analysis
On October 30, 1996, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum at the Rancho
Del Rey Information Center. Some area residents expressed concern about shifting
density to the site near their homes, but after the project architecture and site design was
presented, those residents in attendance indicated their general satisfaction with the
overall development proposal.
On November 18, 1996, the Design Review Committee considered the proposed project
and after hearing staff's and applicant's presentations endorsed the project architecture,
but expressed concerns about the site design. The committee cited the following major
issues:
1. Building Separation.
The proposed buildings are very close together, producing a narrow and
minimally-landscaped access for the dwelling units. Entrances to the individual
units are all on the sides of the buildings, are poorly-defined and provide little
shelter. Two out of the three entrances are too close together, providing little or
no pnvacy.
2. Landscaping.
The compressed street scene reduces the applicant's ability to landscape
effectively. The planters between the garage doors are too narrow to permit the
planting of any significant tree forms, and since access walkways must be
accommodated between buildings, very little planting area remains.
3. Pedestrian Circulation.
No cohesive pedestrian circulation system is shown, with the proposal lacking
safe separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Page 5, Item ~
Meeting Date 12/11/96
4. Street Scene.
The private streets have the appearance of narrow alleys, with little more than a
38 ft. separation between buildings. In comparison, a typical single family
subdivision has a minimum 90 ft. separation between buildings. The proposal
results is a very narrow street scene with a dark, closed-in feel to the streetscape.
The Committee offered to continue the project to allow the applicant time to address the
Committee's concerns (which most likely would have resulted in a reduction in the
number of dwelling units allowed to be transferred to the site). The applicant indicated
that the project economics required them to develop the site with 246 dwelling units and
requested a final decision from the Committee. Based on the applicant's request, the
Committee voted to deny the project by unanimous vote (see Attachment 4 Design
Review Minutes).
F. Conclusion;
The Design Review Committee endorsed staff's analysis that this project should not be
approved without a significant design effort to resolve the fundamental, identified site
plan issues. Unless the applicant is willing to undertake an effort to solve the basic
problems, it is the opinion of both staff and the Design Review Committee that the
Planning Commission should deny this appeal.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Exhibits
3. EIR-89-10 Addendum
4. Design Review Committee Minutes and Resolution
5. Disclosure Statement
(M :\HOME\PLANNING\ANN\DRC970IP.RPT)
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-97-01A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY THE SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR A 246-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 15.2 ACRES AT THE
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III PLANNED COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified appeal was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning
Department on November 21, 1996 by Rancho del Rey Investors, L.P.; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is appealing the decision of the Design Review Committee to
deny approval of the site plan and architecture for a proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres
on the south side of East J Street within the Rancho del Rey SPA III Planned Community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Project
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to EIR-
89-10, previously prepared for this site and has concluded that there would be no potential
significant environmental effects not analyzed in the previous documentation associated with this
proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee has voted to accept said addendum; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely December
11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES hereby adopt this resolution denying the appeal of the Design Review Committee decision
in accordance with the findings contained herein and findings E., F. and G. as added by staff:
1. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
Based on the plans and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission votes to deny the design review appeal based on the applicant's plans which
failed to meet the City's Design Manual policies as identified A through D and the
Rancho del Rey SPA III Residential Guidelines as identified in E. F. and G.:
A. Pedestrian walkways be provided to link: dwelling units with common open space
areas, recreational and support facilities, parking areas and the street.
The proposed pedestrian walkway is inconsistent with the above-referenced
guideline because the walkway is not continuous and links very few of the
dwelling units with the common open space or parking areas. In addition to its
not being very functional, the proposed pedestrian walkway is bordered by plain
wood fencing in some instances and rarely enhanced by adjacent landscaping.
B. Landscape planting shall be used to frame, soften and embellish the quality of the
environment, and shall be in scale with adjacent structures and of appropriate size
and maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.
The proposed landscaping in direct association with the" street scene" is restricted
by proposed setbacks so as to preclude landscaping that would be consistent with
the guidelines listed in "B" above, and the planters proposed for between the
garage doors are too narrow to permit the planting of any significant tree forms.
The separation between buildings must accomodate walkways to dwelling entries,
and consequently only very limited planting areas remain.
