Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2013 Planning Commission 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: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: ORAL COMMUNICATION: CONSENT ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS: May 22, 2013 MSC (Spethman /Vinson) Motion Carried Read into the record by Vice -Chair Calvo No public input None 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 facade 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 Minutes Approved: February 12, 2014 MSC: Calvo /Anaya 6 -0 -1 -0 (Vinson absent)