HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - Draft MinutesMINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue
Date: June 26, 2013 Chula Vista, California
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL / MOTION TO EXCUSE:
Members Present: Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson
Members Absent: Moctezuma
MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Chair Moctezuma had requested to be excused
MSC (Calvo /Vinson) to excuse Chair Moctezuma Motion carried
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 22, 2013
MSC (Spethman /Vinson) Motion Carried
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice -Chair Calvo
ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input
CONSENT ITEMS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Public Hearing: Design Review (DRC- 13 -06) to approve a mixed use project consisting of a 33 -unit
multi- family apartment project and 1,253 square feet of office space on approximately
0.5 acres located in the V -3 (West Village) district of the Urban Core Specific Plan.
Applicant: Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation
Project Manager: Stacey Kurz
Background: The Applicant has submitted a Design Review application for approval of a mixed use project
consisting of a 33 -unit multi - family apartment project and 1,253 square feet of office space, to
be known as Lofts on Landis ( "Project "). The Project includes one to three bedroom apartments, two levels of
parking (including a level of subterranean parking), and associated open space on approximately 0.5 acres. The
site is currently vacant with a concrete slab on the majority of the property. The site is located at 240 Landis
Avenue within the V -3 (West Village) district of the Urban Core Specific Plan ( "UCSP ")
The design of the project was presented at a community meeting on April 8, 2013 where only minor issues were
raised mainly regarding existing conditions within the surrounding neighborhood. The comments were provided
in Attachment 2 — Public Comments.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2013
Page -2-
CONCLUSION
The proposed mixed use residential project is a permitted land use and complies with the policies,
guidelines and design standards for the V -3 (West Village) district of the Urban Core Specific Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review Permit, DRC- 13 -06, to
construct a 33 -unit multi - family apartment project and 1,253 square feet of office space on approximately
0.5 acres, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopts Resolution DRC -13 -06 to construct a mixed
use project consisting of a 33 -unit multi - family apartment project and 1,253
square feet of office space, on approximately 0.5 acres, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
Commission Questions: Commissioner Spethman stated that it was the first time the Planning
Commission was also acting in a design review capacity. He requested the materials board and suggested
that future applicants provide a board complete with glazing, stucco texture and some example of the
hardscape to include finishes and colors.
Commissioner Livag had questions regarding the interior spaces, exterior
balconies and pass - throughs. He noticed that on the east elevation it looked like there was a pass- through
when there was not. He stated that it looked like you could look through from the east side through to the
west side, which in fact, is not correct. He also wanted to know about the finishes on interior walls — colors,
textures.
Architect Carlos Rodriguez addressed the interior /exterior balconies. The finish
is stucco and referred the Commission to the graphic regarding the size of the courtyards. Balconies are also
included on the exterior as per a slide in the presentation.
Public Hearing Opened
Daniel Guiterrez, an adjacent property owner at 231 Garrett Avenue, spoke during public testimony and
raised concern with project impacts on their neighborhood as it relates to the ingress /egress location of the
lot on the Westside. He feels it will create more traffic down the alley and that it is not wide enough for two
vehicles to come pass. He suggested that it be moved to the South side of the building. In addition, there
are senior citizens who live in the granny flats on Landis and Garrett and that the increase of traffic could
cause accidents for those using the alley.
Public Hearing Closed
Commission Questions:
Cmr. Spethman: With respect to Mr. Guiterrez's concerns, did staff take that into consideration when
this was put together and does staff have the same opinion as Mr. Guiterrez?
Stacey Kurtz, Project Manager, said that Engineering and Fire Department staff had reviewed the plans
and did not feel that there was a problem with use of the alley. The Urban Core Specific Plan specifically
called out the use of alleys versus the frontages because of the storefront fagade that is stressed in the
Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2013
Page -3-
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Spethman commended the applicant and thinks the project will be a great addition. He also
commended them on being one of the first to be an in -fill project in the Urban Core. He had some concerns
regarding the conceptual landscape plan. When looking at a project of significance like this one, especially
in the Urban Core, the Commission will be looking at it as a benchmark that sets the tone and tenure of
things we expect in the downtown core. In looking at the "conceptual" landscape plan, Cmr Spethman had
a conversation with the landscape architect where he voiced concerns regarding vertical elements within
the interior of the project. The biggest vertical element in the plan is now the playground equipment and he
does not consider playground equipment as an architectural or vertical element. He discussed the problems
of having a "hard deck" and proposed that we insert a condition in the approval that we have some kind of
raised planter beds that will accommodate vertical elements i.e. a palm tree, etc.
His other concern was that the plan does not call out specific species, plant placement or specific size. He
would also ask that those things be inserted as a condition of approval and reviewed by the City's landscape
architect prior to final approval.
Cmr. Calvo: Regarding water quality— she did not see that it was addressed in the site plan.
Nikki Jeffery, PE, from David Evans & Associates, advised the Commission that a water quality technical
report was prepared and approved by the City of Chula Vista. The site is impervious and will remain
pretty much impervious and they are proposing additional landscaping — like a rooftop garden. The
drain from the rooftop will be filtered and flow through the planters.
