Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/05/27 Item 05, 05a, 5bip ~.. , , COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT s sa b ~- b Item ~r=$=~=>3 _ s/2~/so Meeting Date =r1--~/~ Public hearing.- Consideration of development plan for Ranchero ec Iona ITEM TITLE: Planning Area and tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 80=5, El Rancho del Rey Unit 6 Resolution /o/ea,- Approving development plan for Ranchero ;Sectional Planning Area Resolution /o/v3 -Approving tentative map for El Rancho del Rey Unit 6 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~ (4/5th's Vote: Yes_ No X ) A. BACKGROUND ~ 1. The applicant has submitted a Sectional Planning Area plan for the development of the Ranchero area of El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan located north of Telegraph Canyon Road approximately one-half mile east of I-805. For the Council's information, plats are enclosed to give comparisons between the adopted plan for the Ranchero,Sectional Planning Area and the applicant';s proposal. I 2. The applicant has filed a letter registering general concurrence with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. 3. The developer has filed a tentative map, identified as E1 Rancho del Rey Unit'6 and is proposing to subdivide approximately 181 acres as follows: 140 single family lots (6,000-7,000 sq. ft. range) 78 couplet lots (approximately 4500 sq. ft. each) 151 zero lot line aprcels (4800 sq. ft. minimum) 1 one acre commercial lot 1 two acre (usable) church site 1 five+ acre park site 6 open space lots 4. Environmental Impact Report, EIR-80-5, was certified by the P1aanning Commission on January 9, 1980 and is an earlier item on this Council agenda together with candidate CEQA findings. ~ B. RECOMMENDATION ~ 1. Adopt a resolution approving the development plan for the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area of El Rancho del Rey in accordance with Planning' Commission Resolution PCM-80-7. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative subdivision map for; Chula Vista Tract 80-5, El Rancho del Rey Unit 6, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCS-80-5 with the exception that: Street names shall be considered for approval prior to or concurrent with consideration of the final map, and contingent upon Council's approval of a plan for the provision of 37 low or moderate income housing units. C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ~ On April 9, 1980 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-1, recommended that the City Council approve the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area plan in accordance with Resolution PCM-80-7 and the tentative subdivision map in accordance with Resolution PCS-80-5. I /O 1 ~ 2 ~ Continued Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) EXHIBITS Agreement Resolution~~ Ordinance Plats 4 Notification List Res.PCM-80-7 - Other Res.PCS-80-5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on I o++o~ Tent. Map . ~ , 5, sa,b Page 2, Item. ^ -~-~ 5/27/80 Meeting Date -588• D. DISCUSSION ' 1. E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. ~ The Ranchero Sectional Planning Area portion of the El Rancho del Rey Plan contains approximately 180 acres. The various land use elements of the adopted El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan for this area are as follows: i Land Use Acres High School 52 Residential 2-3 DU/acre 81 Open Space 32 ~~1ajor Streets 15 180 total Applicant's proposed Sectional Planning Area plan. a. The applicant has drawn up an alternate plan which utilizes the 52 acre high school site with a density of 3 dwelling units per acre. This change would allow fora maximum density within the Sectional Planning Area of 399 dwelling units (81 acres at 3 dwelling units, plus 52 acres at 3 dwelling units = 399). The subdivision of the property provides for 369 dwelling units with a 10 acre parcel not owned by the applicant excluded. The topography and configuration of the 10 acre site is such that a standard subdivision of single family lots would likely result in a yield of 40-43 lots on the parcel, thus development of the 10 acres would exceed the overall range of 3 dwelling units per acre. This yield is pretty well established by the street alignments and lotting pattern proposed for the adjacent Gersten property. The~fact that the density on a particular 10 acres may exceed the "permitted" density is of no great concern as long as the overall holding"capacity of the Sectional Planning Area is observed. Even this holding capacity as determined on the E1 Rancho del Rey Plan is~subject to some adjustment as more precise planning and design work is accomplished in an area. Based on the applicant's plan, the Planning Commission recommended that the holding capacity of the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area be limited to 415 units, should the Sweetwater Union High School District elect not to acquire the high school site. b. The applicant's plan also includes a one acre neighborhod commercial site, a two acre church site and a 5+ acre park site. 3. Comparison of plans. a. As of this date the Sweetwater Union High School District has neither reached a dec is ion as to the desirability of the high school site nor have they submitted the evidence of overcrowding as required 6y ordinance if they intend~to ask the applicant to dedicate the site. The applicant's plan 'is providing fora residential density consistent with the adopted density for the adjoining areas within the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area. The Chula Vista Elementary School District has submitted school agreements to the developer, but as of thi's date they have not received a sign agreement. No evidence of overcrowding has been supplied by the elementary district. I /~ I ~ Z II Continued S,Sa,b ;Page 3, Item "~'a-~'$' /z~/so Meeting Date -5~}-3f86 b. Environmental constraints identified on a portion of the proposed high school site effectively reduces the usable area below 35 acres rendering the site questionable for high school use. The applicant's Sectional Planning Area plan shows the high school site approximately 400 feet from "J" Street which would leave the district with a maximum usable area of approximately 25 acres. j c. The staff requested that the applicant explore areas which could accommodate a church or a small commercial building to serve the Sectional Planning Area. The text of the Specific Plan indicates that, while not shown on the Specific Plan map, mini- centers of about 1%Z acres in size would be allowed in appropriate locations. The applicant's proposal to locate a small commercial site on the cornerof "J" and Paseo Del Rey offers a convenient site to serve the area. The church site located across from the commercial area represents an orderly land use addition to the Sictional Planning Area. d. A proposed park would be located in part within the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. It should be noted that Council's decision several years ago not to acquire the park within the Ladera Sectional Planning Area was made with the~lunderstanding that an alternate site would be selected at a later date. It is the opinion of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Director of Planning that this site provides a good alternate Tocation. 'The proposed equestrian trail shown on the adopted El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan follows the San"Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. This Sectional Planning Area plan will allow for the continuation of the trail. ii e. The applicant's plan not only preserves all of the area identified in the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area as open space but, in addition, preserves other areas since much of the proposed development will be confined to the smaller split duplex and zero lot line lots (refer to applicant's plan). The plan has over twice as much open space (some graded) as outlined in the approved E7 Rancho del Rey SpecificjPlan. 4. Circulation. "J" Street will be extended from west to east through the project with the exception of a 10 acre "out parcel.:' Since the owner of the 10 acre parcel does not wish to pursue development at this time, the developer of El Rancho del Rey Unit 6 ,has designed a road alignment which provides for acceptable access to serve the subdivision without extending "J" Street. This alternate road alignment represents a re]atively short term solution. It is my opinion that future developments lying east of El Rancho dell Rey Unit 6 will be contingent upon the completion of East "J" Street through the 10 acre "out parcel." There are two major residential collector roads running north-south .to serve this subdivision. Paseo Ladera, which lies on the easterly extremity, willl be 50 feet wide, curb to curb, with only a'Yimited number of lots (5) siding on the road. The other collector is Paseo Del Rey which is also 50 feet wide and which willbe extended from "J" Street to "H" Street to provide the necessary linkage with the recently approved Rice Canyon development. The northerly 450 feet of Paseo Del Rey represents an offsite improvement located within a designated open space in the adjoining ',Del Rey Sectional Planning Area. The area is owned by the applicant. "J" Street, Paseo Ladera, and Paseo Del Rey will have sufficient width to accommodate bike lanes. Continued /vl~z S,Sa,b Page 4, Item ~~r Meeting Date ~-6E} 5. Street names. The Planning Commission recommended that street names be submitted for City Council approval during the tentative map April 30 which does not allow sufficient city departments. Therefore, street name prior to or concurrent with the final map Lots. process. The developer submitted names on time for review and input from the concerned s will be submitted for City Council approval approval. ~ I I In addition to the one acre commercial site and the two acre church site, there are three basic lot types proposed for this subdivision. 1 a. Standard - There are 140 standard 7,000 sq. ft. lots, with a minimal number (less than 10%) which have less than 7,000 sq. ft. or 60 feet of frontage (not including cul-de-sac lots). The standard R-1-7 zone allows up to 30% of the lots to be less than 7,000 sq. ft. These lots will be confined to parcels facing onto "J" Street or lying north of "J" Street and the inclusion of nine lots on street "N". Five of the lots located near the western end of the subdivision are being created by combining land in this development with remnant parcels created by a previous subdivision (South Bay Villas). The resulting lots create a very logical development pattern; however, the owner of the land has not'sold or signed this map. Therefore, the lots will have to be deleted unless this can be accomplished prior to City Council consideration of the map. b. Couplets - Seventy-eight couplet or split duplex lots (typically 45' x 110') are proposed south of "J" Street and west of the planned neighborhood park. The lots are the same basic size as the couplet lots created;in the E1 Rancho del Rey #5 subdivision (adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road) except that the lots within this subdivision are flat as opposed to the split level design in Unit #5. c. Zero Lot Line - 751 lots measuring an average 48' x 1001 will be located in the southeast quadrant of the map. Each lot is designed to accommodate a house which is located on one side property line (except for corner lots)~ileaving a 10-15 foot wide setback on the opposite side. Since the eaves of each unit will project onto the adjoining lot, 'access, drainage and maintenance easements must be recorded with the final map. The purpose of the.zero lot line parcel is to combine the normally two unusable side yards into one side yard with sufficientwidth to be useful. Rain gutters and downspouts are being required to minimize, drainage problems on adjoining lots. Annexation, The northerly half of this site is located outside the city annexed prior to any approval of the final map. /orUz II limits and must be i Continued S,Sa,b Page 5, Item ~' Meeting Date ~0 8. Open Space - Easements and dedication, The City has traditionally required the designated open space areas to be dedicated to the City to insure consistent maintenance of landscaped slopes, as well as the retention of the area forever as open space. While some areas within the subdivision