HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/03/24 (2)
TO: Planning Commission
VIA: Robert Leiter, Director of Planning ,.(it t!
FROM: Bud Gray, Project Manager' /3 ~
DATE: March 24,1992
SUBJECT: San Miguel Ranch General Plan
Consistency Issues Report
The purpose of this report is to outline the main issues still outstanding regarding the consistency
of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan with the City's General Plan, particularly
Section 1, Land Use Element. This information is intended to provide a background reference
to the Planning Commission in preparation for the workshop meeting on April 1, 1992. The
following sources have been relied upon in preparing this report:
1) San Miguel Partners Issue Paper,
2) Planning Department's General Plan Consistency Analysis,
3) San M~guel Ranch General Development Plan, and
4) San Miguel Partner's General Plan Consistency Analysis.
As a result of the hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, City staff and San Miguel
Partners requested from Planning Commission an opportunity to jointly discuss outstanding
consistency issues with the Commission. Over the last month meetings have been held to
analyze General Plan consistency issues, and attempts have been made to resolve as many issues
as possible. However, certain General Plan consistency issues remain outstanding between Staff
and Applicant. For that reason, the Planning Commission has agreed to hold the scheduled
workshop meetjpg to consider and comment upon the outstanding General Plan consistency
issues. All property owners within 1000 feet of the project boundaries have been given mailed
notice of the date, time and purpose of the workshop.
It is important to note that Staff found the northerly parcel (Neighborhood "A") and the "H"
Street parcel to be generally consistent with the General Plan. The remaining issues relate to
the Residential Low areas within Neighborhood "B" of the south parcel. Accordingly, this
report will focus on issues related to the south parcel only, except where analysis for the overall
project is required.
The format of this report will be to identify the General Plan consistency issue requiring
resolution, followed by a brief Staff comment, and a brief Applicant comment.
General Plan Consistency Issues
1. Character of Development in Low Residential Designations (Section 4.1 of the Land
Use Element)
Section 4.1 of the General Plan establishes the residential land use categories and the
range of density permitted with the category. A Residential Low designation exists over
most of Neighborhood "B". This category "includes single-family detached dwellings
on large rural, !IDd estate-type lots." In addition, Section 5.1 describes the overall
character of the Eastern Territories Area Plan as follows: "the predominant residential
type (for Eastern Territories) is single-family detached in the low and low medium
residential density categories" and that "neighborhoods that are characterized by this
single-family density are located throughout the Eastern Territories."
Staff Comment: Based upon our evaluation of the policies contained in the General Plan,
and the decisions of the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Salt Creek
Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Plan Area Plan, Staff recommends a
similar lot size distribution for Neighborhood "B". This distribution would consist of at
least 50% estate lots that meet the Residential Estate zone standard for size (minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet for at least 75% of the lots and at least 15,000 square feet
for the remaining lots) and the other 50% in clustered lots with a minimum lot size of
7,000 square feet.
The Applicant's proposal for Neighborhood "B" contains one area (planning Area No.
14) which approaches RE Zone Standards (14%) and another 52% in clustered lots. The
remaining 34 % of the lots are not clustered and have a minimum lot size of
approximately 8,000 square feet.
The size of the majority of the non-clustered lots is inconsistent with the "large rural, and
estate-type lots. called for by the Residential Low land use category.
ADDlicant's Comment: The General Plan does not limit any lot size other than clustered
lots which must be a minimum of 7,000 square feet (Section 4.1). The proposed lot
sizes in Neighborhood B include:
a) 7,000 square foot clustered minimums, average 9,800 square feet;
b) 8,000 square foot luxury lots, average 12,000 square feet; and
c) 15,000 square foot estate lots, average 18,000 square feet.
These large lot sizes are not duplicated anywhere else in the Eastern Territories and
constitute "large rural, and estate-type lots" ~ the densities found throughout the
Eastern Territories.
2
.
Applicant is consistent with the City Council decision regarding the Residential Low
areas on Salt Creek Ranch since, based on the all Residential Low areas of the entire
project, 892 lots constitute "large rural, and estate-type lots," or approximately 57%.
Issue Status: What is the appropriate mix of lot sizes in the Low Residential
development areas? Should there be an opportunity for lots between 8,000 and 15,000
square feet which are not clustered?