MSC (Vinson /Spethman) (5- 0 -1 -0) that the Planning Commission approve DRC 13 -06 with the addition in
the conditions for approval as specified by Cmr. Spethman
(vertical elements and that the project has definition of the planter
boxes as to size and species.
Motion carried with Chair Moctezuma absent
3. Public Hearing: To consider approval of PCM -10 -24 the recommending that the City Council adopt the
resolution certifying Environmental Impact Report EIR -10 -05 (SCH No. 2011111077);
making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations;
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA; and
approve the ordinance adopting the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (PCM -10-
24) and related rezoning actions
Project Manager: Miguel Tapia
BACKGROUND: The most recent update to the City of Chula Vista General Plan occurred in 2005. The
primary focus of the General Plan Update (2005) was on the currently developed areas
of the City, in particular the western portions of the City. Within the Southwest portion of the City, the General
Plan designated five "Areas of Change" that would need to go through a more detailed planning process. One of
these areas is the Palomar Gateway District. The General Plan mandates the preparation of a Specific Plan for
this area.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2013
Page -4-
According to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, a Specific Plan is "a tool for the systematic
implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the
general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. Specific Plans must also be consistent
with the policies contained within the General Plan and may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance.
Prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan, City staff undertook an extensive public engagement
strategy with the community. The community outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens and
interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process.
From the Southwest Leaders' Conference and the Urban Design Workshops, staff identified and reached out to a
group of individuals with interest, knowledge of the area, and leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest
Working Group (SWWG). The SWWG represented a cross - section of the southwest community, including
community organizations, businesses, and residents. This group was tasked both with providing oversight for the
southwest planning efforts, and with working to engage other members of the community with the process.
It is important to note that the preparation of the PGDSP was facilitated by the financial participation of the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). In 2009, the City applied for and was successful in obtaining a
grant from SANDAG's Smart Growth Incentive Program. SANDAG's grant contributed $400,000, with matching
funds from the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $150,000, for the preparation of the PGDSP and EIR.
Preparation of the PGDSP began in January 2010 with the active participation of the Southwest Community.
Once the draft of the PGDSP was completed in March 2012, City staff and consultants began the preparation of
the required Program Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan. The Program EIR for the proposed
PGDSP has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21000,
et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). The purpose of this Program EIR is to
address the potential environmental effects of and provide CEQA documentation for the implementation of the
PGDSP.
CONCLUSION
The preparation of the proposed PGDSP, as mandated by the City's 2005 General Plan, represents one more
action by the City to implement the vision and objectives of the General Plan. The PGDSP is intended to serve as
an effective tool for the planning and revitalization of the PGD. The purpose of the PGDSP is to encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity adjacent to the existing San Diego Trolley Station at Palomar Street.
The PGDSP was created to promote a pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, an private automobile- supportive
development environment and integrate these mobility elements with a complementary mix of land uses, all
within a comfortable walking and bicycling distance from the light rail station.
The PGDSP was prepared in the context of an extensive public engagement strategy with the community. The
community outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens and interest groups of Chula Vista in the
Specific Plan process. The finished PGDSP document bears the mark of this extensive public outreach process.
The proposed PGDSP reflects the concerns and aspiration of the community as expressed by SWWG. Staff and
SWWG members have worked hard to develop a plan that both allows transit - oriented development in the
Palomar Gateway District, and at the same time doesn't overburden this already- congested area with additional
auto trips. As proposed, the PGDSP is consistent with and represents an effective tool for the implementation of
the vision and objectives of the General Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2013
Page -5-
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve PCM -10 -24
recommending that City Council adopt the Council Resolution and
Ordinance certifying the EIR and adopting the PGDSP and related rezoning
actions.
Commissioner Questions: Spethman: When was the Community Workshop?
Miguel Tapia stated that there were a number of Community Workshops. The
first was in September 2009 and the last in March 2012.
There was continued discussion regarding the workshops and it was stated that the City had worked with the
Southwest group monthly from about 2010. A letter was presented dated June 26th in which a group from
Southwest states that there is a problem with the EIR. Tapia did not recognize the signatures on the letter, he
did not recollect them being at the workshop nor on the attendance role. The name of Teresa Acerro was
included in the letter and Tapia said that she was an active participant in the group workshops. He did not know
why they would send a letter at this point.
Cmr Livag: Asked for a specific slide from the presentation — and he is surprised at the amount of
residential area still included in the vicinity. The area south of Palomar is predominately
residential. Is there a reason why it was not thought to be more industrial?
Planning Manager Mary Ladiana said that the zoning is re- implementing the General Plan from 2005. At that
time, there was a desire to - over a long period of time — transition this area to the zones that would implement
the General Plan. The industrial zoning that is there today is not consistent with that General Plan. That is not
to say that if we rezone it those uses would have to go away. They would be previously conforming uses. There
was continued discussion of zoning changes and what would' be considered commercial to include height
limitations and areas where new roadways would be required.
Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer, addressed the roadway north of Palomar on the manner in which the
consultant was asked to make it more pedestrian` friendly and to 'think outside of the box'. They walked the
neighborhood and got a series of suggestions from a traffic mobility study vs the regular traffic EIR.
The group continued the discussion possibility of funding and the location being close to a transit center. The
City is also updating the eastern TDIF and western TDIF. They are also trying to show the nexus between non -
vehicular modes of travel and development in an area which would provide for future funding. Discussion also
broadened out to include parks and open space when talking about future development.
Cmr Vinson: Asked Miguel Tapia if he had called Teresa Acerro to see is she had knowledge of the letter
received.
Tapia responded that he had not. Vinson wanted to know if she was a full participant in the process. Tapia
stated that she actively participated in the meetings and in the presentation for workshops and the
presentations regarding the land use matrix, landscaping standards, and design guidelines, etc.
Mary Ladiana stated that Teresa Acerro had provided comments on the EIR and that staff had responded to her
issues i.e. traffic, vibrations from the trains, standard growth management, etc.
Cmr Calvo: Was there a change from what the General Plan recommended to what the current market is
regarding commercial space vs residential space?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2013
Page -6-
Tapia: There was a change from the original General Plan vision which has been reduced or scaled down to
what is now in the Specific Plan. For example, the residential space was reduced from 2,000 to 1,300 in the
Specific Plan. Commercial space was also reduced in total.
Mary Ladiana stated that the land use was still the same as in the General Plan, it's the upper end of the plan -
the full version vision is being clarified with the Specific Plan from the results of the market study.
Open Public Comments
John Vogel — 20 year resident lives at 708 Dorothy Street (corner of Industrial & Dorothy).
Thanked the City for the diligence of coming to the community and getting them involved and getting as much
information as they could. He has reviewed Teresa Acerro's letter regarding the EIR and was concerned about
some of the things that may have been omitted from the EIR. He wanted to make the group aware of some of
the things that may not come across clearly in an EIR as a written document. His concerns are:
a) Showed the Commission on the map where he lives. When the train comes through — at least 2 or 3
times a week at 2.a.m., people in that area can feel the vibrations.
b) Sound and vibration studies were not done at night when the trains come through. The noise of the
cars coupling and uncoupling can be heard very clearly.
c) There is development farther down and the ditch behind his house does not go all the way through.
This means that when it rains, the water pools and it is conducive to mosquitoes, etc.
d) Because this is a high traffic area, the bridge coming from 1 -5 across is too narrow to handle the amount
of traffic it receives.
e) When the trolley is running at its peak hours, traffic is stopped on Palomar every 7 minutes. At
Christmas time, it is literally backed up to Broadway.
f) There's a traffic circle at Aida and Industrial Streets that has a drop off in front of the trolley station.
Casino buses take their breaks there and when other traffic tries to use the area, traffic backs up clear to
Industrial.
Public Comments Closed
Commissioner Comments /Discussion:
Cmr. Livag: °This is a step in the right direction, but Mr. Vogel brings up some valid points. Don't know that
we can mitigate things he mentioned. Hopes we would have a land use that would allow the
property owner to sell their property, move somewhere else and not have to deal with those issues. We've
done a great job, but there are things that are out of our control and governed by CalTrans, etc. Would like
to see maybe more commercial and more industrial, less residential and see property values go up.
MSC (Spethman /Livag) (4- 1 -1 -0) To consider approval of PCM -10 -24 the recommending that the City
Council adopt the resolution certifying Environmental Impact Report
EIR -10 -05 (SCH No. 2011111077); making certain findings of fact;
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA; and
approve the ordinance adopting the Palomar Gateway District Specific
Plan (PCM- 10 -24) and related rezoning actions
Motion carried with Chair Moctezuma absent and Cmr Vinson a nay
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2013
Page -7-
Director's Comments: Assistant City Manager Gary Halbert advised the Commission that it would be his last
week at the meetings. The new Director of Development Services, Kelly Broughton will
be taking his place. He gave the Commission an update on the Bayfront project, the
moving of the substation and the University project and entitlements in Otay Ranch. He
thanked Mike Spethman (who is termed -out on the Planning Commission) for all his
work on the Planning Commission and bringing his expertise to the City.
Commission Comments:
Spethman: Thanked Gary Halbert, the staff liason and the Commission for their commitment to the
City of Chula Vista and for all their hard work and dedicated time.
Calvo: Presented Cmr Spethman with a recognition plaque for serving on the Planning
Commission.
Livag: Glad to be able to stay on the Planning Commission and that Mike Spethman had been
instrumental in helping him on the Planning Commission.
Vinson: Thanked Mike for his service and then announced that he would be running for City
Council and is hoping for their support.
Calvo: Asked if Commissioner Spethman is staying on for a while.
Spethman: Advised the Mayor that he would stay on until the Design Review Board members were
appointed —or new members were announced. He will truly miss being on the
Commission and that he knows the board shares the same goals and knows, because of
that, the City will be left in good hands. Feels good about all the Commission has
accomplished and where the city is headed. Thanked the Commission again....