lend themselves well to the traditional method, many lots being created along the north rim of the south leg of Rice Canyon offer another opportunity. The developer is pro- posing to retain the majority of the area within the boundaries of individual lots. ~;dith the exception of the pad area and a 25 ft. distance out from the pad (proposed by staff) no grading, fencing, or construction of structures would be allowed and an open space easement would be recorded to insure the permanence of the open space. The Planning Commission recommended that several lots with a manufactured slope exposed to southbound traffic on Paseo Del Rey be included within the maintenance district'to insure landscape maintenance. i 9. Park site. Based upon the city's park dedication ordinance and the RCT fees', the developer is obligated for 2.64 acres of developed park land or fees as determined by ordinance. As noted in the Sectional Planning Area plan, a park site was not originally contemplated vaithin this development, however, a park site was not acquired in an adjoining Sectional Planning Area, the opportunity to utilize a portion of the SDG&E easement in conjunction with additional dedication will result in a usable park. The developer is also obligated for RCT fees upon the issuance of building permits. The Planning Department and the Director of Parks and Recreation have met with the developer in an a,'ttempt to work out an agreement wherein the developer would grade and dedicate a 5.3 acre park site, supply the City with street improvements and cash to help build the park; 3'.44 acres of this land is of little value to the developer as it is encumbered by the SDG&E easement. The developer is obligated to retain the 3.44 acres as permaent open space in conjunction with the approved Ranchero°Sectional Planning Area. ~ PAD and RCT fees are calcualted as follows: Dedication for 106 single family homes @ 322 sq. ft. = 1.86 acres. (The 1.86 acres represents the area outside of the SDG&E easement.) Thus, the remaining 85 single family and 78 couplet units are calculated on the basis of: 85 single family @ $130. $ 11,050. 78 couplet @ $100. 7,800 Improvement costs of $100 X 369 units 36,900. In addition, RCT fees would equal: Average 3 bedroom, $500 X 291 single family 145,500. Average 3 bedroom, $524 X 78 couplet 33,150. $ 234,400. PJote: If the school district decides to use the high school site, these fees will be adjusted based on the reduction of dwelling units. i ~I /O ~O .~ ~ Continued S,Sa,b Page 6, Item, "3'~"'~'}' s/z~/8o Meeting Date 5/13/-89- 10. Architecture and development standards, a. In addition to 140 standard single family units, the 78 "couplet" or split duplex units and 151 zero lot line houses. have been included which para11e1 many of the standards set forth ance with°the following exceptions: (1) Single family detached Present R-1 zone Minimum front yard setback P1inimum lot area 7,000 sq. 6,000 sq, 5,000 sq. Minimum width Lot coverage Exterior side yard 15' ft. (with . ft. and ft. allow 60' 40% 10' applicant is Development in the City Ranchero Standards 35' from "J" Street 20% 6,000 sq. ft .' 10% ~ ~d) 58' 45% 20' from "J" Street I (2) Single family attached_(couplet or split-duplex) Present R-2-T zone Maximum lot coverage 50% Combination of one/two car garage Additions - no restriction an 2-story 40% 2-car garage~,required Additions limited to proposing standards Zoning Ordin- single story (3) Zero Lot Line Houses Present R-1-5 zone ~ Minimum lot area 5,000 sq. ft. 4,800 sq. ft~ ' Lot width 50' 48' Lot coverage 40% 45% No restriction against garage conversions Conversions riot permitted No restriction against second story addition Second story additions not permitted Front setback 15' 30' requiredlfor "J" Street b. Development standards for the church site and the neighborhood commercial area have also been included and basically relate to existing ordinance standards. ~ c. The architecture proposed for the couplet homes is Spanish with a barrel t le roof and stucco exterior. The roof line has been broken to create a variety of attractive offsets. Small pane windows will be used giving this architecture a much richer appearance. There are four different floor plans ranging from 1200+ sq. ft. to 1800+ sq. ft. The main living area occupies the first floor with 1-4 bedrooms planned for the second floors, depending on the floor plan. The 30' couplet unit retains a minimum 10' side yard on one side and a 15' minimum rear yard. i The zero lot line units have two basic architectural styles and four floor plans. Two of the models are a Spanish design similar to the; architecture for the couplets with the exception that one model is single story. The other two models are more in the Cape Cod tradition emphasizing shiplap siding and stone~or brick veneer accent. The floor plans range from 1300 sq. ft. to over 1800 sq. ft. The typical house ~ is 30 feet wide, leaving 10-15 feet of land on one side yard and zero on the other. The minimum rear yard is 15 feet. ~p~~z Continued 5 Sa,b Page 7, Item.-~-~-~' s/~~/so , P1eeting Date ~-13f89- Although no designs have been submitted for fencing or walls, the applicant has shown partial walls in the entry areas which carry forth the architectural style of the buildings. The Planning Commission required that an overall fencing and wall plan be submitted for staff approval prior to City Council action on the Sectional Planning Area plan. ~~, Some of the garages in both the zero lot and couplet units measure less than 20 feet in width ('the city's standard fora two-car garage). It should be noted that all garages are required to be increased to comply with the 20jfoot minimum. No architectural submittal for Planning Commission and City Council review will be required for the standard single family lots. However, the'ifuture development of the neighborhood commercial and religious site will require submissions for Planning Commission and City Council approval. 