Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/07/12 Item 24 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 24 Meeting Date 7/12/88 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing (cont.): (a) PCS-88-7: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Ladera Vi 11 as, Chul a Vi sta Tract 88-7, located at the southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended (b) P-88-6: Consideration of precise plan for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 88-7 Resolution/3~57 Denying the tentative map for Ladera Villas Resolution Denying the precise plan for Ladera Vi 11 as SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning G~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager fHfW)/ (4J5ths Vote: Yes_No..!J This item was continued from the meeting of June 14, 1988, at the request of the app 1 i cant. The proposal involves a tentative subdivision map and precise plan for 41 single family lots and one open space lot located on 10 acres at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada (southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended). The app 1 i cati on consi de red by the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on involved 46 lots, but the density has been reduced by five lots for Council consideration in order to partially address concerns raised by staff and the Commission. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed a prior Environmental Impact Report on the property, EIR-81-1, and has prepared an Addendum thereto. The Report and Addendum, EIR-81-1A, find that the project would result in significant land form alteration and aesthetic impact adjacent to a scenic corridor (Telegraph Canyon Road). If the Council denies the map and plan as recommended, no action need be taken on EIR-81-1A. If the Council chooses to approve the proposal, EIR-8l-1A must first be certified, and CEQA Findings later adopted along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. RECOMMENDATION: That Council concur wi th the recommendati on of the Pl ann; n9 Commission. If the Council should choose to approve the proposal, we recommend a continuance to the meeting of July 26,1988, in order to prepare appropriate conditions of approval, including a condition that requires assurance from the affected school districts that adquate facilities exist to serve the subdivision. 1&-5? Page 2, Item 24 Meeting Date~ BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 11, 1988, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0 and in accordance with Resolutions PCS-88-7 and P-88-6, recommended denial of the tentative map and precise plan. DISCUSSION: The 10-acre site is located on the northerly slopes above Telegraph Canyon Road, at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada. A steep "finger" canyon whi ch drops 11 0 ft. from north to south occupies the westerly 40% of the site. Additional slopes are located to the east and south of a narrow knoll which occupies the north-central portion of the property. The average natural slope of the property is approximately 26%. The property is bounded by single-family dwellings to the west, and vacant 1 ands to the north, east and south. The si te is desi gnated on the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan for residential development at 6-8 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum allowable yield of 80 units for the 10-acre site. The ERdR Specific Plan designates adjoining areas as follows: West - residential(2-4 du/ac); North - elementary school site: East - Paseo Ranchero and junior high school site; and, South - open space. The proposal involves the creation of 41 single-family lots and one open space lot. The project is a small-lot subdivision, with 20 lots between 4,000-5,000 sq. ft., 7 lots between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft., 5 lots between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and 9 lots ranging from 7,500-19,500 sq. ft. The minimum lot size is 4,080 sq. ft., the average lot size is 6,539 sq. ft., and the median lot size is 5,040 sq. ft. Seven of the lots would front on Paseo Entrada, and a "fish hook" cul-de-sac would serve the remaining 34 lots. The map also indicates the dedication and improvement of the southerly one-half of Paseo Entrada, and the dedication of the westerly one-half of Paseo Ranchero. The project would require extensive land form modification, with total grading of 140,000 cu. yds. and "fill S" as deep as 50 ft. on the southerly boundary of the property. The 1 arger lots proposed around the end of the cul-de-sac and along the westerly boundary of the site consist of 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. pads and 2:1 slopes and will sit some 40-50 feet below the adjoining lots proposed along Paseo Entrada and the existing dwellings to the west on Paseo Ladera. The open space reservation on the southerly and easterly portions of the site is almost solely for the purpose of accommodating grading. Since the applicant does not plan to develop the project, but intends to sell the subdivided land, the precise plan submittal does not include project plans but consists of a set of development standards and a typical house layout, floor plan, and elevation (please see attached). The development standards follow the provisions of the R-l zone with exceptions for increases in lot coverage (from 40% to 50%) and the FAR (from 45% to 55%), and decreases in lot area (from 5-7,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft.), lot width (from 60 ft. to 50 ft.), and side and rear yard setbacks (from 101/31 to 51/51 for the sides, and from 201 to 151 for the rear). The typical house plans show example footprints which could comply with the standards. / &6(/ _~"...........".__,_,.".u ...,_.~__,_____,_._'_.__',.