HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - Approval of MinutesITEM 1
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Date: June 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL / MOTION TO EXCUSE:
Members Present: Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson
Members Absent:
MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANI
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
CONSENT ITEMS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
Moctezuma
Chair Moctezuma had requested to be excused
MSC (Calvo /Vinson) to excuse Chair Moctezuma Motion carried
MOMENT OF SILENCE:
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 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.
,1910[a]FLIM L`
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 Commissionfor 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, Boa rds &Commissions \PlanningCommission \Minutes
CITY CIF
CHULA VISTA
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
�
nu%s
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
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 -lOB,
Planned Community District (RM2) Residential Multi- Family 2 zone.
Applicant: Pacific Coast Communities
Project Manager: Caroline Young
1. Public Hearing
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
Site: Mixed -Use Residential
South: Public Quasi
North: Res. Low Medium
East: Park
Zoning
Current Land Use
Planned Community,RM2' Multi- Family Res. Attached Alley
Planned Community,RM1
Planned Community,RM1
Future Elementary School
Single- Family Detached Alley
Planned Community P3 Future Park
West: Res. Low Medium I 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
throughput 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
conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
Cmr Vinson: In reviewing the parking requirements — 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 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 (Vinson /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
CITY of
CHULAVISfA
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 24, 2013
6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER At 6:01 p.m.
i�l:�uf�s
Council Chambers
lic Services Bldg 100
276 Fourth Avenue
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:~ ,,upesigni,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
yF'
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 recom
Permit, DRC- 12 -10, subject to the cc
DISCUSSION /QUESTIONS:
Chair Moctezuma: Clarified the
PUBLIC HEARING OPENEE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSIONER
ae ,Planning Commission approve Design Review
listed in the attached Resolution.
sity and approval being requested by the applicant.
NS
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,
to be constructed in two phases on approximately 4.5 acres in Otay
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -3-
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
Protect 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 fro _ of thelot, 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 Purpo§6- Facility Zoned (CPF -2) site is
the last remaining undeveloped parcel in Heritage Village Onesmce construction began in Otay
Ranch Village 1 back in 1998. The CPF -2 site is bordered qon the north by Residential
Condominiums, Multi - Family Apartments to the east,�5harp 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
live independently. Each *unit is
main entrance lobby and studio
studio units. The seniors who liv
on the site; in`kaddition to havin -g
total of 63 units will be construc,
,quare -foot building will be constructed for seniors who can
studio with full kitchen and bath. The first floor consists of the
nits. TheRsecond and third floors consist of the remainder
in this building can also use all of the facilities and amenities
neals prepared for them in the main building, upon request. A
A in Phase 2.
Spanish style architecturein corporates 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; M1
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.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -5-
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 an "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 Vtax 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 .,,g
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
the least, a nice awning or something to articulate the entrance and make the people that live
there want to come into the building.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -6-
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 11?
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`t --art Phase 11?
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' n Andreas would be used.
Chair Moctezuma: Does like Cmr Calvo's suggestion of working on the Phase 11 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. Calv6 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'forthe entranceof Phase 11.
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
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
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -7-
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: Are of San Diego
Protect 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 twci =story building to
remain; 2) 14,662 square -foot one -story multi - purpose building and classrooms; 3) 1,231
"v"
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
�W w
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. "
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -8-
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,, 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.?
street. Will the existing trees
and it was decided that some
th of people and products.
ivery hours will be within the
ses, private cars, etc. Most of
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 fayade 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.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -9-
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 QOneida and replacing the and that by
approaching the problem areas the way they are, most of the programs will be' le 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 cart�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: t
MSC (Anaya/Livag) to support PCC -13 -006
Motion passed 6 -0 -0 -0
4. APPOINTMENT OF NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR FY 2013 -14
Cmr. Vinson has had some discussion with the Vice Chair and she concurs that they would
support Lisa Moctezuma to continue acting as the Chairperson for the Planning Commission.
MSC (Vinson/Livag) to retain the current Chair and Vice -Chair
Motion passed unanimously 6 -0 -0 -0
Planning Commission Agenda
July 24, 2013
Page -10-
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Asst. Director of Dev Services Eric Crockett said there was no report except that there are
currently no items for September. If you haven't had the opportunity to meet the new
Director, Kelly Broughton, he's in the audience and you should take time to meet him.
6. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Cmr. Spethman: would like staff to agendize the proliferation of food trucks that are
sprouting up all over Chula Vista. Some of them are starting to become
"permanent" structures with dining canopies, lights, tables, etc, It makes it difficult for the
smaller restaurants and business to be successful. Food trucks should be moving and not
parked permanently with dining areas.
Chair Moctezuma suggested an information item to let the Commission know exactly what is
going on with them and give different examples.
Asst. Director Crockett stated that they are currently working with the Attorney's office to
determine which codes are in place and what needs to, be addressed.
There was some discussion .whether it should be an information item or an action item
(regarding land use). The concern is regarding those that seem more permanently fixed. It was
decided that staff would return in September with something.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:26 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting
.................
on August 14, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Submitted by:
Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary
Minutes Approved: 09 -25 -2013
MSC: Spethman /Calvo 4 -0 -2 -0
CITY OF
CHULAM515A
City of Chula Vista Boards & Commissions
Planning Commission
September 25, 2013
6:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers
Public Services Bldg 100
276 Fourth Avenue
CALL TO ORDER At 6:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma
Members Present: Calvo, Livag, Spethman, and Chair Moctezuma
Members Absent: Anaya and Vinson
MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Commissioners Anaya and Vinson
MSC: Spethman/Livag
Motion passed 4 -0 -2 -0
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
OPENING STATEMENT:
1 Approval of Minutes
June 26, 2013
July 10, 2013
July 24, 2013
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were none
no quorum available to approve
no quorum available to approve
MSC: Spethman / Calvo Approved: 4 -0 -2 -0
2 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).