2. Calculation of Mid-Point and Density Transfer (Section 6.2 of the Land Use Element)
A "transfer of density is permitted from an open space area designated on the General
Plan, within the boundaries of a project. This density may be transferred. . .at the rate
of one dwelling unit per ten acres." The Applicant proposes that the project's mid-point
density be calculated so as to include a 18 dwelling unit transfer from designated open
space on Neighborhood "B" and a 149 dwelling unit transfer from designated open space
in Neighborhood "A", in each case to areas within Neighborhood "B". The issue is
whether the south parcel is entitled to a transfer of the 149 dwelling units from the north
parcel.
The applicant has proposed expanding Planning Area 14, located in the northeast area of
the Southern Parcel, which would add approximately 42 acres to the development area.
Staff Comments:
The following table describes the different midpoint yields depending on various
assumptions regarding the amount of area of Low Residential, additional areas of Low
Residential proposed for adjustment as part of planning area 14, and transfer of dwelling
units from the open space areas on the northern parcel designated on the General Plan.
The open space transfer of 18 units on the southern parcel only is not an issue.
;
NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSED MID- MID-POINT MID-POINT(2)
POINT(l) + AREA WITH OPEN
14(2) SPACE
TRANSFER
A (North) 357 357 357 357
B (South) 1201 1086 1113 1262
South of "H" 96 96 96 96
Street
Total 1654 1539 1566 1715
UNIT MID-POINT
Notes;
(1) The above calculations are based upon revised net acres of General Plan Low
Residential submitted by the applicant to staff on March 19, 1992. The revised
figures differ from the figures contained in the San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan.
(2) Area 14 is the large lot development in the northeast corner of the south area
for which an adjustment in the development area of approximately 42.6 acres is
being requested. '
When the Council designated a portion of the north parcel as Residential Low (during
General Plan Update), it was Staff's understanding that the Council intended to limit the
north parcel to a total development equal to the yield from the Residential Low
designation. This area is proposed for 357 dwelling units.
During the General Plan Update process, the Applicant requested staff to add an
alternative to the General Plan Update EIR to evaluate changing the preliminary General
Plan open space designation on the north parcel to Low Residential with a small
conference center retreat. The alternative was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR
and plans were submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council by San Miguel
Partners describing their development plan for the north parcel. Based upon these plans
and presentations, the preliminary General Plan was changed and staff recommended that
approximately 357 acres of Low Residential at an average density of I dulacre be added
to the north parcel at the locations requested by the Applicant. At no time during the
General Plan Update EIR evaluation nor during the discussions with San Miguel Partners,
nor during the public hearing process was there any discussion of transferring density
from the north parcel open space areas to the south parcel.
The 149 units should not be transferred to the south based upon staff's interpretation of
the Coun#til's General Plan Update action.
In addition, the applicant has proposed that in Area 14, an additiona142 acres shown as
"open space" in the Land Use Element of the General Plan should be developed with low
residential development. While there is a question as to whether such a change would
require a formal General Plan Amendment, the applicant has filed a General Plan
Amendment request.
Staff's position is that this request should be considered in the overall context of changes
proposed in the plan which deal with open space preservation, as well as specific
environmental issues pertaining to this site. Staff would be forwarding a recommendation
on this particular change following further evaluation of this site.
4
ApDlicant's Comments: At the time of the General Plan Update no limit was placed upon
the transference of open space density within the Applicant's project by the City council,
nor within the General Plan text. Applicant was not required, nor requested, at any time
during the General Plan Update by City Council to forego the ability to use the open
space density transfer as allowed by the General Plan text. For that reason, the open
space density transfer opportunity remains.
Including the Applicant's request for the planning area 14 boundary adjustment, the
midpoint density for the Residential Low area of Neighborhood "B" includes 1099
dwelling units, plus 14 units transferred from Neighborhood "B" open space and 149 units
from Neighborhood "A" open space, for a mid-point density of 1262 dwelling units. As
submitted, the project is below General Plan mid-point density.
Issue Status: To what extent, if any, can the 149 units from the open space area on the
northern parcel be utilized on the southern neighborhood of the project?