C. That building entrances identify and articulate individual units, providing
distinctive architectural elements, materials and colors to denote entries while
promoting security and privacy.
The floor plans require that all dwelling entries be on the sides of the building,
and on one side of the building there are always two adjacent entries. Thus, not
only is there little identity or individuality expressed architecturally by the
entrances, but individual privacy is non-existent, based upon the limited
separation between buildings and the common walkway serving three units.
D. That internal circulation promote safety, efficiency and convenience, avoiding
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
The internal circulation pattern fails to promote safety, but is instead designed to
accomodate an inappropriate density for the product type proposed. The lack of
a continuous pedestrian system creates conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians,
resulting in an inconvenient and potentially hazardous situation for guests and
residents, who must walk along vehicular driveways from parking space to
residence or from a residence to the common recreation area.
E. That attached housing should provide varying setbacks from the street for added
streetscape interest.
The proposed building setbacks from the private street system are minimal and
in various locations with little or no offset, thus creating a monotonous "tunnel"
streetscape.
F. Attached housing with tuck under parking and opposing garages should be
turned and oriented to avoid the monotony of garage door corridors.
Many areas of the plan retain units with garage doors directly opposite each other
in close proximity and in conflict with the above-referenced Design Standard.
G. In attached housing, it is important to provide each unit with its own identity
and entry. This can be accomplished by staggering and off-setting each unit.
The minimal (10 ft.) setback between the 2-story buildings which is planned to
accomodate the entry point for three units fails to comply with the above-
referenced Design Standard.
2. THAT A COpy OF THIS RESOLUTION BE TRANSMITTED TO THE
APPLICANTS.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this December 11, 1996 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Frank Tarantino
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m: \home\planning\ann\drc970 1 p. res)
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBITS
"
SOUTHWESTERN
COLLEGE
/
~~S\
\
\
\
\
PROJECT
LOCATION
-
--r\
. \
\
\
\
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Rancho Del Rey PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT,
Investors, L.P.
PROJECT East "J' St No. of r.C.R. Request: A proposed amendment to the General Development
ADDRESS: East of Paseo Ra nchero
Plan and Sectional Area Plan for SPA III of R.D.R..
SCAlf, Fllf NUMBEIC
NORTH No Scale
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT 3
EIR-89-10 ADDENDUM
ADDTh'DUM: TO RANCHO del REY SPA III EIR (89-10)
PROJECT NAME: Rancho del Rey SPA III S~tional Planning Area
Amendment/Parcel R-6 Tentative Map
PROJECT LOCATION: South of E. "J" Street, west of Buena Vista, north of Telegraph
Canyon Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillan Project Services, Inc. for Rancho del Rey Investors,
L.P.
PROJECT AGENT: Cinti Land Planning
CASE NO.:
IS-97 -01
DATE:
October 21, 1996
1. INTRODUCTION
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative D~laration adopted for a proj~t, no
subsequent document shall be prepared for that proj~t unless the lead agency determines,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of
the following conditions exist:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the proj~t which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or Negative D~laration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental eff~ts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant eff~ts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant eff~ts; or
2. Substantial changes occur with resp~t to the circumstances under which the
proj~t is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative D~laration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
eff~ts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
eff~ts; or
3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
. previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative D~laration was adopted
has become known.
(b) If changes to a proj ~t or its circumstances occur or new information becomes. available
after adoption of a Negative D~laration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR
if required under subs~tion (a). Other wise the lead agency shall determine whether to
prepare a subsequent Negative D~laration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis
concerning impacts as a result of the applicants decision to change the project description. As
a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the FEIR-89-l0 have not changed.
Environmental impacts are found to be equal or less significant for the proposed project as
compared to the original proposal.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared
the following addendum to EIR-89-l0.
II. PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located in Rancho del Rey SPA III specifically Parcel R-6. Parcel R-6
is located south of East "J" Street, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of the proposed
Middle School & Park and west of Buena Vista Road.
The project site is currently graded (not final grading) and is vacant. Zoning on the property
on the site (and the surrounding properties) is PC (planned Community). Surrounding land uses,
existing and proposed, include a community park and middle school to the west, single family
vacant lots to north, condominiums and Buena Vista way to the east and Telegraph Road and
SPA I of the Otay Ranch to the south.