Planning Commission Agenda
September 25, 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 consolidated 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 hearing in addition to
the City Council decision.
The Cummings Initiative
The Cummings Initiative was approved in 1988 (Ordinance 2309) and provides a means of
controlling residential growth to keep pace with infrastructure needs. In accordance with
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 Zone
When the UCSP was approved in April 2007, the City Council deferred the rezoning of
numerous properties that were residentially zoned or had mobile home or trailer parks
located on the property. Since the deferral, staff has begun a preliminary analysis of the
residentially zoned properties and their potential up- zoning for compliance with CVMC
19.80 (Cummings Initiative). The Cummings Initiative did not anticipate a higher
residential zone than R -3, nor did it account for mixed -use zoning.
Since 1988, several changes have taken place that ensure the City's growth does not
impact environmental quality or the quality of life in general:
• Development impact fees have been instituted (and are updated regularly),
ensuring new development pays its fair share of infrastructure costs in a timely
manner. Impact fees are based on anticipated infrastructure needs such as roads,
police, libraries, sewer and parks.
• In 2005, the City of Chula Vista's General Plan was updated, redefining the City's
vision and establishing strategies to achieve community goals for development.
• Two years later, the Urban Core Specific Plan was adopted, to implement the vision
for the Urban 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.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 25, 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 side of Alvarado
Street (APNs 568 - 511 -18 and 568 - 511 -19) from an existing Multi -
Family Residential Zone (R -3) to an Urban Core Zone (UC -1), based on
the findings contained in the attached Planning Commission
Resolution.
DISCUSSION /QUESTIONS TO STAFF:
There was discussion, initiated by Commissioner Calvo, regarding the Cummings Initiative and
the possible need to update the City's Zoning Ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Shirey advised
the Board that the Attorney's Office did not fully vet this project Cumming's Initiative. We are
not totally confident that we can go to this zoning without amending the Cumming's Initiative.
However, the zoning is in the General Plan, but it is the same 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 is concerned that future projects will have the same
problem with rezoning if the Ordinance is not changed. 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 and the Attorney'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 action being taken by the public.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Deacon Greg Smith, St. Rose of Lima spoke in favor of the project.
Luanne Hulsizer, Executive Director — Third Avenue Village Association — spoke in favor of the
project. She also presented a letter of support dated May 1, 2013 that had been directed to
Mayor Cox.
Kevin O'Neill, resident, spoke in favor of the project.
Dan Rosenberg, Gateway Chula Vista Building, spoke in favor of the project.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS /QUESTIONS
Commissioner Spethman spoke in support of revitalizing Third Avenue and having a residential
component to jump start a fantastic opportunity.
Planning Commission Agenda
September 25, 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, Moctezuma, Spethman)
OTHER BUSINESS
2 DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ISSUE
The prevalence of food trucks in Chula Vista has increased over the past couple of years.
In response to citizen complaints about their increased operation, the City Council issued
a joint referral to the City Manager and City Attorney's Office. Assistant Director of
Development Services, Eric Crockett, presented a memo that responds to this referral and
presented staff s initial recommendations on the matter.
City staff feels that updating the Municipal Code now with standard regulations that
many other cities employ is a good way to begin regulating these businesses. Enacting
these code updates now would mean that food trucks would be subject to some level of
regulation sooner than later. A proposed Ordinance change was presented to the Board.
Kevin O'Neill, a resident, spoke in favor of the Ordinance change.
There was discussion about requiring 1) a special driver's license 2) collection of sales
tax 3) Health Department Ratings 4) Food worker Cards and 5) business licenses.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Spethman joked that he seriously thought tonight would be his last
meeting. Council is doing final interviews for a replacement and filling of the vacant
seat.
Chair Moctezuma said that it had been a pleasure working with Commissioner
Spethman and the entirety of the Board confirmed the comment.
ADJOURNMENT 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.
Submitted by:
Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary
Minutes Approved: February 12, 2014
MSC: Calvo /Livag 6 -0 -1 -0 (Vinson Absent)
z�r
cmroF
CHULAVISTA
Planning Commission
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minuf,a
November 20, 2013 276 Fourth Avenue
6:00 p.m. Public Services Bldg C
HR Training Rooms 8111 & 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 I 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, I 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.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -3-
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
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. I 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.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -4-
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.
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
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.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -5-
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.
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
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -6-
• 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.
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
INTRODUCTION:
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR), CEQA 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
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -7-
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
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.
Sb. 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.
5c. 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
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -8-
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).
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 Dedicatio --h (IODs) for 50
acres of developable University /Regional Technology Park land if certain entitlements are
approved within the agreed upon timeframes. As partof 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
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -9-
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.
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.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2013
Page -10-
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 trafficmodel study.
Public Hearing Closed
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) Commissioner's Livag and Fragomeno voted nay and
Calvo abstained
OTHER BUSINESS
6. Director's Comments'
There were none
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.
Submitted by:
Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary