HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2Item -2-
MINUTES 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 C
Memb
Memb
MOTIC
PLEDG
1. API
INTRO
ORAL 1
CONSI
PUBLI,
2. Put
ad
of a 33 -unit
iproximately
pecific Plan.
Background: The�licant.ha submitted a Design Review application for approval of a mixed use project
consrsting 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.
2 -1
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
Rk.
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 e-He equested the materials boardand suggested
that future applicants provide a board complete with glazing, stucco texture and some example of the
hardscape to include finishes and colors.; F:
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 1ook 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 slideain the presentation.
Public Hearing Opened
Daniel Guiterrez;, an adjacent'property owner at 231 Garrett Avenue, spoke during public testimony and
raised concern wiftproject impacts ontheir neighborhood as it relates to the ingress /egress location of the
"+
lot on_theiWestside. He feels it will create more traffic down the alley and that it is not wide enough for two
vehicles to come pass. Hem 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 460
Commission Qu
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.
��A
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 set!sthe tone and tenure of
things we expect in the downtown core. In looking at the "conceptual' landscap 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 verticale"temeh-brHe discussed the problems
of having a "hard deck" and proposed that we insert a condition in-the'approval thatkwe 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 spedi7s'pecies, plant placement or specific size. He
would also ask that those things be inserted as a condition,of approval ard. reviewed by the City's landscape
architect prior to final approval.
Cmr. Calvo: Regarding water quality— she didAnot see that it was addressed in the site plan.
Nikki Jeffery, PE, from David Evans & Assc
report was prepared and approved by th
pretty much impervious and they are pr
drain from the rooftop will be filtered and
MSC (Vinson /Spethman) (5104-0)""'ItHat the Plannii
W the conditions f�c
v(ertical elemen
otion
the Corn"ssibn that a water quality technical
Vista. The site is impervious and will remain
nal :landscaping — like a rooftop garden. The
1114,
e planters.
rCommission approve DRC 13 -06 with the addition in
°pproval as specified by Cmr. Spethman
and that the project has definition of the planter
V,, species.
ith Chair Moctezuma absent
3. Public Hering: To consid er approval of PCM -10 -24 the recommending that the City Council adopt the
resoluticertifying 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);aelated 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.
2 -3
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 Ahe various citizens and
interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process. �e
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: bilities to participate in the Southwest
Working Group (SWWG). The SWWG represented a cross-sectionof the southwest ommunity, 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.
r
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 appllied"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 w the.active °partici patio n dfhe Southwest Community.
lam
Once the draft of the PGDSP was completed in March:2(
the required Program Environmental :Impact Reportfo
PGDSP has been prepared in coF pliance with CEQA ands,
et seq. and California Code of Regulations; Title 14, Sectil
address the potential envi ronmental effects of and prov
PGDSP. + � AM .:
CONCLUSION y"
The preparation of the proposed PGDSP, as mandated by the City's 2005 General Plan, represents one more
action-by-the -th City to implement the vision a " objectives of the General Plan. The PGDSP is intended to serve as
N..V
an effective tool for the planning and revitalization of the PGD. The purpose of the PGDSP is to encourage an
appropriate. mixture and densit 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 an"ntegrate these mobility elements with a complementary mix of land uses, all
within a comfortabl'kin' gnd bicycling distance from the light rail station.
City staff and consultants began the preparation of
� r
e Specific Plan. The Program EIR for the proposed
iA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21000,
15000 et seq.). The purpose of this Program EIR is to
'EQA documentation for the implementation of the
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.
2 -4
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 sigures on the letter, he
did not recollect them being at the workshop nor on the attendance role. The name of3Teresa 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. Thearea`Ysouth 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 zo
time, there was a desire to - over a long period oftir
r
the General Plan. The industrial zoning that is there
to say that if we rezone it those uses would have to!
was continued discussion of zoning cha^�nges and
limitations and areas where new .roadways would be
FMO implementing the-General Plan from 2005. At that
— transition this area to the zones that would implement
day is not consistent with that General Plan. That is not
away,�They would �be previously conforming uses. There
atwould be considered commercial to include height
auired.