12. Low and Moderate Income Housing P4r. Dick Brown, representing the applicant on this item, has proposed seven alter- native methods of providing some low or moderate income units to satisfy the Housing Element of the General Plan. (See his letter dated April 2, 1980.) Each of the alterna- tives has some disadvantages, but from a land use planning standpoint, alternative No. 5 has the least significant problems. That alternative suggests that the 8Z acre site owned by the Gersten Company at Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion be devoted to Section 8 housing. If that alternative is not acceptable to Council, it would be appro- priate to require the applicant to provide 10% of his units as low or moderate income units within the development. Opportunities to do this exist in several locations along "J" Street by the elimination of a cul-de-sac and substitution of an apartment or condo- minium development for single family lots. The Planning Department would be willing to recommend a moderate density increase in order to accomplish this. At the time of writing this report, these matters have not been ;resolved with the applicant. At the May 13 Council meeting an oral report will be made on the progress of this matter. At that time, the following options would be available to Council: a. Deny the map on the basis of nonconformance with the the General Plan. b. Establish a condition of approval indicating that Counc the final map until such time as the applicant has prep< moderate income housing plan acceptable to Council. c. Approve one or more of the alternatives described in Mr. of April 2, 1980. d. Require the provision of 37 low or moderate income unit del Rey Unit 6. At the May 13 meeting the Departments recommend a modification to condition No. resolution, PCS-80-5. ~ FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable. OJP: KGL: hm ~Ol ~ ~ of Planning and Communi 2 on page 4 of the Plar .v ~v-vi-~ - - 9~h by t- „e Ci;y r~;_ ncisl ofr Chula Vista, Caii'icri:ia Dated ~ -3- ing Element of 1 will not approve fired a low and Brown's letter within El Rancho Development may ,. r ......... ......... ~ 5y the City Council Chula Vista, Califon ~ a --~U ~$ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ s, sa,b Item ~r=~=~=13 _ s/z~/so Meeting Date ~~~ Public hearing - Consideration of development plan for Ranchero ec ion ITEM TITLE: Planning Area and tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 80~~5, El Rancho del Rey Unit 6 Resolution /O~O,Z- Approving development plan for RancheroiSectional Planning Area Resolution /0/03 - Approving tentative map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 6 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planningr j ~' (4/5th~s Vote: Yes_ No X ) A. BACKGROUND L`-~~~ 1. The applicant has submitted a Sectional Planning Area plan for~the development of the Ranchero area of El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan located north of Telegraph Canyon Road approximately one-half mile east of I-805. For the Council's information, plats are enclosed to give comparisons between the adopted plan for the RancheroSectional Planning Area and the applicant's proposal. 2. The applicant has filed a letter registering general concurren El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. 3. The developer has filed a tentative map, identified as E1 Ran and is proposing to subdivide approximately 181 acres as follows: 140 single family lots (6,000-7,000 sq. ft. range) 78 couplet lots. (approximately 4500 sq. ft. each) 151 zero lot line aprcels (4800 sq. ft. minimum) 1 one acre commercial lot 1 two acre (usable) church site 1 five+ acre park site 6 open space lots 4. Environmental Impact Report, EIR-80-5, was certified by the Pl< on January 9, 1980 and is an earlier item on this Council agenda togetl CEQA findings. B. RECOMMENDATION with the del Rey Unit 6 nning Commission ier with candidate Adopt a resolution approving the development plan for the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area of E1 Rancho del Rey in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCP~1-80-7. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative subdivision map forlChula Vista Tract 80-5, E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 6, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCS-80-5 with the exception that: Street names shall be considered for approval prior to or concurrent with consideration of the final map, and contingent upon Council's approval of a plan for the provision of 37 low or moderate income housing units. I C PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 0n April 9, 1980 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-l, recomm City Council approve the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area plan in acco Resolution PCM-80-7 and the tentative subdivision map in accordance wi PCS-80-5. 1UI~3 Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) ed that the nce with Resolution Continued 5, Sa,b Page 2, Item ~-5- s/z~/so Meeting Date ~j`89- DISCUSSION 1. El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The Ranchero Sectional Planning Area portion of the El Rancho de approximately 180 acres. The various land use elements of the adopt Specific Plan for this area are as follows: Land Use Acres High School 52 Residential 2-3 DU/acre 81 Open Space 32 Piajor Streets 15 180 total Applicant's proposed Sectional Planning Area plan. Rey Plan contains El Rancho del Rey a. The applicant has drawn up an alternate plan which utilizes the 52 acre high school site with a density of 3 dwelling units per acre. This change would allow fora maximum density within the Sectional Planning Area of 399 dwelling units (81 acres at 3 dwelling units, plus 52 acres at 3 dwelling units = 399). The subdivision of the property provides for 369 dwelling units with a 10 acre parcel not owned by the applicant excluded. The topography and configuration of the 10 acre site is such that a standard subdivision of single family lots would likely result in a yield of 40-43 lots on the parcel, thus development of the 10 acres would exceed the overall range of 3 dwelling units per acre. This yield is pretty well established bythe street alignments and lotting pattern proposed for the adjacent Gersten property. The fact that the density on a particular 10 acres may exceed the "permitted" density is of nogreat concern as long as the overall holding capacity of the Sectional Planning Area is observed. Even this