Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/11/12 Item 11 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ /1 ~ $".<' Meeting Date /85 /(-/.).-t'.5 ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing: GPA-83-7 - Amendments to El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan - Gersten Company SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Ordi nance .;2/3'" Approvi ng El Gersten Company Director of Planningw"'; /1 City Manager y) Rancho Del Rey Specific Pl an - SECOND READING AND ADOPTION (4/5ths Vote: Yes____No~) The subject of this hearing is a request by the Gersten Company for certain amendments to El Rancho Del Rey Specifi c Pl an. Whi 1 e thi s is a conti nued hearing, it has been readvertised. The ten "out-parcels" not under Gersten ownershi p are i ncl uded in thi s proposal for conti nui ty, but at Counci 1 ' s direction, a separate hearing regarding the out-parcels will be held soon after a final decision is rendered on the Gersten property. Also included for continuity purposes, but not for amendment, is the remainder of the entire El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan area. RECOMMENDATION: That Council, based on its June 25, 1985, di recti on and the rati onal e contai ned in the report that foll ows, approve the proposed El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan as revised and adopt the ordinance. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 22, 1985, the Pl anning Commi ssi on recommended denial of a plan referred back to them at that time by the Council by a vote of 7-0. It is not necessary to have the Planning Commission reconsider the latest version of the plan. On October 9, 1985, the Commission did recertify the EIR and adopted necessary CEQA findings. DISCUSSION: 1. City Council Acti on On April 12, 1985, your Council approved in concept a staff-recommended alternative plan subject to a number of changes. On June 11, 1985, your Council approved a plan incorporating the amendments ordered at the previous hearing and held the first reading of the implementing ordinance. On June 18, 1985, the second reading of the ordinance was conti nued. On June 25, 1985, your Council referred the pl an back to staff after di recti ng that: (1) the pl an be reduced by an addi ti onal 200 dwelling units to 4,028, (2) the employment park be reduced to a maximum of 100 net acres, (3) employment park uses be deleted from the south side of East "H" Street if 100 acres can be accommodated on the north si de, (4) consideration be given to the deletion of the requirement for low and moderate-income housing from the text of the plan, and (5) a new advertised public hearing be held to consider these proposed amendments. On August 20, 1985, your Council continued the hearing to this date after it was learned that certain sensitive plant species were discovered on the property necessitating the requirement for a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. II. Recommended Plan Page 2, Item ~ /! Meeting Date ~/85 ~-/~-[5' Staff and the developer considered several alternative development concepts (discussed later herein) before bringing the present concept to you. The salient features of the recommended alternative are: 1. Reduces the number of dwelling units on the center ridge by 140. 2. Reduces the number of net acres of employment park to 100, all located on the north side of East "H" Street. The additional north side acreage would be gained by lowering slightly the grade of the employment park pad thereby reduci ng the unusabl e slopes and by mi nor encroachments into the open space area. The regradi ng has been looked at by staff and appears satisfactory. 3. Reduces densities in the higher density categories (8-12 and 12-20 du/ ac) resul ti ng in a total reducti on of 319 units from these two categories. 4. Reduces the number of units in the 6-8 du/ac range by 613 and increases the number of units in the 4-6 du/ac range by 732. 5. Allocates a maximum of 200 units to the area formerly designated employment park on the south side of East "H" Street. 6. Provides an 80-foot deep landscape buffer strip on the south side of East "H" Street between the employment park and the new residential area directly to the south. 7. Retains the requirement for low and moderate income housing but deletes the requirement for equal amounts of both housing types. 8. Realigns the road connecting the loop street with Otay Lakes Road to avoid the plant species (Otay Tarweed) found in that area and align it with Ridgeview Way to the east (see attached exhibit). 