,� Pressed
Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer, addressed the roadway north of Palomar on the manner in which the
consultant was asked to make „it :.morespedestrian.friend.ly and to think outside of the box'. They walked the
14 4
neighborhood and gotC.a series of suggestions from a traffic mobility study vs the regular traffic EIR.
The group conti ed the discussion possibility of funding and the location being close to a transit center. The
City is also updating the easte nTDIF and western TDIF. They are also trying to show the nexus between non -
vehicular, odes of travel and development in an area which would provide for future funding. Discussion also
broadened_ o -,to include parks ar , open space when talking about future development.
Cmr Vinson: Asked Miguel j% a if he had called Teresa Acerro to see is she had knowledge of the letter
Tapia responded that h._�; 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?
2 -5
:ny-,.
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 regardi g 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
..p"
the things that may not come across clearly in an EIR as a written document. His concerns ar,
a) Showed the Commission on the map where he lives. When the train comes throu
t
times a week at 2 a m people in that area can feel the vibrations =r
least 2 or 3
b) Sound and vibration studies were not done at night w' en,,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.
... m
This means that when it rains, the water p ols and it is conducive t6 'mosquitoes, etc.
d) Because this is a high traffic area, the bridge coming from 15 across is too narrow to handle the amount
of traffic it receives. � '�
e) When the trolley is running at its peak hours, traffic is �st{o pied on Palomar every 7 minutes. At
Christmas time, it is literally backed up to Broadway
f) There's a traffic circle atfAida and Industrial Streets that has a drop off in front of the trolley station.
Casino buses take then- breaks there and when other traffic tries to use the area, traffic backs up clear to
Industrial. t;
Public Comments Closed
Cmr Livag: This is a step inathe right direction, but Mr. Vogel brings up some valid points. Don't know that
A,
AV
we can mitigate things he mentioned. Hopes we would have a land use that would allow the
property .owner to sell their p operty, move somewhere else and not have to deal with those issues. We've
done a g ea job, but there a` e'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 /Li)`(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
2 -6
CITY of
CHULAVISTA
Planning Commission ?mute
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 2013
6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER At 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Livag,
Council Chambers
1, '' Public Services Bldg 100
276 Fourth Avenue
an, 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: qi2
ublic Hearing: $fDesignReview (DRC- 13 -02) to approve a 48 -unit multi - family
attached alley condominium project with two (2) car garages,
emainder lot, and associated open space on approximately 1.9 acres
located in the Otay Ranch Village Two, Neighborhood R -lOB,
W Planned Community District (RM2) Residential Multi- Family 2 zone.
Applicant: Pacific Coast Communities
Project Manager: Caroline Young
2 -7
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
7 \
currently vacant.'
Summary of Surrounding Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Current Land Use
w
Site: Mixed -Use Residential Planned Community,RM.12' 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
y ,
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 Fp_olicies.that�e ure 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 T o)As a fundamental component of the village core, the architecture of the
Ow
proposed multi- family development is focused primarily on the Santa Barbara design theme.
_3,
Although not" \andated, 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.
elm
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 a're 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 °stan - -C -- s
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 W iith, wo (2) c . afr 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 ResolutionDRC -13 -02 to construct a
48 -unit multi - family attached alley condominium project with ,tvvo (2) car garages, and
associated open space on approxmatel,y:,1.9 acres,.Xbased on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.��°
Oy
DISCUSSION:
x
Cmr Vinson: In ;reviewing to parking requi em ents — is it permissible to count spaces on
Santa Diana Rd,, as,parking spaces for the project?
Proj Mgr Young In` Otay Ranch and Village Two, unlike other portions of Chula Vista, it is
allowable to use offsite parking.
Cmr Spethman Does not s e anything in the plans for open space, i.e. recreation aneminities,
bbq'space, playground area, etc i-
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.
2 -9
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 tazes,,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 wills be
developed.°
Attorney David Miller stated that he had been involedin 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.
r„
Continued discussion ensued and included .using public space (park rand) being used to fulfill
the need of recreational space in a project and the fact thate 'very 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 V`the� project and that this project does meet the
requirements.