holding capacity as determined on the El Rancho del Rey Plan is~subject to some adjustment as more precise planning and design work is accomplished in an area. Based on the applicant's plan, the Planning Commission recommended that the holding capacity of the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area be limited to 415 units, should the Sweetwater Union High School District elect not to acquire the high school situ b. The applicant's plan also includes a one acre neighborhood commercial site, a two acre church site and a 5+ acre park site. Comparison of plans. a. As of this date the Sweetwater Union High School District has neither reached a decision as to the desirability of the high school site nor have they submitted the evidence of overcrowding as required by ordinance if they intendto ask the applicant to dedicate the site. The applicant's plan is providing fora residential density consistent with the adopted density for the adjoining areas within the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area. The Chula Vista Elementary School District has submitted school agreements to the developer, but as of this date they have not received a sign agreement. No evidence of overcrowding has been supplied by the elementary district. Continued ~'U l~3 S,Sa,b 'Page 3, Item _~'~"B' S/27/80 ;Meeting Date §{}3f8b b. Environmental constraints identified on a portion of theproposed high school site effectively reduces the usable area below 35 acres rendering the site questionable for high school use. The applicant's Sectional Planning Area plan shows 'the high school site approximately 400 feet from "J" Street which would leave the district with a maximum usable area of approximately 25 acres. c. The staff requested that the applicant explore areas which could accommodate a church or a small commercial building to serve the Sectional Planning Area. The text of the Specific Plan indicates that, while not shown on the SpecificPlan map, mini- centers of about l~z acres in size would be allowed in appropriate locations. The applicant's proposal to locate a small commercial site on the corner of "J" and Pasco ,, Del Rey offers a convenient site to serve the area. The church site located across from the commercial area represents an orderly land use addition to the Sectional Planning Area. d. A proposed park would be located in part within the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. It should be noted that Council's decision several years ago not to acquire the park within the Ladera Sectional Planning Area was made with theunderstandii5g that an alternate site would be selected at a later date. It is the opinion of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Director of Planning that this site provides a good alternate location. The proposed equestrian trail shown on the adopted E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan follows the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. This Sectional Planning Area plan will allow for the continuation of the trail. e. The applicant's plan not only preserves all of the area identified in the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area as open space but, in addition, preserves other areas since much of the proposed development will be confined to the smaller split duplex and zero lot line lots (refer to applicant's plan). The plan has over twice as much open space (some graded) as outlined in the approved El Rancho del Rey SpecificlPlan. 4. Circulation. "J" Street will be extended from west to east through the projec of a 10 acre "out parcel.'.' Since the owner of the 10 acre parcel do development at this time, the developer of E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 6 alignment which provides for acceptable access to serve the subdivis "J" Street. This alternate road alignment represents a relatively s It is my opinion that future developments lying east of E1 Rancho de contingent upon the completion of East "J" Street through the 10 acr There are two major residential- collector roads running north-south subdivision. Pasco Ladera, which lies on the easterly extremity, wi curb to curb, with only a limited number of lots (5) siding on the r collector is Pasco Del Rey which is also 50 feet wide and which will "J" Street to "H" Street to provide the necessary linkage with the r P.ice Canyon development. The northerly 450 feet of Pasco Del Rey re improvement located within a designated open space in the adjoining Planning Area. The area is owned by the applicant. "J" Street, Pay Del Rey will have sufficient width to accommodate bike lanes. with the exception 's not wish to pursue ias designed a road ion without extending sort term solution. I Rey Unit 6 will be "out parcel." .o serve this Il be 50 feet wide, gad. The other be extended from =cently approved presents an offsite ]el Rey Sectional =_o Ladera, and Pasco Continued Lp~~~ ~ S,Sa.,b ' Page 4, Item = a--a~' ~~ ~~ Meeting Date ~13f8& ' 5. Street names. The Planning Commission recommended that street names be submitted for City Council approval during the tentative map process. The developer submitted names on April 30 which does not allow sufficient time for review and input from the concerned city departments. Therefore, street names will be submitted for City Council approval prior to or concurrent with the final map approval. ii 6. Lots.. In addition to the one acre commercial site and the two acre church site, there are three basic lot types proposed for this subdivision. a. Standard - There are 140 standard 7,000 sq. ft. lots, with a minimal number (less than 10%) which have less than 7,000 sq. ft. or 60 feet of frontage (not including cul-de-sac lots). The standard R-1-7 zone allows upto 30% of the lots to be less than 7,000 sq. ft. These lots will be confined to parcels facing onto "J" Street or lying north of "J" Street and the inclusion of nine lots on street "N". Five of the lots located near the western end of the subdivision are being created by combining 'l and in this development with remnant parcels created by a previous subdivision (South Bay Villas). The resulting lots create a very logical development pattern; however, the owner of the land has notsold or signed this map. Therefore, the lots will have to be deleted unless this can be accomplished prior to City Council consideration of the map. b. Couplets - Seventy-eight couplet or split duplex lots (typically 45' x 110') are proposed south of "J" Street and west of the planned neighborhood park. The lots are the same basic size as the couplet lots created in the El Rancho del Rey #5 subdivision (adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road) except that the lots within this subdivision are flat as opposed to the split level design in Unit #5. c. Zero Lot Line - 151 lots measuring an average 48' x 100 in the southeast quadrant of the map. Each lot is designed to acco which is located on one side property line (except for corner lots) foot wide setback on the opposite side. Since the eaves of each un onto the adjoining lot, access, drainage and maintenance easements with the final map. The purpose of the zero lot line parcel is to normally two unusable side yards into one side yard with sufficient useful. Rain gutters and downspouts are being required to minimize problems on adjoining lots. 7. Annexation. The northerly half of this site is located outside the city li annexed prior to any approval of the final map. ~~ i ~3 will be located imodate a house leaving a 10-15 t will project lust be recorded :ombine the width to be drainage 'ts and must be Continued ! S,Sa,b Page 5, Item ~-~-b- Meeting Date ~0 ~. Open Space - Easements and dedication. The City has traditionally required 'the designated open space arf to the City to insure consistent maintenance of landscaped slopes, t retention of the area forever as open space. While some areas withii lend themselves well to the traditional method, many lots being crew rim of the south leg of Rice Canyon offer another opportunity. The ~ posing to retain the majority of the area within the boundaries of ii b,'ith the exception of the pad area and a 25 ft. distance out from the staff) no grading, fencing, or construction of structures would be a space easement would be recorded to insure the permanence of the opei Commission recommended that several lots with a manufactured slope e: traffic on Paseo Del Rey be included within the maintenance district maintenance. 9. Park site. Based upon the city's park dedication ordinance and the RCT fees obligated for 2.64 acres of developed park land or fees as determine noted in the Sectional Planning Area plan, a park site was not origi urithin this development, however, a park site was not acquired in an Planning Area, the opportunity to utilize a portion of the SDGSE eas with additional dedication will result in a usable park. The develo for RCT fees upon the issuance of building permits. The Planning De Director of Parks and Recreation have met with the developer in an a an agreement wherein the developer would grade and dedicate a 5.3 ac the City with street improvements and cash to help build the park; 3 land is of little value to the developer as it is encumbered by the developer is obligated to retain the 3.44 acres as permaent open spa with the approved Ranchero Sectional Planning Area. PAD and RCT fees are calcuaated as follows: Dedication for 106 single family homes @ 322 sq. ft. _ represents the area outside of the SDG&E easement.) Thus, family and 78 couplet units are calculated on the basis of: 85 single family @ $130. $ 11,050. 78 couplet @ $100. 7,800 Improvement costs of $100 X 369 units 36,900. In addition, RCT fees would equal: 'as to be dedicated is well as the i the subdivision :ed along the north ieveloper is pro- idividual lots. pad (proposed by M owed and an open i space. The Planning-~ <posed to southbound to insure landscape the developer is I by ordinance. As sally contemplated adjoining Sectional °ment in conjunction per is also obligated ~artment and the :tempt to work out 'e park site, supply .44 acres of this iDG&E easement. The :e in conjunction 1.86 acre's. (The 1.86 acres the remaining 85 single Average 3 bedroom, $500 X 291 single family 145,500. Average 3 bedroom, $524 X 78 couplet 33,150. $ 234,400. ;dote: If the school district decides to use the high school site, adjusted based on the reduction of dwelling units. ~Dlv~ hese fees will be Continued ~ S,Sa,b Page 6, Iteiii -'~"~T'{' s/z~,so Meeting Date 573/-~9~ 10. Architecture and development standards. a. In addition to 140 standard single family units, the applicant is proposing 78 "couplet" or split duplex units and 151 zero lot line houses. Development standards have been included which parallel many of the standards set forth in the City Zoning Ordin- ance with the following exceptions: (1) Single family detached Present R-1 zone Ranchero Stan dards Minimum front yard setback 15' 35' from "J" Street Minimum lot a rea 7,000 sq.ft. (with 20% 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq.. ft. and 10% 5,000 sq.ft. allowed) Minimum width 60' S8' Lot coverage 40°j 45% Exterior side yard 10' 20' from "J" Street (2) Single family attached (couplet or split-duplex) Present R-2-T zone Maximum lot coverage 50% 40% Combination of one/two car garage 2-car garage (required Additions - no restriction on 2-story Additions limited to single story (3) Zero Lot Line Houses Present R-1-5 zone Minimum lot area Lot width Lot coverage No restriction against No restriction against Front setback 5,000 sq. ft. 50' 40% garage conversions second story addition 15' 4,800 sq. ft. 48' 45% Conversions not permitted Second story additions not permitted! 