Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Staff Report PCS16-0006CH ULA VISTA vh �� O ,� yf s _ Item: 3 Meeting Date: 9/28/1.6 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCS 16-0006 Consideration of a Tentative Map to adjust lot lines and neighborhood boundaries located in the Otay Ranch Village 2 South area neighborhoods R -17A, R-17B(a), R-18A(c), R-18A(d), R- 18B(a), R -19a, R-20, and R -21a, Planned Conununity Zone. Applicant: Baldwin & Sons, LLC & Cornerstone Communities. Resolution -of -the City of Chula Vista Planning_ Commission approving a Tentative Map, PCS16-0006 to adjust lot lines and neighborhood boundaries located in the Otay Ranch Village 2 South area neighborhoods R -17A, R-17B(a), R-18A(c), R-18A(d), R-18B(a), R -19a, R-20and R-21 a. SUBMITTED BY: Caroline Young, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, Director of Development Services INTRODUCTION The Applicant has submitted a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) to adjust lot lines and neighborhood boundary lines as a result of new ownership and equivalency density transfers between neighborhoods resulting in the reduction of 17 multi -family units from neighborhood R- 17B(b) and the addition of 10 single-family units located in neighborhoods R-18B(a), R-1 9a, and R -21a. Neighborhood boundary lot lines adjustments will also occur in neighborhoods R -17A, R-17B(a), R-18A(c), R-18A(d), and R-20 within the Otay Ranch Village 2 South area. Overall, no additional residential units are being added to the total number of units in Otay Ranch Village 2. The site is vacant and located within the Otay Ranch Village 2 Sectional Planning Area (see Locator Map, Attachment 1). BACKGROUND Village 2 SPA Plan The Village 2 SPA Plan and Tentative Map (PCS 06-05) were approved on May 23, 2006. The Village 2 SPA PIan acconunodates a variety of urban and semi -urban residential products. while the greatest residential densities and mixture of uses surround the village core, the Village 2 SPA Plan also incorporates a series of residential neighborhoods organized around neighborhood parks. Residents within these neighborhoods will be within walking distance of multiple parks, community purpose facilities, and a variety of commercial uses. Planning Commission PCS 16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 2, Item _3_ On July 9, 2012, the Applicant submitted a request to add additional residential units within the Otay Ranch: Village 2 portion of the Village of Montecito & Otay Ranch Business Park Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan ("Village 2 SPA Plan"). The plan included new multi -family units and a reduction of single-family units in order to address further changes to market conditions and economy as mentioned above. In order to do so, amendments to the General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Village 2 SPA Plan, the associated Planned Community (PC) District Regulations and regulatory documents was required. A Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) and the Village Design Plan components, including provision of elementary schools, Community Purpose Facilities, Parks, etc. to support the requested units, Supplemental EIR (FSEIR -12-01), and four new Tentative Maps to accommodate the addition units was also required. On November 4, 2014, the City Council approved the proposed amendments. Currently, a total of 4,132 residential units (604 Single -Family units and 3,528 Multi -Family units) are allowed with.Otay_.Ranch Village I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was adequately covered in previously adopted Final Second Tier EIR (FSEIR -12-01). No further environmental review or documentation is necessary. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolutions approving the proposed project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Project Site Characteristics: The Village 2 SPA Plan area is located adjacent to and south of Olympic Parkway, adjacent to and north of the Wolf Canyon Preserve, adjacent to and east of the future Heritage Road extension, and adjacent to and west of La Media Road. The Otay Ranch area South, for the purposes of this tentative subdivision map is identified as the area south of Santa Victoria Road, east of Santa Christian Road, and west of La Cumbre Avenue (see Locator Map). Portions of the Village are currently vacant and generally comprised of rolling terrain devoid of natural vegetation due to historic farming activities. Other portions of the site are partially graded, and yet others are developed or currently udder development. These neighborhoods are being developed with a variety of product types, including detached and attached residential units, and alley loaded single family homes. Village 2 includes approximately 765 acres and comprises multiple different ownerships. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map revisions represent properties owned by Baldwin & Sons, LLC and Cornerstone Communities. The areas of the Tentative Map comprise approximately 68.77 acres and include 3 neighborhoods affected by the proposed unit transfer (see Attaclunent 2, Village 2, Existing Neighborhood Boundaries Map). Planning Commission PCS 16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 3, Item 3 Project Description: The Tentative Map proposes to adjust lot lines and neighborhood boundary in order to align ownership boundaries and densities, resulting in the reduction of 17 multi -family units from neighborhood R-17B(b), and the addition of 10 single-family units to neighborhoods R-18B(a), R- 19a, and R-21 a based upon an equivalency factor. Neighborhood boundary lot lines adjustments will also occur in neighborhoods R -17A, R -1713(a), R-18A(c),R-18A(d), and R-20 within the Otay Ranch 2 South area. Baldwin & Sons reached a lot swap agreement with Cornerstone Communities, under which Baldwin & Sons acquired 13 lots in Neighborhood R -21a and 17 Iots in Neighborhood R-1 8A(a) in exchange for 24 lots in Neighborhood R-18A(b), 5 lots in Neighborhood R-18B(b), and i lot in Neighborhood R-17B(a) (See Exhibit 3, Lot Swap). As a result of this swap, each developer now controls the entirety of their respective single-family neighborhoods, which were previously split into smaller sections under different ownership, and are now able to design more cohesive. communities with uniform lots and strectscape (See Attachment 4, Proposed Neighborhoods Boundaries), The Site Utilization Table (See Attachment 5, Revised Site Utilization Table) provides an overview of the proposed changes to each neighborhood. The table illustrates the deletion, combination, and creation of new neighborhoods. Currently, there are 604 single-family homes and 3,528 multi -family homes. The Applicant is proposing to have 614 single-family homes and 3,511 multi -family homes. The table below illustrates this change. -- . Type of Development Existing DU's Proposed DU's Single -Family 604 614 Multi -Family 3,528 3,511 Reduction/Addition Added 10 units Minus 17 units Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan permit density/intensity transfer of units, consistent with this action, between neighborhoods and land uses. Although the governing documents do not restrict transfer between different land uses, the Applicant is proposing a 1.67 SF to MF unit equivalency ratio based on the higher development impacts that single-family units generate. This is to ensure no additional services such as sewer or water needs to be upgraded or changed as a result of the new neighborhood configurations. Single-family units have higher development impact factors, ranging from 25% to 67% higher than multi -family units. Run-off coefficients and imperviousness for single-family land use is actually less than multi -family. The table below summarizes the standard per unit impacts for various categories, with the highest ratio of 1.67 among any of them. Development Impact Factors Trip generation rate Potable Water demands Sewer demands Solid waste Student generation rate SF Res .. 10 t/du .MF Res SF/MF Ratio: 8 t/du 1.25 ... ....... _..... _...... 425 gpd/du 255 gpd/du 230 gpd/du 182 gpd/du 0.64 cy/du 0.43 0.40 cy/du 1.67 1.26 1.6 0.27 1.59 Planning Commission PCS 16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 4, Item 3 Based on this ratio, 17 multi -family units are needed to offset 10 additional single-family units. The 17 multi -family units will be removed from Neighborhood R-17B(b) and the 10 new single- family homes will now be located in Neighborhood R-18B(a), R -19a, and R-21 a. Project Scope Statistics In accordance with the Mapping Refinements and Intensity Transfers procedure outlined in Section 11 of Village 2 SPA Plan, the Applicant is requesting the following modifications: - Neighborhood Existing Proposed Difference New Lots Reason for Intensity DUs DUs Created Transfer R-17B(b) -17 Density transferred from R- (Multi-Famil y) 95 78 17B(b) R -17A 44 45 +1 - Gained (1) lot. from R-17B(a) R-17B(a) 34 33 -1 - Traded (1) lot to R-17B(a) (18) R-18A(a) lots traded R-18A(a) -- from Cornerstone to will be 38 18 -20 - Baldwin's new R-18A(c). R-18A(c) Gained 1 lot from R-20 New R-I8A(d) combines: (21) lots from