Meeting Adjourned: To a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Patricia Laughlin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
H: \DS D\ Council, Boards &Commissions \PlanningCommission \Minutes
a:
Wig
City of Chula Vista Boards & Commissions
Plannin2 Commission
MM a
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 2013 Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Bldg 100
276 Fourth Avenue
CALL TO ORDER At 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma
Members Present: Anaya, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma
Members Absent: Vice -Chair Calvo
MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Vice -Chair Calvo had contacted staff and requested an excuse
from tonight's meeting
MSC (SpethmanNinson) to excuse Vice -Chair Calvo. Motion carried
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
OPENING STATEMENT:
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were none
1. Public Hearing: Design Review (DRC- 13 -02) to approve a 48 -unit multi- family
attached alley condominium project with two (2) car garages,
remainder lot, and associated open space on approximately 1.9 acres
located in the Otay Ranch Village Two, Neighborhood R -10B,
Planned Community District (RM2) Residential Multi- Family 2 zone.
Applicant: Pacific Coast Communities
Project Manager: Caroline Young
Planning Commission Agenda
July 10, 2013
Page -2-
Project Site Characteristics:
The 1.9 -acre project site is located in the eastern portion of Village Two within the Village Core,
on a vacant parcel north of Santa Diana Road and east of Santa Ivy Avenue. Neighborhood
R -10B is bordered on the north by a Single - Family attached alley product, future park site to the
east, future Multi - Family residential to the west, and a future elementary school across Santa
Diana Road to the south (Attachment 1, Locator Map). All of the surrounding parcels are
currently vacant.
Summary of Surrounding Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Current Land Use
Site: Mixed -Use Residential Planned Community,RM2 Multi - Family Res. Attached Alley
South: Public Quasi Planned Community,RM1 Future Elementary School
North: Res. Low Medium Planned Community,RM1 Single- Family Detached Alley
East: Park Planned Community P3 Future Park
West: Res. Low Medium Planned Community RM2 Future MF Residential
The Village Design Plan, Section III Residential District and the Village Core Master Precise Plan
(MPP) include guidelines and policies that ensure that multi - family residential buildings will
contribute to the pedestrian- oriented "Village Concept" established in the Otay Ranch GDP.
Policies relating to pedestrian connections, building orientation, enhanced elevations and
vehicular access are listed in each document to implement the visions. The pedestrian features
throughout the site meet the intent of the Village Design Plan.
The Village Two SPA Design Plan, Multi - Family Residential Guidelines Section and Village Core
MMP identify Santa Barbara, California as the design inspiration for the Village of Montecito
(Village Two). As a fundamental component of the village core, the architecture of the
proposed multi - family development is focused primarily on the Santa Barbara design theme.
Although not mandated, preferred architectural styles for the core's multi - family development
include Spanish Eclectic and Spanish Mission to complement the design theme of the
remainder of the village.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 10, 2013
Page -3-
Village 2 SPA regulations require 2.25 spaces for three or more bedroom units. Therefore, the
required parking is 108 spaces. All the units within the project provide a two -car garage with a
total of 96 parking spaces. On- street parking consists of 42 spaces along Santa Diana Road
pursuant to Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA, Section VIII (3) Parking Regulations. The project exceeds
the required parking by thirty parking spaces and does not propose any compact parking.
CONCLUSION
The proposed 48 multi - family attached alley condominium project are a permitted land use in
the Otay Ranch GDP and are permitted in the Residential Multi- Family Two (RM2) district of the
Village Two SPA Plan. The proposal complies with the policies, guidelines and design standards
for the Village Two Design Plan as well as the Village Core MPP. Therefore, staff recommends
the Planning Commission approve Design Review Permit, DRC- 13 -02, to construct a 48 -unit
multi - family attached alley condominium project with two (2) car garages, remainder lot, and
associated open space on approximately 1.9 acres, subject to the conditions listed in the
attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution DRC -13 -02 to construct a
48 -unit multi - family attached alley condominium project with two (2) car garages, and
associated open space on approximately 1,9 acres, based on the findings and subject to the
rnnrlitinnc rnntninarl tharain
DISCUSSION:
Cmr Vinson: In reviewing the parking requirements — is
Santa Diana Rd. as parking spaces for the project?
Proj Mgr Young: In Otay Ranch and Village Two, unlike
allowable to use offsite parking.
it permissible to count spaces on
other portions of Chula Vista, it is
Cmr Spethman: Does not see anything in the plans for open space, i.e. recreation aneminities,
bbq space, playground area, etc.
Proj Mgr Young: There is a 10' wide area between the buildings, a corner area and private
courtyards in front of the residence.
Cmr. Spethman: Doesn't consider the 10' space between buildings to be viable recreation
space. Has a huge concern because it is an intense project and there is no play area.
Principal Planner Stan Donn: There are amenities that will be provided to the project — two
parks are accessible. Even though the homes are attached, they are more like row homes and
the usable amenity is the front courtyard. We felt that this project might be more marketable
to those people who would not want to have a condo unit in a large condo complex.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 10, 2013
Page -4-
There was continued discussion regarding "public space" and open space provided to projects.