Because of the past grading of the property there are no biological, archeological or
paleontological resource currently present on the site. Any previous environmental mitigation
was completed in accordance with previous documentation.
Public Services are present or are planned to serve the proj ect area.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning
Area Plan and General Development Plan for the transfer of 67 dwelling units from Parcel R-7c
to R-6. This proposed amendment will result in a decrease in the permitted dwellings units for
SPA III of 33 dwelling units. The average density for attached housing in SPA III will be
slightly reduced from 12.3 to 11.4 du/ac. No change is proposed to the proposed development
in Parcel R-7c from the approved 120 dwellings, 100 less than was allowed by the General
Devleopment Plan and SPA. The following table reflects the existing and proposed statistics.
Attached Housing Parcels R-6 & R-7c - Proposed Density Transfer Statistics
Parcel No. Acres
36.5
Existing Plan Proposed Plan Net Change
du/ac du du/ac du in du's
12.0 228 15.5 295 +67
12.6 220 6.9 120 -100
12.3avg. 448 l1.4avg. 415 -33
R-6 19.0
R-7c 17.5
The housing proposed for most of Parcel R-6 consists of 255 dwelling units in 85 two-story
buildings (three units/building) taking access from private streets. The primary project entry is
from East" J" Street. Common open space, trails and recreation area are included and will be
maintained by a Homeowners Association. Two of the units in the tri-plex have private patios,
while the third unit has a private terrace.
The balance of Parcel R-6 consisting of 3.0 acres is not included in this Site Plan application and
is subject to separte application/review.
IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with sec.15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines I hereby fInd that the proposed
project revisions will not require major revisions to the SPA ill EIR, that there are no changes
in project circumstances which would require major revisions to the SPA ill EIR nor is there
any new information of substantial importance which would result in a requirement for further
environmental analysis. Therefore, FEIR 89-10 is adequate for CEQA review of this project.
KL~~~ kIJJ/
Douglas W Reid .
Environmental Review Coordinator
References
General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Final Rancho del Rey SPA ill TraffIc Analysis (BRW, Inc. January, 1996)
EIR-89-1O, Rancho del Rey SPA ill, and appendices
ATTACHMENT 4
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES AND RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-97-0l
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE DENYING APPROVAL OF THE SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR A 246-UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ON 15.2 ACRES IN RANCHO DEL REY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on September 27, 1996 by Craig T. Fukuyama for Rancho del
Rey Investors, L.P.; and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of the site plan and architecture for a
proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres on the south side of East J Street within the Rancho
del Rey SPA III Planned Community; and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to EIR-
89-10, previously prepared for this site and has concluded that there would be no potential
significant environmental effects not analyzed in the previous documentation associated with this
proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said
application for Design Review and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its mailing to property owners within an area of at least 1,000 ft. of the exterior boundaries
of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was not held at the time and place as advertised, namely
November 11, 1996 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Public Services Building,
276 Fourth Avenue but was cancelled due to lack of quorum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department continued said application for Design Review and
set the time and place for a special hearing by posting such information on the doors of the
Conference Room and Public Services Building, and
WHEREAS, the special hearing was held at the time and place so announced, namely
November 18, 1996, at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Public Services Building,
276 Fourth Avenue, before the Design Review Committee and said hearing was thereafter
closed, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE does hereby fmd, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
1. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
Based on the plans and testimony presented at the public hearing the Design Review
Committee voted to deny the project by a vote of 4-0 with one member abstaining based
on the applicant's plans which failed to meet the City's Design Manual policies as
identified A through D as follows:
A. Pedestrian walkways be provided to link dwelling units with common open
space areas, recreational and support facilities, parking areas and the street.
The proposed pedestrian walkway is inconsistent with the above-referenced
guideline because the walk.--way is not continuous and links very few of the
dwelling units with the common open space or parking areas. In addition to its
not being very functional, the proposed pedestrian walkway is bordered by plain
wood fencing in some instances and rarely enhanced by adjacent landscaping.
B. Landscape planting shall be used to frame, soften and embellish the quality
of the environment, and shall be in scale with adjacent structures and of
appropriate size and maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.