3. Establishing Residential Densities (Section 6.2 of the Land Use Element)
This section provides" the criteria used in determining the appropriate gross density for
project implementation within any given range. There is no density within the range
which is assumed to be more desirable than any other, whether that density be at the
lower or higher end of the range. In establishing densities, a primary objective is to
achieve an overall density equilibrium. This achievement of equilibrium is essential to
the promotion of order, amenity, diversity, and urban vitality. In the City's evaluation
to determine the appropriate density for a project the assumed density, in any residential
range, begins at the 'baseline density' and may move toward the upper end of the range"
based upon an evaluation of certain criteria. These include compatibility with existing and
proposed surrounding land use patterns, sensitive response to the physical characteristics
of the site, and achievement of a variety of housing types permissible within the character
of the ranje.
Staff Comment: The Staff has analyzed the plan and found the following:
a) The commercial shopping center is located too close to the rural residential uses
(minimum 1 acre lots) to the north. This causes an incompatibility with adjacent
uses.
b) The minimum lot size in Planning Areas 4 and 8 is 7,000 square feet which is
adjacent to the rural residential uses (minimum 1 acre lots) to the north. This
causes an incompatibility with adjacent uses.
5
c) On a larger scale, the overa1llot sizes of the south parcel are substantially smaller
than the predominant lot sizes in the Sweetwater Valley. This is an
incompatibility with adjacent uses in a broader sense.
d) The "sensitive response" in Section 6.2 involves the following inconsistencies:
1) The project proposes conventional mass grading of the south parcel.
2) This grading would destroy Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend rather
than preserving those landforms.
3) The plan is a conventional subdivision design with regular lotting patterns
which disregards site topography.
4) There is inadequate buffering between proposed SR-125 and residential
uses. Nine to ten foot high sound attenuation walls would be needed.
5) San Miguel Parkway produces severe grading through Horseshoe Bend
which results in visual impacts.
6) The abutting open space is not well integrated with the development.
7) The proposed development would impact and destroy environmental
resources identified in the Draft EIR as environmentally sensitive such as
the Otay Tarweed, Palmer's Grappling Hook, California Adolphia, Cactus
Wren, and California Gnatcatcher.
8) The visual quality of the graded site with single-family homes as proposed
would not be in character with the Residential Low land use category nor
: in character with the Sweetwater Valley.
The above inconsistencies with the General Plan suggest that the plan needs to be
redesigned.
Apulicant's Comment: Applicant has agreed to relocate the commercial center to south
of "H" Street as shown in the two alternatives.
Applicant has agreed to re-plan the area located next to Bonita with minimum 15,000
square foot lots, as illustrated in the two alternatives.
Applicant undertook a study of lot sizes in the Sweetwater Valley and used the results for
determining the luxury lot size in Neighborhood "a". In addition, the project is
compatible with the higher densities located to the west, proposed Bonita Meadows
6
(estimated at 3-4 DU/acre), the south, Salt Creek 1(6 DU/acre), and the southeast, Salt
Creek Ranch (3.6 DU/acre). The proposed project is substantially below the densities of
all of those projects at 1.9 units per acre. The proposed lots are consistent or
substantially in excess of the lot sizes in the Eastern Territories.
Applicant has been sensitive to the physical characteristics of the site:
a) All landforms requiring preservation by the General Plan have been preserved,
and additional areas within the General Plan which are shown as development
opportunities are also preserved (approximately 40 acres).
b) The proposed plan respects site topography by creating a number of plateaus
which match to the greatest extent possible the existing topography and minimize
visible slope banks.
c) Due to biological and engineering constraints, San Miguel Parkway can only be
located through Horseshoe Bend.
d) Substantial trails and access to open space areas have been incorporated within the
plan to integrate use of these areas for the residents.
e) The Applicant is undertaking a mitigation program in agreement with Fish and
Game and Fish and Wildlife to resolve the impact on biological resources.
Through the creation of housing on lots ranging from minimum 7,000 to one acre estate
lots, the Applicant has provided a variety of housing types permissible within the
character of the range, and in excess of that within the Eastern Territories.
Issue Status: Does the proposed plan warrant the requested mid-point density pursuant
to appli~le General Plan policies?