30' required for "J" Street b. Development standards for the church site and the neighborhood commercial area have also been included and basically relate to existing ordinance standards. c. The architecture proposed for the couplet homes is Spanish with a barrel t he roof and stucco exterior. The roof line has been broken to create a variety of attractive offsets. Small pane windows will be used giving this architecture a much richer appearance. There are four different floor plans ranging from 1200+ sq. ft. to 1800+ sq. ft. The main living area occupies the first floor with 1-4 bedrooms planned for the second floors, depending on the floor plan. The 30' couplet unit retains a minimum 10' side yard on one side and a 15' minimum rear yard. The zero lot line units have two basic architectural styles and four floor plans. Two of the models are a Spanish design similar to the~iarchitecture for the couplets with the exception that one model is single story. The other two models are more in the Cape Cod tradition emphasizing shiplap siding and stoneior brick veneer accent. The floor plans range from 1300 sq. ft. to over 1800 sq. ft. The typical house is 30 feet wide, leaving 10-15 feet of land on one side yard and zero on the other. The minimum rear yard is 15 feet. Continued 1~~~3 ` S Sa,b Page 7, Item ~ -~--~ 5/27;'80 Meeting Date ~f$H- Although no designs have been submitted for fencing or walls, the applicant has shown partial walls in the entry areas which carry forth the architectural style of the buildings. The Planning Commission required that an overall fencing and wall plan be submitted for staff approval prior to City Council action oni the Sectional Planning Area plan. Some of the garages in both the zero lot and couplet units measure less than 20 feet in width (the city's standard fora two-car garage). Iit should be noted that all garages are required to be increased to comply with the 20 ~Ifoot minimum. No architectural submittal for Planning Commission and City Council review will be required for the standard single family lots. However, the ~Ifuture development of the neighborhood commercial and religious site will require submissions for Planning Commission and City Council approval. ~ 12. Low and moderate Income Housing for. Dick brown, representing the applicant on this item, has proposed seven alter- native methods of providing some low or moderate income units to satisfy the Housing Element of the General Plan. (See his letter dated April 2, 1980.) Each of the alterna- tives has some disadvantages, but from a land use planning standpoint, alternative No. 5 has the least significant problems. That alternative suggests that the 8'~ acre site owned by the Gersten Company at Telegraph Canyon Road and Nation be devoted to Section 8 housing. If that alternative is not acceptable to Council, it would be appro- priate to require the applicant to provide 10% of his units as low or moderate income units within the development. Opportunities to do this exist in several locations along "J" Street by the elimination of a cul-de-sac and substitution of an apartment or condo- minium development for single family lots. The Planning Departmentiwould be willing to recommend a moderate density increase in order to accomplish this. At the time of writing this report, these matters have not been resolved with the applicant. At the May 13 Council meeting an oral report will be made on the progress of this matter. At that time, the following options would be available to Council: a. Deny the map on the basis of nonconformance with the Housing Element of the General Plan. b. Establish a condition of approval indicating that Council will not approve the final map until such time as the applicant has prepared a low and moderate income housing plan acceptable to Council. ~ c. Approve one or more of the alternatives described in Mr Brown's letter of April 2, 1980. d. Require the provision of 37 low or moderate income uniti within El Rancho del Rey Unit 6. ~ At the May 13 meeting the Departments recommend a modification to condition No. resolution, PCS-80-5. FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable. of Planning and Communi 2 on Wage 4 of the Plan .~/r GJ11s_~l e~ by tl':'~ r'. until ct Chu!a Vita, C~sii;,,,,ia ssrom's~_ by the City Counap Chula Vista, Ca4(if/or .~a °~~ Dated ~- DJ P:KGL:hm / ~l~ Dated ~ S~/3--~~ i `I y Sweetwater Union High School Distr,.ict~.. p,~... y.. ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE l~U~ ~,1~~+ _t7 ~4~~~ I(t, C CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011 I U J U J ~1a a2s-1~oo EARL W. DENTON DISTRICT SNPERINTENDENT May 6, 1980 Chula Vista City Cotmcil 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 GiT~ fl~ ti,i}i ti`{an I I I -~`,~~. Dear Council Members: I Tlxe Sweetwater Union High School District has keen contacted by Mr. Carmen Pasquale relative to the proposed subdivisions El Rancho del Rey #6 and The Terrace .in the Last College SPA. At this time, no agreement has been entered into between the developer and the district. The board of trustees has directed that developer fees be reviewed prior to any agreements relative to these developments and prior to a detenninati.on of whether ~ school. site should he reserved in the E1 Rancho del Rey N6 area. A report will be given to the board at its Nlay 15 meeting. Until. that time, no assurance of adequate school facilities can he given. i ,Very truly yours, j 7 i Earl W. D_e~n ~ District Superintendent E1ND: ap cc: Mr. Pasquale Ken Lee F_V/?l~.~j~111Fq/j SF_+~U,'C%~ ~T~Yi'IiN;'. 1oi~~ ~ , A=: tK73 NOITAFS ~ ~iNlY:OA {^. ~. y'~ 3U'i~VA HTala OF.ft ' ~ '''' ttU56 HltAfiOiIJAD ,AT21V AJUHJ OOCt-3Si+ Ate a+ 9UJT0'fE~ fi ;'TCr7i ,1~, Il[pS~ IU iF.32r,f F)'tJSi.) r.7'JC ~!tUi 7 C ru?`JO'l T+:'7ft :C4 •rfGJ .lid 't(i U`~j"d;~t 'Y, f['J^,~f ?p..ti f~1T i2IQ jCOrT7? rIT~fTT rni r(J 7Qf F: :"j'3+O'~k; ~ ~• hf{f C~ly t•J7 ~^J7 nt~J".fi; f`: lt7nf71':fI)'i1J2 f)7~nrTOYG 3f{:f 7'7 .+}((~.:~7T `3j :C:j7hfT R9xT 2FL'T j'`~J8?"1 r7R ,9G7rf 2Cft; ir. .nq?. 9,"3i T07 ~?_G.i JCS? fLf 77B'CI'. ~~ 7i:' ?~7#%:f1T7 ~() u7f:C.~ i 'f(i .:l :J! -I J rr ~) ~r[Y %itB T7.TC) t'~ rr)~ 9rf? !1'J7'.'j'`J({ O?C'. [ T?`~'C77" Teri *p,f9T ::?I(71T1`)9'i^:: "C:R n~ 70I"`~ FJ9'(:7 P(97 `3CT Z90f T9,*O C^vJF, ~ .CI? EJ'J 1'-y771(7 : ;:~ ~~ is I~f7~f~a r T~ri~ a C~ .n rr~ifrf.irrr')f7h e o:t Toi-rq br:J. ~3u7mgoJ~~reJ:J r)z~ri? c7r rt7via ~d CI r'.f j-roq~7 ; .r.'~rr, )t !~`T Cab orL'nr,`T Crt ',r+'' -i U~v-r')- :T 'J+i ~~f)ro'1~ 9JRUUOTJf; ~}O 97PtTU2?fi Of[ ,'J'nt1 ~SfT3 C:JnU .q:ci?o:~r GI •(rJ~i ?.ir J~: !+'rr,olf j!f* a: .rr'r~i~ Sri rt,~ a:,i~iCi~r:1 rorn~ ~~ i L7U7! '/[fP7J V'rJ'7 __ - + . C.Of R'8i ~'y IY;;f+ ia~ha^frri7o~?rt;' j~i-rt.:ir) rr--.'ll:.'