The proposed landscaping in direct association with the "street scene" is restricted
by proposed setbacks so as to preclude landscaping that would be consistent with
the guidelines listed in "B" above, and the planters proposed for between the
garage doors are too narrow to permit the planting of any significant tree forms.
The separation between buildings must accomodate walkways to dwelling entries,
and consequently only very limited planting areas remain.
c. That building entrances identify and articulate individual units, providing
distinctive architectural elements, materials and colors to denote entries while
promoting security and privacy.
The floor plans require that all dwelling entries be on the sides of the building,
and on one side of the building there are always two adjacent entries. Thus, not
only is there little identity or individuality expressed architecturally by the
entrances, but individual privacy is non-existent, based upon the limited
separation between buildings and the common walkway serving three units.
D. That internal circulation promote safety, efficiency and convenience, avoiding
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
The internal circulation pattern fails to promote safety, but is instead designed to
accomodate an inappropriate density for the product type proposed. The lack of
a continuous pedestrian system creates conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians,
resulting in an inconvenient and potentially hazardous situation for guests and
residents, who must walk along vehicular driveways from parking space to
residence or from a residence to the common recreation area.
III. A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE
APPUCANTS.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORt"lIA, this 18th day of November, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
Members Rodriguez, Duncanson, Stokes and Spethman
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
Member Kelly
i. // / 1~->jV
- .;-' (
Maureen Casper, Secretary
IJI"-~r"""": ~~ /'<' F.. rIA ~~I~'t~ ~T'=S
~ \c - .- t." I~ '. - '_I . " . '.1 ',':..J LI t;
EXCERPT
FROM NOVEMBER 18, 1996
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 18, 1996
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
4:30 p.m.
3.
DRC-97-01
Rancho del Rey Parcel 6
South side of East J Street between
Paseo Ranchero and Vaauero Court
246-unit develoj)ment. in 82 buildinl!s on 15.20 acres
Member Pat Kelly excused herself because of conflict of interest.
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee gave an overview of the existing Rancho del Rey area
which he explained is broken into actually three SPA's. He pointed out to the Committee
that of 4100 units proposed in Rancho Del Rey, about 1/4 are an attached product. He
continued with a history on the adopted Rancho Del Rey SPA III plan which identifies the
subject area for an allowed density of 12.0 du's/ac, or 188 dwelling units. Mr. Lee
indicated that the applicant has proposed an amendment to the SPA plan, whereby density on
another parcel (parcel R-7) located north of "H" Street is to be reduced. This would leave
the potential to transfer unused units, approved as part of the SPA plan to the subject
property. He explained that the density increase would result in 246 units on the 15.2 acre
site or a density of 16.2 du's/acre. Mr. Lee explained to the Committee that any
consideration for approval of this project would be subject to the applicant successfully
completing the SPA amendment, which would be subject to public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Lee went on to show the layout of the
proposed project and pointed out concerns of staff which include the following: limited
building setbacks along the street which reduce the ability to properly provide for
landscaping areas or create sufficient room to accommodate a reasonable pedestrian
circulation system; minimal setbacks (10') between the 2-story buildings do not provide for
individual privacy or security, and adequate landscaping. Mr. Lee presented a sketch done
by staff which addressed many of the staff's concerns by providing at least 15' between
buildings which access 3 entry points, and additional front setbacks to accommodate
landscaping and a pedestrian system. He indicated that with this proposal the applicant
would lose an estimated 6-10 buildings from their current proposal. Mr Lee also indicated
that with the reduction of units, required parking would be reduced, and thus some of the
setback and landscaping issues would be resolved.
Design Review Committee
2
November 18, 1996
In closing, Mr. Lee indicated that in terms of the architectural package, while staff has some
issues, they are not of a significant nature.
Ouestions of Staff
Member John Stokes asked staff if there had ever been a plan done with the allowable
l2du's!ac. Mr. Lee responded that he had no knowledge of any such plan, but indicated that
there had been a previous developer interested in the property, but he did not know what
density was proposed with that development. Mr. Craig Fukuyama, with McMillin
Development Company, confmned that there was not a plan done at the 12 du's!ac.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Craig Fukuyama, with the McMillin Development Company, walked the Committee thru
the project. Mr. Fukuyama started the presentation by reviewing the project setting and site
characteristics. He went on to explain to the Committee the reasons for the proposed high
density. He also went over the grading exhibit which depicts 3 major pads, which step down
from East J Street towards the south which results in substantial topographic relief. Mr.