~
4. Clustering of Residential Development (Section 6.3 of the Land Use Element)
The General Plan encourages clustering when the project (a) preserves the natural
landform; (b) aggregates open space within the clustered development area; and (c) the
cluster design enhances land use order, visual and functional quality and livability.
Staff Comment: With respect to the above criteria, the proposed plan does not adequately
address landform preservation. The two most visible landform features on the south
parcel are Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend. These landforms are located within the
area proposed for development. Both landforms would be severely impacted by the
development.
7
The aggregation of open space within the clustered area consists of a community park,
elementary school site, and three open space wedges radiating out from the community
park. The "clustered" development has a "conventional" subdivision appearance in that
the amount of aggregated open space is relatively small (27%) in comparison to the
residential area. The recreational amenity provided is the community park.
The clustered neighborhoods appear to have the same arrangement, both visually and
functionally as the non-clustered planning areas. The design difference between the two
areas is relatively minor. '
Overall, the clustered areas do not present adequate landform preservation, aggregated
open space or design quality to be consistent with the General Plan.
Apulicant Comment: The grading of Horseshoe Bend is proposed in the Concept Plan
primarily because the area is shown as a "Residential Low" development opportunity on
the Land Use Map of the City's General Plan. The Applicant's Concept Plan attempts
to grade Horseshoe Bend in such a manner as to reflect the current landform through
development of stepped plateaus.
Additional open space has been provided through the maintenance of 21 acres of
Horseshoe Bend by Applicant, in addition to the areas mentioned by staff. The
aggregated open space at 27% of the land area compares favorably to the recent Planning
Commission approval of Salt Creek Ranch where only 12% and 19% of the area was
clustered in Neighborhoods 7B and 8 respectively.
The clustered neighborhoods have extensive greenbelt spaces through them, and additional
mini park opportunities as well as access points to the regional trail system with
approximately 1500 acres of open space in the northern area. As such, significant
additional recreational amenities have been provided beyond the central focus of the
community park and school.
.
Issue Status: Do the clustered areas as proposed constitute appropriate land planning for
this area consistent with the General Plan'?
5. Hillside Development (Section 6.5 of the Land Use Element)
The south parcel contains varying topography with approximately one-third of the site in
excess of 25 % slope, principally the landforms of Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend.
The General Plan focuses urban development on the city's mesa land. At issue is whether
an appropriate response has been made by the Applicant to the topographic features on
site.
8
Staff Comment: The proposed plan disregards the landforms and slopes on the site. The
proposed lot design is very regular. Uniform graded pads with long rows of parallel,
uniform lotting, stair-stepping up the hill from Proctor Valley Road results in an
insensitive treatment of the land. In particular, the westerly portion of the south parcel
would benefit from fitting the development to the land in a manner consistent with Section
6.5 which calls for clustered development, emphasis on existing topography, varied lot
sizes responding to the slope, irregular building placement, streets relating to existing
contours, landform grading, avoiding large cuts or fills, natural landscaping, retaining the
visual quality of the site, scale and character compatible with surrounding neighborhood,
ridges preserved and significant hillsides preserved in the natural state.
Apolicant's Comment: The General Plan very particularly states those landforms that are
required to be preserved and includes Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob within
development bubble opportunities. The Applicant has attempted to sensitively grade the
southern portion of the property including clustering development, mirroring existing
topography with its grading, varying lot sizes from a minimum of 7,000 to over 33,000
square feet, placing streets in relationship to existing contours, using landform grading,
minimizing large cuts and fIlls, and preserving all required landforms within the site. The
exhibit attached shows both the existing natural contours and the proposed grading
contours to illustrate the Applicant's efforts to reasonably match the existing topography.
The irregular size and footprint of each plateau is reflective of the landform grading
techniques employed.
Issue Status:
Has the applicant adequately considered site topography in developing the property
consistent with the General Plan?
6. Land ~elopment (Section 7.7 of the Land Use Element)
Landform grading is defmed as "a contour grading method which creates artificial slopes
'with curves and varying slope ratios designed to simulate the appearance of surrounding
natural terrain." (General Plan, page 1-52). The issue is whether the Applicant has used
landform grading techniques or conventional mass grading with standard 2: 1 slope
prof1les.