Parks have not usually been considered as part of the calculation of open space on a project. As
a technicallity — this project meets the "letter of the law ". This is a constrained site with a
rectangular space, which in turn restricts the usable open space.
Cmr. Vinson: Asked for some insight on the remainder lot and asked if it would be feesible to
use it in the project. If not, whose responsibility is it to maintain it, pay taxes, etc.?
Donn: The remainder lot is owned by the applicant and will be turfed. They are currently
going through a Spa amendment to add density to Village 2, at which time the lot will be
developed.
Attorney David Miller stated that he had been involed in this project and that he had to clarify
that the applicant could not consider the new Spa amendment or proposal as to what could
happen in the future. What staff is trying to do is to look at the project as a stand alone. They
could only add 3 additional units to the remainder lot.
Continued discussion ensued and included using public space (park land) being used to fulfill
the need of recreational space in a project and the fact that every project needed to be
responsible for its own open space. This is a unique project and staff could not think of another
one that resembles it. It was clarified that the parks that are nearby for use were not included
in the requirements for open space in the project and that this project does meet the
requirements.
Cmr. Livag: If street parking is allowed to be counted as parking spaces for a project, how do
you prevent one project from using the same spaces that have already been counted in another
project?
Donn; ' In the Otay Ranch Plan, each project that fronts a street are allowed to use the spaces
for their project. The spaces are tracked with the project.
Cmr. Livag: How is private space calculated to be included in common usable public space i.e.
courtyards?
Donn: Each unit has a certain amount of private and common usable space.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nick Lee, from Baldwin & Sons, said that they focused on maximizing the private usable space
and that it well exceeds the requirements in the Spa Plan. In addition, they met the minimum
requirements for usable space — which is the space between the buildings. The reason they
were not as concerned with that space is because of the access to other recreational areas
Planning Commission Agenda
July 10, 2013
Page -5-
around the project. All residents in this project will be members of the HOA and will have
access to the HOA facilities — which, in the future, will include a swim club.
Cmr. Vinson: Had questions regarding the remainder lot.
Lee: The remainder lot is approved, but not with units on it. The City of San Diego is using a
major water line that runs through the whole village. The concept is that it will be moved and
at the end, another building will be added to the remainder lot. In the worse case scenario, the
remainder lot would remain undeveloped and used as open space.
Cmr. Livag: On the remainder lot — if the density is not approved by the Spa Plan and the
water line is not used, what happens to the remainder lot and would the project concept
change?
Lee: They would not be able to put the planned number of units on the remainder lot, but
could still fit three additional units on the lot. Worst case scenario, it would be open space.
However, things are moving along with San Diego and they expect it to go in the direction they
have outlined. He then explained the 'process of how the project came to be and that it is
unique to Otay Ranch and, to his knowledge, has not yet been done anywhere else.
Commissioner's Comments
Cmr. Vinson: It is a unique project and thinks the applicant did their best to make the most out
of a strange lot. If he meets the City` requirements, he suggests we move forward on it.
Cmr. Livag: Likes the concept of the project and that it meets the letter of the law, but is
concerned about the density. Because they meet the requirements he will support it, but is
against density increase in the future.
MSC (Spethman /Livag) to support DRC 13 -02 Motion carried 4-1 -1 -0 with Calvo
absent and Spethman voting nay
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
There was no report
2. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Vinson: Wanted to know how many terms the Chair had and if she is not termed -out
would like to support her being the chair another time.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 10, 2013
Page -6-
Livag: Is concerned with the high density and shares Cmr. Spethman's concerns. He
discussed the fact that there are a lot of other projects to be brought forward and hopes
that Commissioners understand what would happen with increased density.
ADJOURNMENT at 6:49 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting
on July 24, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Submitted by:
Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary
..........
CHULA V1SiA
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
min
July 24, 2013 Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Bldg 100
276 Fourth Avenue
CALL TO ORDER At 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma
Members Present: Anaya (arrived at 6:10), Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma
Members Absent: n/a
MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
OPENING STATEMENT:
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were none
1. Public Hearing: Design Review (DRC- 12 -10) to construct 144 residential
condominiums for individual ownership with one and two car
garages, open parking, recreation area, and associated open space
on approximately 8.7 acres within the Otay Ranch Village Two,
Neighborhood R -11, Planned Community District RM1 multi - family
zone. Applicant: Sunrise Company
Project Manager: Caroline Young
The Applicant has submitted a Design Review application for approval of 144 residential
condominiums for individual ownership with one and two car garages, open parking, recreation
area, and associated open space on approximately 8.7 acres. The site is currently vacant and
located within the Otay Ranch Village Two, Neighborhood R -11
Project Description
The proposal includes two (2) building plan types ranging from three -unit to six - unit /plex
buildings. The three unit /plex building would be two - stories (30 feet) and the six - unit /plex
building will be three stories (32 feet).
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -2-
Spanish style architecture incorporates materials such as light to dark colored stucco, tiled
roofs, decorative tile trim, window shelves and shutters, arched recessed windows, decorative
stucco wrapped lattice recess on the balconies, and arched openings. Required parking is
provided both onsite and offsite with 48 one -car garages and 96 two -car garages, 60 off - street
parking spaces, and 61 on- street parking spaces provided along Santa Diana Road, Santa
Victoria Road and Santa Alexia Avenue surrounding the site.