Fukuyama continued with the review of the tentative map and pointed out the gated entry,
the circular road system, public park and park access. He indicated that all parking spaces
are located within 100ft. of walking distance to each individual units. He explained that
each building represents three units, with the smallest unit having a single car garage, the
second unit, a 2 bdrm unit, has a single garage, and . the largest unit, which is a 3 bdrm unit,
has a two car garage. All garages have direct access to the units, and the two smaller units
will be assigned an open parking space within 100 ft. of the unit.
Mr. Fukuyama continued the presentation with an exhibit of an enlargement that showed
typical landscaping treatment between, in front, and to the rear of the individual buildings.
He stated that the amount of setbacks along the street frontage various between 6 and 9 ft.,
and the minimum space between the buildings is 10 ft., with some up to 15 ft. Mr.
Fukuyama reviewed the landscaping between the buildings and along the street frontage. He
went on to present schematics of the entry monument and gates, and the fencing proposal.
He mentioned that onsite amenities would include an outdoor recreation area and reviewed
the three areas labeled "barbecue areas".
Mr. Fukuyama stated to the Committee that he understands what Mr. Lee is talking about
relating to the setbacks, however, addressing staff concerns would result in the loss of 10
buildings, making this project fmancially infeasible at the proposed pricing.
Design Review Committee
3
November 18, 1996
Mr. Russ Haley, project manager and representative of Shea Homes, went over the
elevations and floor plans for the triplex project. He explained that the ownership of the
units are fee simple. The project includes a carriage unit which is approximately 1, 025
s.f., 2 bdrms, and a balcony out front. He went on to review the floor plans of Plan 2 and
Plan 3, which are 2 and 3 bdrm, 1135 - 1355 s.f. townhome units with attached garages. He
indicated to the Committee that all rear elevations have enhanced detailing.
In closing Mr. Fukuyama wanted to add that he apologizes that they were unable to resolve
their differences with staff, but felt that they have a product that they can build, are ready to
build, but to accommodate what staff is asking for, would make it impossible to build this as
a cost effective project.
Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Fukuyama concerns and indicated that the City has processed a
number of projects within Rancho Del Rey, and have in the past been able to reach mutually
acceptable solutions between the applicant and staff. He indicated that in this case staff has
gone out and looked at previously approved projects, and tried to determine what went right
and what went wrong, and what could be done better. He stated that in this instance where
there is an approved density of 12 du's/ac, and by viewing this site layout with this particular
product, it appears feasible to add up to 30 additional units and end up with a plan that
address staffs concerns. Mr. Lee mentioned to the Committee that this is not a case where
this applicant would be losing 10 buildings as an example, but it is a case where they would
likely be able to add 10 buildings to what is already the established density for this site. He
reminded the Committee that the applicant's proposal to increase the density from 12 dIu to
16 du's/ac is not a matter of right, it is something that has to be determined by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Lee again stated that staff is in basic agreement with the floor plan and
the primary architectural theme.
Committee Ouestions/Concerns
Chairman John Rodriguez started off by making a comment that he would of liked to have
seen a 12 du's/ac design for comparison. He continued his comments addressing the
elevations. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that he does not ever like to say there's a back side to
architecture, and was pleased to see the extended elevation on the back side of the units.
One concern of Mr. Rodriguez was the applicant's comments about the play in lines. Mr.
Rodriguez indicated that he saw score lines in the stucco. He asked for some clarification on
the relief, he was not able to see any detail over the windows, or the entry ways.
Mr. Jamie Stark, architect, responded by indicating that they do have score lines, and do
have trim around the windows with dimensions at approximately 1-1/2". Mr. Stark
continued to discuss in more detail the various elevations.
Design Review Committee
4
November 18, 1996
Mr. Rodriguez questioned Mr. Fukuyama about the width of the walkway between units.