9. Provides a small open space area within the estate category to accommodate the plant species (San Diego Thornmint) found in that area (see attached exhibit). The amendments descri bed above result in a more s i ngl e family "f1 avor" to the project since 2,975 units (74%) would be in categories of six dwelling units per acre or less compared with 2,243 (53%) on the previous plan. III. Alternative Considered Several other development concepts were consi dered by staff and subsequently rejected. One plan proposed employment park uses on a porti on of the pad located on the south si de of East "H" Street and 11 % fewer single family units than the recommended alternative. This plan I l ( -..." (): 1<:.). Page 3, Item ~~ (f. Meeting Date 10/22/85 ~ fl,':;L-S~ was di scarded; it coul d have resul ted in more access poi nts to East "H" Street further reducing the road's traffic carrying capacity. Also, a small isolated parcel in the midst of industrial development would have remained creating an undesirable setting for residential development. Another plan proposed higher densities on the center ridge, more development at 6-8 and 8-12 units per acre and a corresponding reduction in the single family areas. This alternative appeared contrary to an objective to try to reduce some of the higher density areas, especially in the center ridge, in favor of more single family development. A third scheme would have kept the former employment park property on the south side of East "H" Street in open space. This easily accessible parcel would have encouraged off-road vehicle activity and required extensive maintenance. The conversion to additional open space of readily developable land would be difficult to justify. Finally, some 200 dwell i ng uni ts woul d have had to have been transferred el sewhere increasing density in those areas. A couple of other possibilities were looked at too; however, after weighing the pluses and minuses, staff feels the recommended alternate best meets Council's objectives and sustains a good diverse land use mix. IV. Traffic Circulation I n the staff report prepared for the fi rst Council heari ng (4-16-85) it was indicated that upon total buildout, the project, as proposed by the applicant (4,634 du and 141.3 net acre employment park), would generate 77 ,500 tri ps per day compared to 52,100 tri ps resul ti ng from the 1978 plan. This was an error. The actual numbers were 73,000 and 48,700 respectively - the out-parcel traffi c was counted twi ce. The ori gi nal staff-recommended plan (4,228 du and 141.3 net acre employment park) would have generated about 69,000 total daily trips. The plan presently being considered (4,028 du and 100 net industrial acres) would generate approximately 62,200 average daily trips. Since the employment park and the residential densities on the center ridge and the area west of the southwest corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero have been reduced, the traffic impacts on the 1-805 and East "H" Street interchange should be reduced accordingly. V. Conclusion Based on the foregoing discussion, staff recommends approval of the amended map and text as presented for the reasons that follow: 1. The project represents a balanced plan which provides the single family residence as its primary dwelling type. 2. The density of the center ridge has been further reduced. 3. The number of average daily trips for the project has been reduced by about 6,000 over the previous plan. i ~. <-) Page 4, Item ~/ / Meeting Date -tam/85 .~ -Hj3- 11-1.7 -:iJ 4. The anticipated impacts on the I-80S/East "H" Street interchange woul d be si gnificantly reduced by the reducti on of the si ze of the employment park and the reallocation of residential densities. 5. While the size of the employment park has been reduced, the 100 acres retai ned woul d be benefi ci al to the City in the form of additional tax revenues and employment opportunities. 6. The number of estate lots (0-2) on the north ridge has been maximi zed. 7. The pl an has not been compromi sed as to open space area, park 1 and or other publ ic facil ity needs. Minor changes to the text of the pl an have been made to accommodate the requi red amendments and are i ndi cated in a stri ke-out/underl i ne format for easy reference. WPC 2058P I e..,,~_",;::-z'< \ j,._.~ 5-:::~J'~~.--:~- \' \ ''",' , :J ~. " '. '.' i, _ .,..1 \ ,,' \ J . L_' ~', . " \....,.' ~ J , . --> " - f~.___ !;:: ',:U __/C!,,---::L.----.._ t __...___A___ -------- :?42-~ ,A-c~b7_ CL_~7'-"<!~ by he City Council of Chula Vista, California '/-s:- ~~ Dated / ' p - ~~~ ~ City CO\!:1ci\ of by the "'^r~'la V. t~ CZ-ii.v" / Chu\a 15 <>, G~' /(_ /~- 6"- _ Dated - ,'') I ::<?