~___. Page 3, Item 24 Meeting Date~ ANALYSIS: Although the proposed density of 41 units is well below the 60-80 units authorized under the ERdR Specific Plan, the project itself does not relate well to the site or surrounding area. There are also no common amenities or information on the design and details of the ultimate deve1opment--both of which have been considered essential in approving small-lot projects in the past. The original 46-10t proposal required retaining walls between lots and angular 2:1 slopes out to the full extent of the property's boundaries. The reduction to 41 lots has allowed many of the lots to be increased in width allowing the buildings more separation from the slopes rather than constructing retaining walls. The reduction in units has also allowed some contouring of the grading adjacent to the open space corri dor on the south (p1 ease see attached for an overlay of the revised lot configuration on the original map). The proposal for a detached product at even the reduced 41-10t density, however, results in a site consisting of small pads and unusable manufactured slopes. The use of fewer but larger lots, or attached/clustered units would provide more sensitivity to the natural constraints of the site. Both the Commission and the Council have expressed concerns about the quality of the living environment and the "packed-in" appearance of small lot projects. It has been the position of staff that there is a place for such projects when compensating factors such as common facilities and/or usable open space can be incorporated into the development to provide some physical and visual relief from the increased densities, such as in EastLake and Rancho del Rey. This proposal provides no common amenities or usable open space. Another factor supporting small-lot projects in the past has been the City's ability to review and approve the entire development package, including the siting and relationship of the dwellings on the lots, the mixture and location of one- and two-story dwellings, architectural elevations, the ratio of on-street parking, and fencing and landscaping programs. These are significant issues because questions of bulk and scale and coordination become more important as dwell i ngs move closer together. Thi s i nformati on is not available for the project at hand. For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request. The City has received several letters from residents directly to the west of the site opposing the eventual connection of Paseo Entrada to Paseo Ranchero; the objection being that this connection will allow Paseo Entrada to become a throughway between Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ladera. We believe Paseo Entrada is an unlikely throughway, and the connection would relieve traffic by disbursing neighborhood traffic in two directions rather than one. In addition, the app1icant1s proposal calls for the dedication of Paseo Ranchero where it abuts the app1icant's ownership. The Planning and Engineering Departments have informed the applicant that Paseo Ranchero needs 1?J&?7 Page 4, Item 24 Meeting Date~ to be physically extended to Telegraph Canyon Road to provide access to this site and connect with existing public roads in the area. Paseo Ranchero will serve as a major road link in the future; therefore, inclusion of the road in the Facilities Benefit District may be requested. The Chula Vista City School District has just recently submitted a letter stating that no provisions have been made for educational facilities for future residents of Ladera Villas. The District claims that the current state limitation on developer fees of $0.67 per sq. ft. of habitable living space is insufficient to provide school facilities for the areas east of 1-805 which are not within a Mello-Roos Assessment District. Based on the City's commitment of assuring that adequate public facilities will be provided in compliance with the threshold policy a condition of approval needs to be added. The condition shall state that the issuance of building permits for said subdivision shall be predicated on assurances from the school districts that adequate facilities exist to serve the subdivision. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. WPC 5254P the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated I? - .' c::. '(/~ .._/U '---" COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 24 Meeting Date 7/12/88 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing (cont.): (a) PCS-88-7: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for ladera Villas, Chu1a Vista Tract 88-7, located at the southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended (b) P-88-6: Consideration of precise plan for ladera Villas, Chu1a Vista Tract 88-7 Denying the tentative map for Ladera Vi 11 as Resolution /3 t 5 f D~nying the precise plan for Ladera V, 11 as Resolution SUBMITTED BY: Oi rector of Pl anni ng G \L REV I EWED BY: c; ty Manager if k~ (4f5ths Vote: Yes _No 1..1 This item was continued from the meeting of June 14, 1988, at the request of the applicant. The proposal involves a tentative subdivision map and precise plan for 41 single family lots and one open space lot located on 10 acres at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada (southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended). The app 1 i cati on consi dered by the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on i nvo 1 ved 46 lots, but the densi ty has been reduced by fi ve lots for Counci 1 consideration in order to partially address concerns raised by staff and the Commission. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed a prior Environmental Impact Report on the property, EIR-8l -1, and has prepared an Addendum thereto. The Report and Addendum, EIR-8l-1A, find that the project would result in significant land form alteration and aesthetic impact adjacent to a scenic corridor (Telegraph Canyon Road). If the Council denies the map and plan as recommended, no action need be taken on EIR-81-1A. If the Council chooses to approve the proposal, EIR-81-1A must first be certified, and CEQA Findings later adopted along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. RECOMMENDATION: That Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. If the Council should choose to approve the proposal, we recommend a continuance to the meeting of July 26, 1988, in order to prepare appropriate conditions of approval, including a condition that requires assurance from the affected school districts that adquate facilities exist to serve the subdivision. /9t006 Page 2, Item 24 Meeting Date~ BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 11, 1988, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0 and in accordance with Resolutions PCS-88-7 and P-88-6, recommended denial of the tentative map and precise plan. DISCUSSION: The 10-acre si te is located on the northerly slopes above Tel egraph Canyon Road, at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada. A steep IIfinger" canyon whi ch drops 11 0 ft. from north to south occupi es the westerly 40% of the site. Additional slopes are located to the east and south of a narrow knoll which occupies the north-central portion of the property. The average natural slope of the property is approximately 26%. The property is bounded by single-family dwellings to the west, and vacant lands to the north, east and south. The site is designated on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan for residential development at 6-8 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum allowable yield of 80 units for the 10-acre site. The ERdR Specific Plan designates adjoining areas as follows: West - residential (2-4 du/ac); North - elementary school site: East - Paseo Ranchero and junior high school site; and, South - open space. The proposal involves the creation of 41 single-family lots and one open space lot. The project is a small-lot subdivision, with 20 lots between 4,000-5,000 sq. ft., 7 lots between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft., 5 lots between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and 9 lots ranging from 7,500-19,500 sq. ft. The minimum lot size is 4,080 sq. ft., the average lot size is 6,539 sq. ft., and the median lot size is 5,040 sq. ft. Seven of the lots would front on Paseo Entrada, and a IIfish hookll cul-de-sac would serve the remaining 34 lots. The map also indicates the dedication and improvement of the southerly one-half of Paseo Entrada, and the dedication of the westerly one-half of Paseo Ranchero. The project would require extensive land form modification, with total grading of 140,000 cu. yds. and "fi 11 s II as deep as 50 ft. on the southerly boundary of the property. The 1 arger lots proposed around the end of the cul-de-sac and along the westerly boundary of the site consist of 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. pads and 2:1 slopes and will sit some 40-50 feet below the adjoining lot~ proposed along Paseo Entrada and the existing dwellings to the west on Paseo Ladera. The open space reservation on the southerly and easterly portions of the site is almost solely for the purpose of accommodating grading. Since the applicant does not plan to develop the project, but intends to sell the subdivided land, the precise plan submittal does not include project plans but consists of a set of development standards and a typical house layout, floor plan, and elevation (please see attached). The development standards fa 11 ow the provi si ons of the R-1 zone wi th excepti ons for increases in 1 at coverage (from 40% to 50%) and the FAR (from 45% to 55%), and decreases in lot area (from 5-7,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft.), lot width (from 60 ft. to 50 ft.), and side and rear yard setbacks (from 10'/3' to 5'/5' for the sides, and from 20. to 151 for the rear). The typical house plans show example footprints which could comply with the standards. ~Jf'1"' / (/"/,() Page 3, Item 24 Meeting Date~ ANALYSIS: Although the proposed density of 41 units is well below the 60-80 units authorized under the ERdR Specific Plan, the project itself does not relate well to the site or surrounding area. There are also no common amenities or information on the design and details of the ultimate development--both of which have been considered essential in approving small-lot projects in the past. The original 46-lot proposal required retaining walls between lots and angular 2:1 slopes out to the full extent of the property's boundaries. The reduction to 41 lots has allowed many of the lots to be increased in width allowing the buildings more separation from the slopes rather than constructing retaining walls. The reduction in units has also allowed some contouring of the grading adjacent to the open space corridor on the south (please see attached for an overlay of the revised lot configuration on the original map). The proposal for a detached product at even the reduced 41-10t density, however, results in a site consisting of small pads and unusable manufactured slopes. The use of fewer but larger lots, or attached/clustered units would provide more sensitivity to the natural constraints of the site. Both the Commission and the Council have expressed concerns about the quality of the living environment and the "packed-in" appearance of small lot projects. It has been the position of staff that there is a place for such projects when compensating factors such as common fadl ities and/or usable open space can be incorporated into the development to provide some physical and visual relief from the increased densities, such as in EastLake and Rancho del Rey. This proposal provides no common amenities or usable open space. Another factor supporting small-lot projects in the past has been the City's ability to review and approve the entire development package, including the siting and relationship of the dwellings on the lots, the mixture and location of one- and two-story dwellings, architectural elevations, the ratio of on-street parking, and fencing and landscaping programs. These are significant issues because questions of bulk and scale and coordination become more important as dwell ings move closer together. Thi s informati on is not available for the project at hand. For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request. The City has received several letters from residents directly to the west of the site opposing the eventual connection of Paseo Entrada to Paseo Ranchero; the objection being that this connection will allow Paseo Entrada to become a throughway between Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ladera. We believe Paseo Entrada is an unlikely throughway, and the connection would relieve traffic by disbursing neighborhood traffic in two directions rather than one. In addition, the applicant's proposal calls for the dedication of Paseo Ranchero where it abuts the applicant's ownership. The Planning and Engineering Departments have informed the applicant that Paseo Ranchero needs 1t2/.. <"-c. . :/..9 t?c-.-' Page 4, Item 24 Meeting Date~ to be physically extended to Telegraph Canyon Road to provide access to this site and connect with existing public roads in the area. Paseo Ranchero will serve as a major road link in the future; therefore, inclusion of the road in the Facilities Benefit District may be requested. The Chul a Vi sta Ci ty School Di stri ct has just recently submi tted a 1 etter stating that no provisions have been made for educational facilities for future residents of Ladera Villas. The District claims that the current state limitation on developer fees of $0.67 per sq. ft. of habitable living space is insufficient to provide school facilities for the areas east of 1-805 which are not within a Mello-Roos Assessment District. Based on the City's commitment of assuring that adequate public facilities will be provided in compliance with the threshold policy a condition of approval needs to be added. The condition shall state that the issuance of building permits for said subdivision shall be predicated on assurances from the school districts that adequate facilities exist to serve the subdivision. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. WPC 5254P b the City Council of Chula Vista, California t ?J(;fJ6 Dated