Staff Comments: The grading information submitted for Neighborhood "B" represents
conventional, mass grading with standard 2:1 slope ratios. Conventional grading is
appropriate only where "landform grading is demonstrated to be impractical or the
location of the slope is in a very low visibility situation." (General Plan, Page 1-55).
Grading is normally evaluated at the SPA Plan and Tentative Subdivision map stage,
however, the sensitivity of the topography on the south parcel requires some attention to
9
the type of grading proposed because it affects the density as well as the quality of the
proposed plan.
The south parcel is quite visible offsite. Landfonn grading has not been demonstrated to
be impractical. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Applicant's Comment: Landfonn grading "which creates artificial slopes with curves and
varying slope ratios" has been used throughout the project. Although portions of the
south parcel are visible offsite, the dominant visible landfonns include Mother Miguel
Mountain and the ridgeline separating Salt Creek Ranch from San Miguel Ranch. On
neither of these landfonns is any grading being proposed, thus no visual degradation will
occur. Assuming Horseshoe Bend may be graded, the method proposed by Applicant is
consistent with landfonn grading.
Much of Horseshoe Bend consists of slopes of 2:1 or greater steepness, making it
impossible to develop housing within the existing topography. Further, the number of
minor finger canyons also eliminates design options in dealing with the existing site. In
order to maintain a lower density overall on the project and to maximize lot sizes, thereby
producing a "significant contribution to the high quality site planning goals.. .established
overall by the General Plan," the Applicant determined the grading of Horseshoe Bend
was the preferred alternative.
Issue Status: Are the grading techniques proposed by the applicant in the Concept Plan
consistent with the General Plan?
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
As a result of numerous staff and applicant meetings, two alternative designs were created
which attempted to resolve General Plan consistency issues. Attached are exhibits
showing !he Concept Plan, Alternative 1 (preserving elements of Horseshoe Bend), and
Alternati\'e 2 (modifying the original Concept Plan). Lastly, an exhibit indicating the
proposed grading plan of the applicant compared to the existing topography is attached.
Alternative 1 is an effort to increase the amount of Horseshoe Bend preserved, although
Gobbler's Knob remains in a graded condition. Additional "luxury" lots (Le., lots in the
range of 8,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. which are not part of a cluster development) are
created through reduced grading on the top of Horseshoe Bend, and areas previously
consisting of "luxury" lots east of the main SDG&E easement are now clustered.
This alternative provides greater amounts of open space, but these are not usable as they
constitute the slopes of Horseshoe Bend. The balance of the project is more dense with
smaller lots as a result of the loss of development area, with approximately 56%
clustered. Density is below mid-point for Neighborhood 'B' at 1230 units by 32 units.
10
Development on the slopes of Horseshoe Bend is not feasible beyond that shown on the
alternative due to the steep slopes. However, the preservation of Horseshoe Bend results
in more sensitive grading in that area of the project.
Alternative 2 is based upon the initial Concept Plan submitted by Applicant with
modifications to reflect adjustments to resolve General Plan consistency issues.
Through a redesign of the roads around Horseshoe Bend, greater sensitivity in the grading
proposed has been achieved. The addition of a large lot area adjacent to Bonita now
leaves only 42 % of the project clustered. The open space areas around the cluster area
now constitute a larger percentage of the cluster development area. Density is 1262 units
in Neighborhood 'B'.
Both the alternative plans now include a preservation area for the Otay Tar Plant, a
designation of the community purpose facilities, and a mixed-use area for commercial and
affordable housing. Efforts were also made to relocate San Miguel Ranch Road from
within Horseshoe Bend; however, both biology constraints and grading issues resulted in
the retention of the road in its submitted position.
Planning Area 14 was redesigned to soften the edge with the SDG&E property, and a
large lot interface to Bonita was also included in both plans.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the purpose of this report, as stated at the outset, is to succinctly discuss
the primary issues regarding consistency of the project with the General Plan. There are
other issues involving the General Plan which are secondary in nature. Many of these
secondary issues have been discussed by Staff and Applicant and possible solutions have
been identified. However, there is a need for some resolution of the primary issues
involving. the General Plan, either through redesign of the project or alternative
interpretations andlor amendments to the General Plan.
(SMCud2,lh)
11