.i `J7.1 rf3)1 J, r. t` . , ._ . J T 1~ F ~~ ~ .,. ~ . DICK BROWN April 2, 1980 ,`fr. Jim Peterson Director of planning City of Chula Vista 286 Pourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Peterson: The problems of providing low and moderate income housing are very difficult and complicated. We share your concern for attempting to find an acceptable solutiun recognizing the interests of the community, ourselves and the City of Chula Vista. I have made two trips to Los Angeles to confer with the executive committee of the Gersten Company to work out a number of alternative proposals for your consideration. Aswe have discussed in the past, many more people can be helped in their quest for housing through rental units than through home owner- ship; however, we have included alternatives which would provide for fee-simple ownership. The following alternatives are sub- mitted for your consideration to satisfy the low andmoderate income housing requirements for the Terrace Apartments at Otay Lakes Road, E1 Rancho Del Rey No. 6 and the Hilltop Apartments at Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion. 1. A 25% increase in density above our proposed density for E1 Rancho Del Rey No. 6 with approxi_mat~ely 10% o~ the total units Ueing sold below market value. (AB 1151) 2. A 25o increase in density above our proposed density for the Hilltop Apartments with approximately loo being rented below market value. (AB 1151) 3. A 25% increase in density above our proposc3 density for the Terrace Apartments with approximately ]Oo of the apartments being rented below market value. (AB 1151) 4. Redesigna`ion of the church site at Paseo Del P.ey and East J Street in E1 Rancho Del Rey No. 6 to high density rzsidential to provide for a Section 8 subsidized apart- ment complex. 9621 ALTO DRIVE • LA MESA. ~~.A LIFOR NIA 92047 • (71<i 464-0940 I l0(Oz i Dlr. Jim Peterson -2- April 2, 1980 I 5. A Section 8 subsidized apartment complex onthe Hilltop site at Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion. ~I 6. The City of Chula Vista would purchase the ''Bennett property" and give it to the Gersten Company. In exchange, we would build housing on the Bennett property as a part of E1 Rancho Del Rey No. 6 and would sell a~ispecified number of houses scattered throughout the development below market value. The number of houses to be sold below market value would equal the number of houses that could be built on the Bennett property. The price reduction would equal the value of the land contributed by the city plus the normal development profit of the Gersten Company. The Bennett property contains approximately 10 acres and we could expect to get approximately 40 units on the property; therefore, 40 units scattered throughout E L Rancho Del Rey No. 6 could be sold below market value. Each $1,000 reduction in selling price and amount of mortgage will reduce the monthly payment by $1.3.45 assuming a 30-year mortgage at 16o interest. ~7. Our preferred option would be to construct approximately 168 Section 8 subsidized apartment units at the intersec- tion of Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero along with approximately 1.5 acres of convenience commercial shopping on the site. This alternative would not increase density in any of the above sites and it would not require any cash contribution from the city. It would require redesignation on the Specific Plan from Open Space to High Density Residential. It is our opinion that this site would meet all HUD requirements being close to shopping and adjacent to public transportation. We believe there would be far greater public support for this location than the other two potential subsidized housing sites (Hilltop Apartments or the church site). If the city does not agree that the 1.5 acres of commercial is, in fact, desirable for the Section 8 units, additional apar'ments could be built in lieu of the commercial development. The overall site would be heavily landscapped with trees and shrubs and would not unreasonably interrupt the open space corridors along Telegraph Canyon Road. This alternative has the additional benefit in that construction could commence immediately upon city and Section 8 approval. The solution to low and moderate income housing must be economically feasible for the taxpayer, the provider of housing and the city. It must also be acceptable to the community and be ~olbz ' ;, T.1r. Jim Peterson consistent with good manning of the large number of people pay market rent, the solution number of people at the loi,~est the community. -3- April 2, 1980 principles. Additionally, because who cannot afford to buy a home or should seek to help the maximum possible cost and disruption to 19e request your comments on these proposals at your~earli.est convenience that we may, by working together, find a mutually acceptable alternative. ' Sincerely, DICK BROWN DB:db Ial©~ s~ Qom,. f?lCE' .. .__ `~~ '~ `-- ~, ~1 ~ ~ ~~/ - 92.~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~~ ~~_ \ f SST ` / O/ e S ~ 6 10 ~~~~yH gT / / F `~, i / s2i~,1 s t 3 S /~~ .. / DEL REY ~~,~' ~~ ~ , ~ ~i `°.~"° / /~/ SAN DIEGO OTAYt ~ ~~ 2 3 ~.M~'~a ~ / E SEMENT !'4t~i. ~,?,~ ~~.*~}~ :..P~`~.",~' ~ ' SAN DIEGO GAS B ELECTRIC EASEMENT / ~i / 4\ ~/ ~ i ORT'F~ NO SCALE ~ d r D 2 3 5 Loc~t®~ PCS -80-5 EL RANCHO DEL REY No 6 SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA ~~ EAST H ~ I ® I e / I ?.il:u:::., OPEN SPACE ®® OPEN SPACE ~ I i OPSPACE CHURCH `'; ,-;; •-,l; SITE ® I y / ~Od~~ -- ~ t ~-. - ..:. ' "`"•. ~' `:. COMMERCIAL I ` ~ ,o-*`` ''' ~ °' ~~ ~ SIT ®~~^~ ~ `~ r~z 5~+a:, E I KI ra a.. .~'4*a DETACHED 140 UNITS <` '~~~ '~ ~ 6 ~~ P,'aRK SITE "•';;;:; ," t & , ~. ' :' SINGLE FAM ~V~ I `~ tl~~ ~' COUPLET 78 I I OPEN ~~' ~ ~;, r ~ ~ SINGLE FAM SAN DIEGO GAS ~ j SPACE ~r ~ „: ~, >, °~ ZERO LOT LINE l5 f ~~ ELECTRIC EASEMEA~Tj ~"~~~~~ , ''~ ' CHURCH 0 / ~` ~°~ SITE I (2 ac•) `~ / e «,*~ COMMERCIAL ~ ~~~-" SITE t (I ac ) PARK t ' ' ~~p9 arm'-,w~ NYON / ~"~~ SITE I (5 oc) CA _ ~~'~'tE.1.EGRAPH ~1L~'89~29$ - Q~.. RCS - 80-5 EL RANCHO DEL REY No 6 t~ N 0 0 C~~~~,~''° Exh`blt _ ~ SCALE: I =20-0 ~~~~ PCS-80-5 p~ ~ ~ ~L RANCHO DEL REY No 6 tltl~~~~ COUPLET UNITS E~OOR PLANS PLAN 3 4s~° :: K„m ~°~-All 1/~ Fomdy I D;m; ,,uu !p r e ~ Living m _ ~ '0 1 I co I ~Aen O I O Ga.o9e / IO~min I T yp ~.;/ B 6Dr ~~ S~~CppALE: I°°= 20r-Orr ,: 6 Ci ®~ 1 ~~~~ I ~ I pine Hdche~o~ I c Living r ~ I QY Dine i _ Living ~ Entry uD Mstr. Bdr ~tt~~~at ~ Pcs so ~ EL RANCHO DEL REY No 6 ?ERO 'LOT LINE FLOOR PLANS