Cmr. Livag: If street parking is allowed to be
you prevent one project from using the same
n 1-
project ?""'
anted as parking spaces for a project, how do
es that have already been counted in another
Donn In-the Otay Ranch P an, each project that fronts a street are allowed to use the spaces
00
for their project. The spaces are tr "acked with the project.
2t of t-t
:A
Crrie: Livag: How is private space calculated to be included in common usable public space i.e.
courtyards? ;1
N
om.
Donn: Each -lunit has a certain amount of private and common usable space.
PUBLIC COM
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
2 -10
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
,g i'r-Ti
major water line that runs through the whole village. The concept is that.it will be moved and
Xt .
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 blot 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 un
of a strange lot. If he, n
r•.:»
Cmr. Livag Likes .the con
concerned about the =densi
against density increas' ',J t
MSC (Spethman /Livag) to
OTHER,BUSINESS
1. DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
"'j'�e' Sw46`
There was`�no report
ect and thinks-the applicant did their best to make the most out
-City requirements, he suggests we move forward on it.
of the project-1 and that it meets the letter of the law, but is
ecause: they -meet the requirements he will support it, but is
e future.
2. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
DRC 13 -02 Motion carried 4 -1 -1 -0 with Calvo
absent and Spethman voting nay
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.
2 -11
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.
� +z
�
f f�
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:
2 -12
T 1,.
'.Z�yI/
CITY OF
CHULAVLSTA
Planning Commission PQ Z' ut
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION P
September 25, 2013
6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER At 6:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya Calvo, Livag, Speth -man, Vinson
_- A
Members Present: Calvo, Livag, Spethman, and Chair Moctezuma
Members Absent: Anaya and Vinson = _
MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Commissioners Anaya and Vinson
MSC: Spethman/Luag
Motion passed
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF.,SILENCE
OPENING STATEMENT__a ? --
1 ApprovahofMinutes M—
Public Seri
276 F
Chambers
s_Bldg 100
Eh :.Avenue
air Moctezuma
June 26;,2013 no-,quorum available to approve..
om
July 10 013M o quorum available to approve
July 24,2013 MSC: Spethman / Calvo Approved: 4 -0 -2 -0
iLIC COMMENTS:
re were none
Public Hearing PCZ- 12 -03: Consideration of a Rezone involving two (2) lots,
totaling 0.38 acres, located on the north side of Alvarado Street,
between Third and Del Mar Avenues, from Multi - Family
_= .. Residential (R -3) to Urban Core -1 (UC -1). The applicant and
property owner is Sweetwater Union High School District.
INTRODUCTION
The parcels described above are owned by Sweetwater Union High School District (District) and
are part of a larger mixed -use development proposal, for which the applicant is processing a
Design Review Permit (DRC- 12 -15), an Environmental Review (IS -12 -002) and a Tentative Map
(PCS- 12 -06).
2 -13 -
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -2-
This project is going through the consolidated review process, in accordance with the
Consolidation of Processing regulations contained in Municipal Code Section 19.14.050(C). The
decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project will be consol Gated to the
highest decision maker, which is the City Council. The exception is the rezone portion of the
development proposal, and that action requires a Planning Commission heae.rg in addition to
the City Council decision.
The Cummings Initiative
The Cummings Initiative was approved in 1988 (Ordinan6e,N2309) and providesa_ means of
controlling residential growth to keep pace with infrastructure needs. In accordancenwith
the ordinance, rezoning of property designated for residential development is permitted
only to the next highest residential density category in any two-:year period according to
the following schedule: '
A Agricultural
R -E Residential Estate Zone
R -1 Single Family Residential Zone -
R -2 One- and Two= Family Residential Zone
R -3 Apartment Residential--Zorie
When the UCSP was approved in April 1201
numerous properties that were residentiall
located on the propertSince the deferral
_ �.
residentially zoned properties and their p
19.80 (Cu mmiings Initiative). The Cum-n
residential o e_than R -3, norAid_it account
fhe" City Council deferred the rezoning of
zoned or had mobile home or trailer parks
staff has begun a preliminary analysis of the
ential up- zoning for compliance with CVMC
n'gs Initiative did not anticipate a higher
bIr mixed -use zoning.
ges have taken place that ensure the City's growth does not
i.lity or the quality of life in general:
impact fees have been instituted (and are updated regularly),
development pays its fair share of infrastructure costs in a timely
act fees are based on anticipated infrastructure needs such as roads,
!s, sewer and parks.
ty of Chula Vista's General Plan was updated, redefining the City's
ablishing strategies to achieve community goals for development.
the Urban Core Specific Plan was adopted, to implement the vision
Core Subarea portion of the General Plan.