On site amenities include several open space areas throughout the project site consisting of a
recreational area with a toddler play structure, benches, seating area, covered picnic area, and
a barbeque. Additional amenities consist of open courtyards and open space areas between
buildings.
CONCLUSION
The proposed 144 residential condominiums for individual ownership are a permitted land use
in the Otay Ranch GDP and are permitted in the Residential Multi - Family One (RM1) district of
the Village Two SPA Plan. The proposal complies with the policies, guidelines and design
standards for the Village Two Design Plan as well as the Village Core MPP.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review
Permit, DRC- 12 -10, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution.
DISCUSSION /QUESTIONS:
Chair Moctezuma: Clarified the density and approval being requested by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS /QUESTIONS
Cmr. Vinson: Supports the project would like to make the motion to support the project.
Cmr. Livag: Likes the architectual elements and since it meets all the requirements, he would
like to second the motion.
MSC (Vinson /Livag) to support DRC 12 -10
Motion carried: 5 -0 -1 -0 with Commissioner Calvo abstaining
2. Public Hearing: Design Review (DRC- 13 -14) to construct two buildings totaling
181,211 square -feet for a senior care facility with assisted living,
memory care, senior housing, and associated uses and open space,
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -3-
to be constructed in two phases on approximately 4.5 acres in Otay
Ranch Village One, Neighborhood 1 CPF -2 site. Applicant: Trinity
Pacific. Project Manager: Caroline Young
The Applicant has submitted a Design Review application for approval of two buildings on the
site: a four - story, 145,211 square -foot building; and a three - story, 36,000 square -foot building.
The site is located within the Otay Ranch Village One, Neighborhood 1 CPF -2 site
Project Description:
The Project site is located in the southern portion of Otay Ranch Heritage Village One within the
Village Core, on a vacant parcel south of East Palomar Street. The front of the lot, adjacent to
East Palomar Street, is level with the street grade. However, the lot gradually slopes downward
with a steep slope in the rear of the site. The Community Purpose Facility zoned (CPF -2) site is
the last remaining undeveloped parcel in Heritage Village One since construction began in Otay
Ranch Village 1 back in 1998. The CPF -2 site is bordered on the north by Residential
Condominiums, Multi - Family Apartments to the east, Sharp Rees- Stealy- Medical Clinic and
Heritage Town Center to the west, and Single - Family Residential and Open Space to the south.
The first phase consists of a four story building with 91 assisted living units and 63 memory care
units. The building will have a kitchen area, dining room, pub, beauty shop, exercise room,
dance, therapy, chapel, and several activity rooms for the residents in addition to staff offices,
maintenance and a laundry room. There are two different unit types; one consisting of a studio
unit with a full bath; and the other with one and two bedrooms with a living room, full kitchen
and bath. These assisted living and memory care units are reserved for seniors who may need
assistance from staff such as preparing meals, walking, and taking showers.
In Phase 2, a three - story, 36,000 square -foot building will be constructed for seniors who can
live independently. Each unit is a studio with full kitchen and bath. The first floor consists of the
main entrance lobby and studio units. The second and third floors consist of the remainder
studio units. The seniors who live in this building can also use all of the facilities and amenities
on the site, in addition to having meals prepared for them in the main building, upon request. A
total of 63 units will be constructed in Phase 2.
Spanish style architecture incorporates materials such as light to dark colored stucco, concrete
tiled roofs, wood stain, cultured stone, wrought iron balconies, wood trellis and arched
openings. Required parking is provided on site.
On site amenities include several open space areas throughout the project site consisting of
two large courtyard areas and two roof decks in addition to three indoor solariums for the
residents to enjoy. The courtyards consist of seating, enhanced paving, and landscape
treatments. Enhanced paving is provided adjacent to the front and rear entrance of the four -
story building. Enhanced paving is also provided within the turn - around area for passenger pick
up /drop off on Santa Andrea Street.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -4-
In order to comply with the building siting polices and guidelines included in the Village One
Design Plan, buildings have been oriented towards the corner and along the frontage on East
Palomar Street as well as a pedestrian connection along Santa Andrea Street.
While pedestrian access is the most significant feature in the Villages of Otay Ranch, increased
vehicular access is also important in order to offer a variety of ways to access different areas.
Dispersion of automobile traffic also has the effect of making areas more pedestrian friendly as
cars and pedestrians have less direct interaction. The Project site provides three vehicular
access points and several pedestrian access points throughout the site.
CONCLUSION
The proposed senior care facility is a permitted land use in the Otay Ranch GDP and permitted
in the Community Purpose Facility (CPF) district of the Village One SPA Plan. The proposal
complies with the policies, guidelines and design standards for the Village One Design Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review Permit, DRC -13-
14, to construct 181,211 square -feet of building area for a senior care facility with assisted
living, memory care, and senior housing subject to the conditions listed in the attached
Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt, Resolution DRC -13 -14 to construct 181,211 square -feet of
building area for a senior care facility with assisted living, memory care, and senior housing
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION /QUESTIONS:
Cmr. Vinson: Is there any energy conservation connected with this project.
