Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2013 Planning Commission Minutes\W-0-0 QTY OF CHULA VISR Planning Commission SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION i�linufes November 20, 2013 276 Fourth Avenue 6:00 p.m. Public Services Bldg C HR Training Rooms B111 & B112 CALL TO ORDER At 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya (arrived at 6:17) Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma MEMBERS ABSENT: None MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: 1. WELCOME TO NEW COMMISSIONERS Mario Fragomeno and Javier Nava 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 26, 2013 July 10, 2013 September 25, 2013 There was discussion between Chair Moctezuma and Deputy City Attorney Shirey as to what the rules were for voting on minutes when you were not present at the meeting. If you had to be present to vote, there was not a quorum on two of the minutes for approval, so the approvals were continued until DCA Shirey could research the matter and give a clear determination. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Public Hearing: PCS 12 -07; DRC 12 -17: Consideration of Tentative Map (PCS- 12 -07) and Design Review (DRC- 12 -17) applications to develop the vacant site at 944 Third Avenue with a Mixed Use — Residential/ Commercial project. Project Manager: Miguel Tapia Senior Planner Miguel Tapia gave a presentation, which included a PowerPoint, regarding the Creekside project. Creekside Vistas, LLC ( "Applicant ") has submitted applications for a Design Review Permit and a Tentative Map for the development of the currently vacant site at 914 -944 Third Avenue ( "Site ") located between L Street and Moss Street, across Third Avenue from the San Diego Country Club, with a mixed use — commercial residential project ( "Project "). The proposed Project consists of the construction of the following components: 119 residential units, four of which will be live /work units, 755 square - feet of commercial space, a 2 -story club house and other recreational elements, and other site improvements associated with the development of the Site, such as parking, access and circulation, and open spaces. The proposed Tentative Map would combine the current four parcels that make up the Site into one condominium map for the 119 residential units and one commercial unit. The condominium map would allow the units to be sold individually. City staff has reviewed the applications and the associated conceptual design plans and the Tentative Map, and is presenting the proposed Project to the Planning Commission for consideration and approval. CONCLUSION Creekside Vistas, LLC proposes to develop the vacant Site at 914 -944 Third Avenue with a mixed -use project that residential units and commercial spaces, as well as other recreational amenities and site improvements associated with the Project. This Project replaces a previous project that could not be developed due to the changes in the economy during the past five years. The proposed Project will provide 119 new, high - quality, energy- efficient multi - family homes that will enhance the image and appearance of the neighborhood, help revitalize the commercial businesses in the area, and create jobs related to the construction and the use of the Project, that will benefit the local economy. The location near the intersection of Third and L Street will provide convenient access for residents to nearby public transportation, jobs, schools, and commercial services. The Project will provide new for -sale multi - family housing and mixed use units in a commercial area that will improve the housing mix and enhance residential and commercial opportunities in the neighborhood. The Site will be developed with a quality Project that is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan and meets the requirements and of the CVMC and the Guidelines of the City's Design Manual. The proposed Project is well Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -3- planned, incorporating the principals of Smart Grown and resource conservation. It is designed to respect and blend with the community character, local history, and climate. The proposed Project will re- activate the street and contribute to improve the neighborhood and create residential and business activity in this part of the City. Given the siting and arrangement of the building structures, parking, recreational components, and open spaces, the proposed Project is consistent with the regulations and development standards of the CVMC, and the Guidelines of the Design Manual. Based on the description and evaluation of the Project contained in this report and the conclusions above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions contained in the Planning Commission resolution. Staff questions included things such as parking, low income housing, parking, etc. Q. Compare this project to the previously proposed one A. This project is less intense and smaller. Q. Was there a solar and /or low income element included? A. No solar was proposed or required. A recent Council Policy change allows a low - income waver for projects on the west side. They are providing solar on the Community Building. May the records show that Commissioner Anaya arrived at 6:17 p.m. Q. Is the 224 parking spaces the minimum? A. There are 1.5 spaces allowed for studio and 1- bedroom and 2 spaces allowed for 2 or more bedroom units. The parking does meet the standard requirement. Q. Does the plan provide for commercial spaces and is residential parking allowed on the street? A. Commercial parking is provided and there is no street parking for residential units. Public Hearing Opened No questions from the public. The applicant was allowed to speak on the questions from the Commission. Q. Are there parking meters for the commercial parking? A. The commercial spaces are limited to 5:00 p.m. so it would not be an issue. We can certainly flag out spaces the commercial parking units for meters. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -4- Q. What is the average height of the wall as shown on page 3 -53? A. It maxs out at 10 feet — it's a geo -grade type of wall with vines on it. Q. How are you preserving the trees? A. Surveyed to see which trees are healthy and can remain. They are being careful to work around the trees which will be laced and taken care of. Public Hearing Closed MSC (Vinson /Livag) to support PCS 12 -07; DRC 12 -17 Motion carried 6 -0 -0 -1 with Anaya abstaining as he was not present for the presentation 4. Public Hearing: PCA- 11 -01: Consideration of amendments to the P -C Planned Communities Zone (CVMC 19.48) requirements for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) to provide and clarify compliance options. Project Manager: Harold Phelps Commissioner Calvo recused herself on Item 4 In consideration of provisions in the University Land Offer Agreement (LOA) villages related to Villages 3, 8, 9 and 10, and inquiries from several developers, the City initiated amendments to the Planned Community (PC) Zone (CVMC 19.48) requirements pertaining to the delivery of land for CPF uses. The proposed amendments would allow reductions in otherwise required CPF acreage and provide for alternative compliance options, in conjunction with the provision of certain public benefits. In an effort to include all affected parties, staff met with and solicited input on proposed CPF ordinance amendments with representatives from the development and ecumenical communities as well as members of the Chula Vista Community Collaborative. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the development community at their weekly team meetings, held an ecumenical workshop on June 25, 2013 and made a formal presentation to the Chula Vista Community Collaborative on August 13, 2013. These groups expressed interest in some of the alternative compliance options, such as buildings that would provide build -to -suit floor area for CPF users. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -5- RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA -11 -01 recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft City Council Ordinance, in accordance with the findings contained therein. Questions: Q. How do you define "extraordinary public benefits "? A. That would initially be up to the applicant. The example given was of the University site. To enable the development agreement to specify a more dense configuration, we would get the benefit of the University land. An extra ordinary benefit would be something you would not normally have gotten. Public Hearing Opened Public Hearing Closed MSC (Anaya /Vinson) (6- 0 -0 -1) with Commissioner Calvo abstaining 5 -a, b & C Glen Laube, Senior Planner and Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner, both from the Advanced Planning Division, presented a 40 -slide PowerPoint presentation regarding the EIR and the SPA Plan. The items to be considered included the final EIR- 10 -03, the SPA Plan (PCM09 -18) and the tentative map (PCS 09 -04). The SPA Plan included sections regarding: • PC District Regulations /Design Plan (Form Based Code) • Public Facility Finance Plan • Air Quality Improvement Plan • Non Renewable Energy Conservation Plan • Preserve Edge Plan • Agricultural Plan • Fire Protection Plan • Water Conservation Plan • Affordable Housing Program These items will be voted on with one vote to approve or disapprove. Vote is recorded at the end of portion 5 -b; c. Commissioner Calvo recused herself on Items 5a, 5b and 5c. 5a PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 10 -03) for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map Project Manager: Glen Laube Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -6- INTRODUCTION: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR), CECIA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map (TM). In accordance with Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Village 8 West EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review. Written comments were received during the public review period, and responses to the comments are included in the Final Village 8 West EIR. This staff report discusses the general content of the Village 8 West Final EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and MMRP. The Planning Commission must consider the Village 8 West Final EIR before taking any action on the Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Village 8 West Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the City of Chula Vista's environmental review procedures. Pursuant to Section 21067 of CEQA and Section 15367 and Sections 15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Chula Vista is the Lead Agency under whose authority this EIR has been prepared. CONCLUSION All feasible mitigation measures with respect to impacts for the Project have been included in the Village 8 West Final EIR. As described above, the Project will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the application of these measures. Therefore, in order to approve the Project, the City must adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043, 15091 and 15093 (see 2, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section XII). The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the proposed project described in the Village 8 West Final EIR. CEQA requires the examination of project alternatives that could reduce or avoid significant impacts even if the alternatives would not accomplish the project objectives. The Village 8 West Final EIR evaluated three alternatives: the No Project Alternative, Reduced Density Alternative 1 (1,167 dwelling units), and Reduced Density Alternative 2 (672 dwelling units). The Village 8 West Final EIR identified the No Project and the Reduced Density Alternative 2 as the environmentally superior alternatives, even though neither of these alternatives would meet the project objectives (see Attachment 2, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section XI). The Village 8 West Final EIR meets the requirements of CEQA and, therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council certify that EIR 10 -03 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -7- Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; make certain Findings of Fact; and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. EIR- 10 -03. Commissioner Calvo recused herself on Items 5b & 5c 5b. Public Hearing: PCM- 09 -18; Consideration of the Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community District Regulations/ Design Plan (Form Based Code), Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Plan and other regulatory documents on approximately 300 acres within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. Sc. Public Hearing: PCS- 09 -04; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS - 09-04), implementing the Village 8 West SPA Plan (PCM- 09 -18). Project Manager: Scott Donaghe INTRODUCTION The applicant, the Otay Land Company, filed an application for the Village 8 West SPA (PCM -09- 18) and Tentative Map (PCS- 09 -04) in September 2009. The Village 8 West SPA defines the land use character and mix, design criteria, transportation system and public infrastructure requirements for this approximately 300 -acre site within the Otay Ranch. The Tentative Map implements the SPA Plan by providing for the subdivision of lots and the detailed design of the circulation system and other public improvements consistent with the SPA Plan. BACKGROUND /OVERVIEW Since the adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) in 1993, the City of Chula Vista has maintained a vision of locating a university within the Otay Ranch. This vision is also reflected in the General Plan (GP). While the properties have been designated "University" (with a secondary residential land use should the University not become a reality), they have been held in private, rather than public, ownership. In 2001, progress in assembling the land necessary to locate the University was made with the acquisition of approximately 140 acres of developable land for university purposes. It was understood that additional acreage was required to realize the land mass envisioned for the University by the GP and GDP. In 2007, the City began negotiating with the landowners on a land plan that would be beneficial to the City, and carry out the goals of the GP and GDP with the conveyance of land necessary for the future development of a University and a Regional Technology Park if certain benefits were received by the landowners (entitlements received within agreed upon timeframes). Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -8- On April 15, 2008 the City of Chula Vista entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with OLC that would allow the City of Chula Vista to accept Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs) for 50 acres of developable University /Regional Technology Park land if certain entitlements are approved within the agreed upon timeframes. As part of the agreement the City also received an IOD for an additional 160 acres of mitigation land and one million dollars for University recruitment and planning purposes was received upon execution of the LOA. A second one million dollars for the same purpose will be received if such entitlements are approved by the City. It was originally envisioned in the LOA that all of the approvals (including the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendments, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans for Villages 8 West and 9, Environmental Impact Reports and tentative maps for both villages) would be heard at one hearing, but due to the size and complexity of the project an amendment to the LOA was approved in February 2013. The Amended LOA permitted the consideration of the General Plan (GPA) and General Development Plan Amendments (GDPA) separately from the remainder of the applications. The GPA and GDPA were approved by Council on February 26, 2013. The proposal under consideration (Village 8 West SPA and TM) would implement the GP and GDP and would be the next step towards realizing the City's vision for a University in Eastern Chula Vista pursuant to the LOA. A similar proposal for the Village 9 SPA and TM is expected to be before the Planning Commission and City Council early next year. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution PCM -09 -08 recommending that the City Council: a. Approve the Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and supporting regulatory documents including the Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Plan and other regulatory documents in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and, b. Adopt an Ordinance approving the Village 8 West Planned Community District Regulations/ Design Plan (Form Based Code) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 2. Adopt Resolution PCS -09 -04 recommending that the City Council approve the Village 8 West Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -9- Questions /Answers Q. In looking at the locator map, where is the closest fire station and is there a library? A. Fire station #7 is the closest off of Olympic Parkway at Birch Road in Village 2 and there is no library. Q. Expenditure rate of inflation is 0 % - can you explain? A. The person who ran the Fiscal Analysis is here and can explain when we get to the review. Q. In the EIR under Traffic and Transportation, there are some Thresholds to be met: Prior to the issuance of a building permit on the 2463 unit before April 5, 3022 and after November 20, 2013" — can you tell me where we are when approaching the 2463 number? A. We are currently at 1765 units. The Commissioner's concern is not at build -out, but on the frequency of traffic on Main Street and dealing with traffic issues through 2020/2025. Is the Threshold set at a proper point and will Main Street will be completed soon enough? There was extensive discussion regarding traffic flow, impacts and resolutions. Further on (in the Public Hearing), both Dave Kaplan, City Traffic Engineer and Dawn Wilson, from RBF Consulting addressed the concerns, answered additional questions and gave an overview of the implementation of the coming improvements, coordination with CALTRANS on light coordination and relief for the areas in question through 2025. Open Public Hearing Jeff O'Connor from Otay Land Company (applicant for Village 8 West) spoke in support of the project. Dino Serafini, Public Finance Designer from PMC, addressed the earlier question of "0 %" financing asked by Commissioner Vinson and explained to the group how "O Real" inflation works. He then answered questions from the Commission. In this Public Hearing timeframe, Dave Kaplan, City Traffic Engineer and Dawn Wilson from RBF Consulting answered extensive questions regarding traffic impacts (as noted above under Questions and Answers). Q. What year did you start factoring the university park traffic? What are the projections for that, what kind of enrollment is expected and how are we adjusting for that? A. City Traffic Engineer Kaplan explained the process of doing a traffic model study. Public Hearing Closed Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2013 Page -10- Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Vinson feels staff has provided sufficient evidence that mitigate the impacts will be dealt with and he supports the project. Commissioner Livag: Thinks the project is great, but as he looks through the tables, feels that the numbers there cannot be used beyond 2015 and we should re -look at the numbers to see if Main Street should be constructed by 2020 instead of 2025. We don't have those numbers so we can't do a new projection of the model. The project is great other than that, but because of what he feels is a lack of the current numbers for a new projection, he cannot support the project as it stands tonight. MSC (Vinson /Nava) (4- 2 -0 -1) OTHER BUSINESS 6. Director's Comments There were none Commissioner's Livag and Fragomeno voted nay and Calvo abstained 7. Commissioner's Comments Chair Moctezuma reminded the group that they are all due for Ethics Training. There is a workshop being held on Thursday, December 10th, but you need to do the on -line training to receive the certificate. Adjournment at 7:40 to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting on December 11, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Sul�ni' itted by- _J Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary Minutes Approved: February 12, 2014 With an additional statement that Commissioner Calvo recused herself on Items 4 and 5 MSC: Calvo/Nava 6 -0 -1 -0 (With Vinson absent)