R-18A(a), R-18A(b) -- (24) lots from R-18A(b), will be 24 60 +36 +3 (5) lots from R-18B(b), R- 18A(d) (7) lots from R-18B(a) 57 lots + 3 new lots created (12) lots become part of R- R -1813(a) 43 18A(d). Gained (1) lot from i B&S's R -21a. R -18B 148 37 -11 _ Combine R-18B(a) and R- 18B(b). Make lot size similar R-18B(b) 5 i to R -18A. Existing lots are wider and deeper (60' x i 109' Make alleys narrower, similar to R -19b which R -19a R -19a 50 55 +5 +5 adjoins, creates (5) additional lots. R-20 80 79 -1 Traded (1) lot to R-I8A(c) - Traded (1) lot to R -18B, Creates (2) additional lots. R -21a 14 15 +1 +2 Make lot size similar to R - 21b. Existing lots in R -21a are very dee (70' x 125'). Total: +10 SF -17 MF Planning Commission PCS 16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 5, Item 3_ ANALYSIS Tentative Map Intensity Transfer Pursuant to the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) provisions for density transfers, the proposed transfer of 17 Multi -Family units from neighborhood R -1713(b) to create 10 additional Single -Family units in R-18B(a), R -19a and R - 21a is perinitted subject to the GDP Density Transfer criteria. The density transfer does not result in a change in the existing "RM2" land use designation for R-17B(b), "SF2" land use designation for R -21a, and "SF4" land use designation for R-18A(d) and R -19a. In addition, the subject properties would remain consistent with their respective zoning designations pursuant to the SPA Zoning District Map. Of the eight GDP Density Transfer criteria (GDP Chapter 4, Section E, 2.c.), five are applicable to the proposed density transfer. Each applicable criterion is analyzed below. GDP Density Transfer Criteria Compliance Densities may not be transferred The proposal transfers units within Village 2. No other between villages. villages are impacted. The total number of units allocated The proposed unit transfer. does not increase the 4,132 for a particular village is not units allocated to Village 2. Applicant is proposing to exceeded, except as provided for offset the addition of 10 Single -Family units with a below, reduction of 17 Multi -Family units, resulting in a lower Multi -Family total of 3,511 units and a higher Single - Family total of 614 units. The maximum density for the The maximum density for the affected land use categories particular land use category is not would not be exceeded. R- l 8A(c) density would be 5.9 exceeded, except as provided for dwelling units (DU's)/AC, consistent with SF4 zoning below. district. R -19a density would be 7.1 DUs/AC, consistent with SF4 zoning district. R -21a density would be 3.8 DUs/AC, consistent with SF2 zoning district. The planned identity of the village The proposed intensity transfer among the neighborhoods is preserved, including the creation in Village 2 would benefit the community by re - of the pedestrian friendly and transit connecting the parts of the neighborhoods that were oriented envirormient. formerly broken up into small segments. Neighborhoods R-19 and R-18, respectively, are defined by a single surrounding roadway but are currently split into areas that are lotted differently. The proposed intensity transfer would allow the entire neighborhood to maintain uniform lot sizes and strectscape for a well-designed, visually cohesive environment. Additionally, the affected neighborhoods are located within walking distance of the Village Core, Elementary School site and Parks, furthering the goals of the Otay Ranch GDP. Planning Commission PCS 16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 6, Item 3 For the reasons above, the proposed density transfer meets the SPA and GDP Unit Transfer criteria and is consistent with both the Village 2 SPA and Otay Ranch GDP. Therefore, the transfer of units between neighborhoods R -1713(b) and R -1813(a), R -19a and R -21a is deemed in conformance ,xvith the approved Village 2 SPA. Subdivision Design A Tentative Subdivision Map is required for a division of land resulting in four or more lots or condominium units, pursuant to Section 2 of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Map has been designed to comply with the lot design criteria of the Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Maps would be consistent with surrounding development and would complement the area with the design for more compact single family GDP Density Transfer Criteria Compliance Density may not be transferred Not Applicable from regional open space, such as the Otay Valley Regional Park or the San Ysidro Mountain Regional Park, Density from neighborhood park There are no impacts on neighborhood parks associated sites will be permitted in the with the proposed transfer. The total number of dwelling calculation of the overall number of units within Village 2 does not increase in conjunction dwelling units in a village, provided with the proposed unit transfer, the total number of units does not -increase. If Connmunity Purpose Facility Not Applicable (CPF) land uses are moved from one village to another, the land not utilized for CPF may revert to the underlying land use established for the core area, so long as the amount of land is not greater than 50% of the total designated for CPF, and the multi- family area of the village to which the CPF was transferred is reduced by a like amount. Transfers of CPF land uses shall be within the same phase. If a school site must be moved from Not Applicable one village to another, the land not utilized for a school facility reverts to the underlying land use and the total number of units permitted within the village is adjusted accordingly. For the reasons above, the proposed density transfer meets the SPA and GDP Unit Transfer criteria and is consistent with both the Village 2 SPA and Otay Ranch GDP. Therefore, the transfer of units between neighborhoods R -1713(b) and R -1813(a), R -19a and R -21a is deemed in conformance ,xvith the approved Village 2 SPA. Subdivision Design A Tentative Subdivision Map is required for a division of land resulting in four or more lots or condominium units, pursuant to Section 2 of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Map has been designed to comply with the lot design criteria of the Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Maps would be consistent with surrounding development and would complement the area with the design for more compact single family Planning Commission PCS16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 7, item 3 lotting clusters in Village 2 north and traditional, linear lotting maintained in Village 2 west and south. Overall the subdivision design is in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual, Zoning Ordinance and other associated regulatory documents. Village 2 has a varied collection of unique identifiable neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are defined by a mix of design elements, such as unique architectural styles and landscaping, as well as the residential product type and density. Development Standards The proposed Project will not require any changes in land use designations, as the resulting lots still meet the maximum allowed density within the respective neighborhoods and Property Development Standards for their land use districts established in the PC District Regulations. Grading In conjunction with approval of the original Tentative Map (CVT 06-05) and in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP, a grading approach was established for the Village 2 SPA Plan. This approach identifies mesas, hilltops, and gently rolling topography as the best conditions for development, with steeply sloped hills and valleys serving as resources linking regional amenities and natural features. After the original Tentative Map's approval, a grading permit was issued for Village 2 West for clearing and grubbing. The proposed map allows for a grading approach consistent- with that established for the original Tentative Map (CVT 06-05), and substantially similar with the grading permit which was previously issued for the reap area. Development within the map area is proposed atop a mesa bounded by steeply sloped hills to the south (Olympic Parkway), The proposed development is contained on mesas and gently rolling terrain while steeply sloped hills are maintained as a connection to regional amenities and as a buffer between roadways and development. The grading footprint will remain the same as the originally approved plan. Any further grading will conform to the City of Chula Vista grading ordinance. Project Access Access to the project area is provided from Santa Victoria Road, Santa Christiana Avenue, La Cumbre Avenue and other internal streets provide access within the project area. These streets will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Village 2 SPA Plan and to applicable City of Chula Vista street design guidelines. Drainage The project area is located in the southwestern portion of the San Diego Basin. The landscape within the vicinity of the project area is predominantly rolling hills with arroyos draining to canyons that flow west and south away from the Otay Reservoir basin. The natural drainage basin for the SPA Plan vicinity is a combination of three subbasins that drain directly into Poggi Canyon to the north, Wolf Canyon to the south of Village Two, and from the Otay Valley Road watershed, which drains into unnamed tributaries of the Otay River. Drainage from the northern Planning Commission PCS16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 8, Item 3 portion of the Village Two area of the SPA Plan converges into Poggi Canyon, while the southern portion of the Village Two and the northern portion of. Village Four property drain to Wolf Canyon Creek. The Village Three portion of the SPA Plan drains to unnamed tributaries of the Otay River. Ultimately, all discharges drain into the Otay River approximately 765 feet from the southernmost point of the SPA Plan property. The project will be conditioned to provide for the conveyance of storm water flows in accordance with City standards, policies and requirements. The Developer will design, install and maintain on-site erosion protection. All permanent or temporary erosion control will be designed to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, the project shall comply with all federal, state and Iocal storm water runoff and discharge regulations. Public Facilities Sewer The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to existing sewer infrastructure, specifically the Salt Creek Interceptor and Poggi Canyon Interceptor, or the need for the expansion of existing sewer facilities. Emergency Services Development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to change the need for fire service in the area. The existing Fire Station No. 7, located at 1640 Santa Venetia within -the Village 2, would be the primary station to serve the project. Parks and Open Space There are no impacts on neighborhood parks associated with the proposed Project. The total number of dwelling units within Village 2 does not increase in conjunction with the proposed unit transfer. Surrounding the project site, are three (3) proposed parks, P-2 Park to the south across Santa Victoria Road, P-1 Park southeast, located at the corner of Santa Victoria Road and Santa Carolina Road, and P-5 Park located east of Santa Christina Avenue. The project is served by Heritage Park located approximately '/2 mile north of Village 2, the Veterans Community Center park located approximately 1 1/2 miles west of Village 2, and the Chula Vista Community park between SR -125 and Eastlake Parkway, south of Otay Lakes Road located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project. In addition, six parks (P-1 through P-6) are planned within Village 2, and an approximate 44 -acre community park will be located in the northern portion of Village Four, adjacent to Village Two. Three parks (P-1, P-2, and P-5) are adjacent to the Otay Ranch South area. Schools The project is within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, which serves children in Kindergarten through Grade 6. The nearest public school is Veterans Elementary School, which is 1.24 miles from the site, and Heritage Elementary School, which is 2.36 miles from the site. Two elementary schools have been planned within the Village 2 core to serve the Planning Commission PCS 16-0006 September 28, 2016 Page 9, Item 3_ buildout population. Middle school students will be served by existing facilities in Rancho del Rey, approximately two miles north of the SPA Plan area, and a middle school in Eastlake Woods, until a 7-12 grade school is constructed in Otay Ranch Village Eleven. The project is also within the boundaries of the Sweetwater Union High School District, The nearest public schools are Otay Ranch High School, which is located in the northwest corner of Village Two, and Olympian High School, which is located to the east in Village Seven, The Applicant will be required to pay applicable developer fees based upon assessable area. CONCLUSION For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution for PCS16-0006 project subject to the conditions listed in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. FISCAL IMPACT The application fees and all processing costs are paid for by the Applicant. Attaclunents; 1. Locator Map 2. Attachment 2, Village 2 Existing Neighborhoods Boundaries 3. Attachment 3, Lot Swap 4. Attaclunent 4, Village 2 Proposed Neighborhoods Boundaries 5. Attachment 5, Revised Site Utilization Table 6. Planning Commission Resolution 7. Disclosure Statement 8. Project Plans, Tentative Map (PCS16-0006) Prepared by: Caroline Young, Associate Planner, Development Services Department J:IPlanningDiscretionary PennitslOR VLG 2 South TM PCS16-0006TCS16-0006 PC Agenda Statement.doc