The tools are in place to plan and control the rate of residential growth; however, since
the Cummings Ordinance is still in place, an analysis is done for zoning modifications to
ensure compliance with the municipal code.
2 -14
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -3-
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ- 12 -03,
recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Map
established by Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section. 19.18.010
to rezone 2 multi - family lots located on the north,_s a*6�%f Alvarado
Street (APNs 568 - 511 -18 and 568 - 511 -19) fron).0-- existing Multi -
Family Residential Zone (R -3) to an Urban Core;Zo,(UC -1), based on
the findings contained in the attachedPIS arming,, Commission
Resolution.
DISCUSSION /QUESTIONS TO STAFF:
There was discussion, initiated by Commissioner Calvo, regarding the Cummings InitiatKi =and
the possible need to update the City's Zoning Ordindhd Deputy City Attorney Shirey advised
the Board that the Attorney's Office did not fully vet th'i oject Cumming's Initiative. We are
not totally confident that we can go to this zoning with out.a - mending the Cumming's Initiative.
However, the zoning is in the General Plan, but it is the sa_me':issue that could have been
litigated five years ago. At this time, the --Attorney's Office is o k.-,--- with_ the project going forward
if the applicant is. Commissioner Calvo s concerned that future projects will have the same
problem with rezoning if the Ordinance is no h nged Attorney Shirey_stated that when the
Cummings Initiative was passed, there was a provision that with a 5 -0 vote of the Council, the
initative could be changed. The recommendation of staff acid tKe_ torney's Office, to Council,
would be to amend the Cummings Initiative Without doing that; -there is the same risk as in
previous years of legal-a- being taken by the =public.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Deacon Greg Srrith,�St Rose of Lima spoke in favor o_f the project.
Luanne Hulsizer, Executive Director Th'�d Avenue Village Association — spoke in favor of the
project She als presen ed -a letter of support dated May 1, 2013 that had been directed to
IVlayor Cox a�-e� .a_m
Kevin O'Neill, residentpoke in favor of the project.
Dan Rosenberg, Gate ay Chula Vista Building, spoke in favor of the project.
RING CLOSED
COMMISSIONER: COMMENTS /QUESTIONS
Commissioner Spethman spoke in support of revitalizing Third Avenue and having a residential
component to jump start a fantastic opportunity.
2 -15
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -4-
Commissioner Calvo reiterated that she is not opposed to the project, but that the zoning issue
jumped out and caught her attention. She said that she believes the City should look into the
rezoning issues as the same issues may come up in the future.
MSC (Spethman /Livag) to support PCA -12 -03
Motion carried 4 -0 -2 -0 ( Calvo, Livag, M
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
The prevalence of food trucks in Chula Vista h lkrea
In response to citizen complaints about their increasecl_�
a joint referral to the City Manager and City Attorney's
Development Services, Eric Crockett, presented a mem,
presented staff's initial recommerid"ations on the matter.
City staff feels that updating
many other cities employ is a,
these code updates now would
regulation sooner than later. A
Submitted by:
the past couple of years.
`° the City Council issued
Assistant Director of
;ponds to this referral and
vith - standard regulations that
ig these businesses. Enacting
Ube subject to some level of
was presented to the Board.
Ordinance change.
1 driver's license 2) collection of sales
Cards and 5) business licenses.
!d that he seriously thought tonight would be his last
al interviews for a replacement and filling of the vacant
said that it had been a pleasure working with Commissioner
entirety of the Board confirmed the comment.
at 6:51 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting
on October 9, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary
2 -16