Mr. Fukuyama stated that the sidewalks were about 4 ft. wide, with a minimum of 6 ft. left
for landscaping. Chair Rodriguez indicated that the architecture is fine, but stressed his
concerns with the site design. He stated that a big design factor for him is pedestrian
pathways. Chair Rodriguez indicated that he would not like to see this project developed at
16 du's!ac. Member Richard Duncanson asked staff to again clarify the process of the SPA
amendment. Mr. Ken Lee responded that said matter is a separate public hearing to be
considered by the Planning Commission and added that if the applicant does not have a
product that works from the stand point of design review, they would have to fIle an appeal
of that decision before Planning Commission. Member Duncanson indicated that he too has
concerns relating to the setbacks, distance between the buildings, and the pedestrian
circulation. He stated that he would have to agree with staff's aforementioned preferences.
Mr. Duncanson also asked if all vehicle access was through the one gateway. Mr. Lee
responded yes, and noted that there is an emergency access provided out to Buena Vista ,
and one access point to the park.
Member John Stokes asked the applicant if it was mainly affordability as to why there are so
many units placed in such a small area. The applicant's response was yes. The applicant
indicated that the going price for these units would be around $115,000 - $139,000. If they
were to reduce to the 12 du's/ac, the price would increase to around $160,000 - $170,000.
Member Stokes made a comment relating to the approval of such proposal and how it would
set precedence for future developments. He stated that he would strongly recommend that
this project not go forward at 16 du's/ac. He made note that the floor plan and architecture
looked fme, but overall project is too tight. Member Michael Spethman complimented the
applicant on the architecture and colors. He felt they worked well and are very attractive.
Member Spethman asked about fire truck access. Associate Planner Luis Hernandez stated
that going through the review of the tentative map it was noted that there are some curve
radiuses in the circulation system do not meet the minimum city standards and would require
adjustments however, the basic layout does work functionally. Member Spethman stated his
concerns about the lack of amenities and open space, and expressed frustration with
applicants that present projects as being affordable as a result of maximizing the density. He
stated that the project is beautiful, and has potential to be very livable with a nice street
scene, but having everything to close, the project loses that neighborhood ambiance.
Member Spethman indicated that he had no problems with the landscaping or architecture,
but his preference would be not to increase the density.
In conclusion, all Committee members concurred with staff's concerns and recommendations.
Chairman Rodriguez stated to the applicant that they would consider to continue the project if
they were willing to revisit the project and reconsider some of staff's recommendations. Mr.
Craig Fukuyama indicated to the Committee that he would prefer a denial, so that he may
appeal their decision to the Planning Commission and present the proposal as is. Mr. Ken
Lee suggested to the Committee, that if they should deny the project, one committee member
if possible should be present at the Planning Commission hearing.
MSC (Rodriguez/Duncanson) (4-0) to deny DRC-97-01
ATTACHMENT 5
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
11
11' OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSUR
\TEMENT
Yuu arc rc~uircd 10 file a Statement or Di.'\closurc of certain owncr5.hip or financial inlcrc..'its, payments, or campaign
contrihutjons, on all matters which wiJJ requIre discrctionary action on the pari of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must he disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interc-SI in the property which is the suhjeet of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant. cuntractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individu2!S owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
TRIDENT USA, INC
MCMILLIN-RDR, INC
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) ahove is non-profit organiz.ation or a trust. list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of husinc-" transacted with any member of the City staff. Boards. Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months') Yes_ No~ If yes. please indicate person(s): _
5. Please identity each and every person. including any agents. employees. consultants. or independent contractors who
you have :lSsigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
CRAIG T. FUKUYAMA (RDR INV.)
STEVE WALLET (BOWLUS, EDINGER & STARK)
THOM FULLER (RDR INV.)
JOHN PATTERSON (GILLESPIE DESIGN GROUP;
DAN REHM (HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES)
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Couneilmemher in the
currcnt or preceding election period? Yes_ No-X. If yes. state which Couneilmember(s):
. " " (NOTE: Attach additional pages as
Date: SEPTEMBER 27, 1996
\:
CRAIG T. FUKUYAMA,RANCHO DEL REY INVEST.LI
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
. ~ ix defined as: "AllY bldJ~'jdua', finn, cn-parrlltTShip. joim ~.~ItI.JfC, eJJ;j'()CiOlinll, J(Kicl ebb, frt.-trowl orgolliliJliorl, corporation.. cs/att:, t1'U.S1, recdvc, syruiica:c.