Young: Not that she knows of — will defer to applicant.
Cmr. Calvo The Commission is approving Phase I and Phase 2 tonight, correct?
Young: Correct
Cmr. Calvo Referred to a presentation slide and asked the direction of the tower to
be verified.
Young: Verified that the tower is on the west side.
Chair Moctezuma: Is there an elevator?
Young: Yes, there is.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -5-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Cmr. Vinson: Thanked the applicant for bringing, the project forward. Stated that we are
concerned about the environment and asked the applicant to expound on what type of energy
conservation things were being used.
Ryan Miyahira, architect: They are following the Chula Vista "high effeciency standards" and
providing insullated low heat; windows will contain high efficiency HVAC for all units, but they
have no plans for solar at this time.
John McColl, from Trinity Pacific Investments and on the Board of St. Paul Senior Homes and
Services, and Cheryl Wilson, CEO of St. Paul Senior Homes and Services were available for
questions.
Cmr Vinson: Is it not feesible to put solar in this project?
Wilson: They did look into solar, but as a non-profit, they do not receive a tax break for
installing solar. There also is no funding from SDG &E or any other source. They looked into the
"payback" time and it would take 18 to 19 years to realize their full investment. At this time,
the cost to add that to the building would be extraordinary.
Cmr Spethman: In looking at the elevations on the project, it looks very flat, which he knows is not
the case. He commended the architect on the color pallet, the difference of materials being used,
the lighting, the landscaping, etc. He observed that it is a quality project and that the team has
gone over and above what a project like this usually has when it is brought to the Commission.
Does the HVAC equipment on the roof have the proper sound barriers, screens, etc?
Wilson: yes — all units will be screened.
Cmr Calvo: Definitely agrees with Cmr Spethman that the architecture for the Phase I building is
exceptional, but has reservations regarding the Phase II building. Where is the primary entrance
for the Phase II building and it seems to be a step below Phase I. Is concerned with the view from
Fieldbrook because it is up above and is seen from below.
Architect: Pointed out the main entry for Phase II building on the easel chart elevation.
Cmr Calvo: Thinks that the entrance of the Phase II building needs a little work. It could be
done with color or angles, etc.
Wilson: As a non - profit, they are trying to keep the costs down and didn't want to spend
money on the architect for Phase II when it will not be built as soon. Assured the Commission
that the Phase II building will be just as beautiful as the Phase I building and that it will have, at
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -6-
the least, a nice awning or something to articulate the entrance and make the people that live
there want to come into the building.
Cmr. Livag: Are you planning on executing Phase II right after the completion of Phase I or
what are the hurdles that need to be met before starting Phase II? What are the conditions
that would trigger the starting of Phase II?
Wilson: Would like to do both phases at the same time, but as a non - profit, that is not
feasible. They would like to complete Phase I, get some revenue coming in and then
contemplate the starting of Phase II very soon thereafter. It is totally based on the economics
of the project.
Cmr Livag: What would the occupancy rate need to be to enable you to start Phase II?
Wilson: It would need to be about 50% occupancy.
There was some discussion on how the Phase II construction would affect the entrance on East
Palomar and the Commission was advised that the entrance off San Andreas would be used.
Chair Moctezuma: Does like Cmr Calvo's suggestion of working on the Phase II entrance. An
awning would be great, but you could also enhance it with plants and color. Asked if there
were any "senior friendly" benches — which are a great way to get seniors outdoors and
interacting with others.
Wilson: All of the projects north of the property have benches within them and on the streets.
The benches that are included in this project are contoured to the body.
Cmr. Spethman: Concurs with Cmr. Calvo's concerns about the entry -way and how it was
addressed. With inclement weather and having tenants with mobility issues, he is hopeful that
a simple canopy would not be the solution for the Phase II entrance. He would suggest that
Cmr. Calvo request a condition on approval of Phase II when the motion is made.
Cmr. Vinson: would like to see a condition stating that something permanent would be added
to the building for the entrance of Phase II.
Deputy City Attorney Shirey drafted the following additional language:
The Applicant shall provide additional architectural elements and articulation
around the entrance of the Phase 2 building as approved by the Development
Services Director, or designee.
MSC (Spethman /Calvo) to support DRC -13 -14 with additional condition added
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -7-
Motion carried 6 -0 -0 -0
3. Public Hearing: PCC -13 -006 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to
rehabilitate an existing private training facility site for mentally
and physically disabled preschoolers and adults. The Project consists of the following:
1) 2,205 square -foot one -story office addition to the existing two -story building to
remain; 2) 14,662 square -foot one -story multi - purpose building with classrooms; 3)
1,231 one -story square -foot pre - school building, and associated open space areas on
approximately 2.3 acres at 1280 Nolan Avenue. Applicant: Arc of San Diego
Proiect Description
The overall proposal consists of rehabilitating an existing private training facility site for
mentally and physically disabled preschoolers and adults. The proposal consists of the
following: 1) 2,205 square -foot one -story office addition to the existing two -story building to
remain; 2) 14,662 square -foot one -story multi - purpose building and classrooms; 3) 1,231
square -foot one -story pre - school building, and associated open space area. There will be a total
of 37,901 square -feet of building area on the site. Overall, the building square footage on site
will be decreased by 1,867 square -feet in comparison to existing building area.
On site amenities include several open space areas throughout the project site consisting of
three (3) courtyards located at the front entrance and in between buildings and a garden area
off one of the courtyard areas. Required parking is provided on site with forty -one (41) off -
street parking spaces provided in the southern portion of the site. There is one vehicle entrance
proposed with two pedestrian access pathways off Nolan Avenue. Improvements to the site
also include a paved parking lot, landscaping, courtyards, and a new trash enclosure.
Pre - School
The pre - school includes early intervention services for children 0 to 3 years of age. The pre-
school provides the typical programs provided to pre - schoolers in addition to providing
assistance for the mentally and physically disabled child with appropriate level learning skills.
The one -story 1,231 square -foot building would be located along Nolan Avenue and would have
a large open space area with an office and restrooms. Outside amenities include a fenced play
area with a play structure for the children.
Operational Profile /Hours of Operation
There will be no changes to the existing operational profile and hours of operation of the
training facility. The existing pre - school will continue to not exceed 25 children. The existing
adult training facility will continue to not exceed 260 adults. All uses will operate during the
existing hours of Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -8-
Parkin
The training facility and pre - school require one parking space per 17 students. Therefore, the
required parking is 17 spaces (285/17 =17 spaces). Off- street parking consists of 39 standard
parking spaces and 2 disabled parking spaces for a total of 41 spaces provided on the site. The
project exceeds the required parking by twenty -four parking spaces and does not propose any
compact parking.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit
Permit, PCC -13 -006, to rehabilitate an existing private training
facility site for mentally and physically disabled preschoolers and adults, subject to the
conditions listed in the Resolution.
DISCUSSION /QUESTIONS:
Cmr. Spethman: Was a lighting study done?
Project Manager Young: There was no study done, but the applicant did show staff where
the lights would be placed and they are designated on the site plan.
There was discussion regarding as to whether there would be arterial and/or parking lighting for
after hours. There is some concern for the residents pertaining to the glare of the illuminants
when the lights are on. Cmr. Spethman requested that the Zoning Administrator review the plans
so that we had some definite direction on it.
Cmr. Spethman: Wanted to know about delivery hours. He also had questions about the
times that participants would arrive and leave. Is it all during the day, at specific times, etc.?
Young: Deferred to the Applicant.
Cmr. Calvo: Requested the slide showing the view from Oneida street. Will the existing trees
remain? There was some discussion and looking at the elevations and it was decided that some
of the trees would go away because of grading.
Public Hearing Opened
No speaker slips, but the Commission had questions.
Cmr Spethman: Questioned the applicant about deliver hours — both of people and products.
Applicant: Food vendors come approximately once a week. Delivery hours will be within the
program hours which are 8:30 — 4:00.
There was discussion of how the clients arrived at the facility — buses, private cars, etc. Most of
the drop -off clients come from public transportation buses.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -9-
Cmr Spethman: The existing building does not seem to fit into the rest of the project. It seems
drab and plain. Is there a reason it is not being re- worked to fit into the rest of the project?
Applicant: "We're accepting donations" O As a non - profit they have a designated budget and
they hope to adjust the fagade of the existing building at a later date. The older buildings were
the classrooms donated to the City of Chula Vista by the Elementary School District, so they're
50+ years old.
Cmr Spethman is not going to make an issue of the difference, but gave several suggestions on
how the older building could be brought more in line with the others. His examples included
color palette, integrating the stucco colors, a wooden trellis — just something to give the building
some visual relief.
Cmr. Livag: Is familiar with the area because he grew up around it. Stated that the large
building sits up away from the street and is not readily viewed unless you're looking for it.
Thinks it's a great project.
Cmr. Calvo: Why is the main feature below on the side street below the street?
Applicant: Because it's in a residential area, they felt that, because it's about the size of a single -
family house and when you drive down Nolan it would fit in better.
There was discussion about cutting down the trees along Oneida and replacing them and that by
approaching the problem areas the way they are, most of the programs will be able to be on a
single level. There was a question of whether there would be a retaining wall along Oneida and
the applicant responded that the grading that will be done will not affect the structure of the
building. Discussion was continued about the slopes and grading and they compared notes to the
elevation drawings. It was decided that there will be a wall.
Cmr. Anaya: Is familiar with running a non - profit and having to take a venture into a capital
campaign and having to rebuild everything. He understands why things are the way they are
thinks it's commendable for them to take on the project.
Cmr Spethman: It is a nicely designed project and he concurs with Cmrs. Anaya and Livag
Chair Moctezuma: While we can voice the Commission's preferences, we must be mindful of
the enormous amount of money it takes to complete a project like this and we should applaud the
efforts.
MSC (Anaya/Livag) to support PCC -13 -006
Motion passed 6 -0 -0 -0