thiJ and any Oilier COU.llty, eiey and coulIlr)". city fnt.!.1Iicipolit)', district, or mher polir:col .rubdtl'i.fiOll, or any Qtha group or combination acting as a WIlL n
MEMORANDUM
December 4, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
VIA: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning hI
FROM: Paul Manganelli, Project Planner t-
SUBJECT: Revised San Miguel Ranch GDP Conditions
On November 20, 1996, the Planning Commission voted to recommend amendments to the San
Miguel Ranch General Development Plan which, among other things, authorized up to 1394
dwelling units for the Horseshoe Bend Alternative and 1432 units for the Proctor Valley
Alternative, all subject to several conditions of approval. Two of these conditions require that
(1) the lots designated Low Residential be a minimum of 20,000 square feet in area and (2) the
area designated Medium Residential not exceed an overall density of 6 units per acre.
Subsequent to this approval, the applicant's land planner tested the plan as approved by
preparing a preliminary design to determine whether 1394 units could be obtained in accordance
with these conditions, which were based on staff's midpoint analysis. He determined that the
yield would be considerably lower because of the severity of the topography and the
configuration of the development areas in the west end of the property. After study of the
preliminary design, staff concurred with this determination.
While all involved understand that the final yield ultimately determined by SPA Plan and
Tentative Map level planning may fall short of 1394 units, these conditions, as presently written,
guarantee this shortfall will occur. To rectify the situation, staff intends to recommend the City
Council at their scheduled hearing on December 17, 1996 the approval of two conditions which
vary somewhat with those previously recommended and which were subsequently approved by
the Commission. These proposed changes are indicated by the strike-out/underline amendments
below.
Condition 5 - The density of the area designated Medium Residential shall not exceed ffi seven
dwelling units per gross acre.
This condition was amended to give the applicant the opportunity to transfer some units from
west to east as necessary while maintaining the residential character of the Medium area (67.5
acres - Horseshoe Bend Plan, 72.8 acres - Proctor Valley Plan) as primarily single family and
at the same time maintaining conformance to the General Plan.
Condition 8 - A minimum of 50 percent of the lots west of the proposed SR-125 alignment on the
Horseshoe Bend Plan or a minimum of 50 percent of the lots west of the diagonal SDG&E right-
of-way on the Proctor Valley Plan shall be improved wim lets a minifflNIfI f?/' 29, 00() squar-e feet
to Residential Estates Zone standards in order to maintain a balance of at least 50 percent of
all lots in the western area of the project as estate-sized lots in the vicinity if the
Bonita/Sunnyside community.
The RE Zone requires minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet but also permits a maximum of
25 % of the lots in this category to be reduced to 15,000 square feet. Condition 8 was amended
to give the applicant the opportunity to provide some lots at that size to provide more estate-
sized lots on the west side of the project thus reducing the number of lots transferred to the east
side in the form of smaller lots.
Staff believes that these amendments would provide the applicant with greater flexibility while
still maintaining the character desired for the area.
For the Commission's information, the applicant has agreed to the Commission and staff
recommendation of 1394 units for the Horseshoe Bend Plan and 1432 units for the Proctor
Valley Plan, the midpoint density ranges for the alternative plans. The applicant has also agreed
to provide an approximately 3-acre private park in the Medium area to provide it with a focal
point and activity center.
Exhibits:
Horseshoe Bend Plan
Proctor Valley Plan
November, 1996
~ Land Planning
E~PRQjECiS\~3-jjmc;c\FINAL \CDPGDP A3.uWG
JJ
,..
..:..
o
. r
~~-
<>
AREA AFFECTED BY CHANGE
FROM 6 DUlAC TO 7 DUlAC
AND LOCATION OF PRIVATE
PARK
"' --
...'
-
t""
~, ~:-~':'~.~,
,.'/.... -(/ ~..
"'.. ',_.'
,
-:-:"':0$-':"',
. .
Nov~. 1996
~ b~Q(U:!~!I.!!ing
E: \PRC~::CTS\.33301 X\FINAl \G~F'GDPc1"DWG
AREA AFFECTED BY CHANGE
FROM 6 DUlAC TO 7 DUlAC
AND LOCATION OF PRIVATE
PARK