Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2008/02/25 Jt CVRC MINUTES OF A JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 25, 2008 6:00 P.M. A Joint Special Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Munoz (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas, and Chairman Lewis ABSENT: Director: Desrochers PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman, and Chairman Tripp ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Garcia, Assistant City Manager Tulloch, General Counsel/City Attorney Moore, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Redevelopment & Housing Manager Mills, Chief Financial Officer/Finance Director Kachadoorian, Assistant Planning Director Lytle, Advanced Planning Manager Batchelder, Planning Manager Ladiana, Principal Planner Ponseggi, Assistant Building Director Remp, Building Inspector McGuire, Chief of Staff Forster, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. MOMENT OF SILENCE CVRC Chairman Lewis introduced the CVRC Directors and stated that Director Salas would be recusing himself from participation in the meeting due to his owning property within the proposed overlay district. Director Salas left the dais and the Council Chambers. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp introduced the Planning Commissioners and stated that Commissioner Moctezuma would be recusing herself from participation in the meeting due to her owning a business within the proposed overlay district. Commissioner Moctezuma left the dais and the Council Chambers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS/ACTION ITEMS I. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 08-03; An ordinance amending the City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter 19.57, Overlay Districts, and Section 19.57.010 General Purpose and 19.57.020 Third Avenue overlay District. The Third A venue Overlay District will establish a three-story or 45 foot maximum height for parcels and portions of parcels fronting on Third Avenue between "E" Street and "G" Street (refer to attached zone map). It will also require that any newly constructed buildings or additions to existing buildings, utilize nationally recognized "green" building standards. Executive Director Garcia introduced Assistant Planning Director Lytle who provided a brief report of the proposed overlay district ordinance. Ms. Lytle stated that the City was proposing amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish an Overlay District, which is a zoning tool used to apply additional zoning requirements to a geographic territory. The district under consideration is currently regulated by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) and is for parcels and portions of parcels fronting on Third Avenue between "E" and "G" Streets. Ms. Lytle stated that the first new requirement in the proposed ordinance is the height provision, which states that the maximum permitted height for newly constructed buildings and additions to existing buildings in the Third A venue Overlay District shall be three stories or up to the height of 45 feet. The height limitation currently applies to all parcels within the Village 2 designation of the UCSP, but this new Overlay would affect seven additional parcels along "E" and "G" Streets. Ms. Lytle continued by stating that the second requirement applied to new construction and additions to existing buildings, and that they "shall" be required to meet nationally recognized green building construction standards. Furthermore, the green building requirement would affect all parcels within the Overlay District. Advanced Planning Manager Batchelder and Building Inspector McGuire provided an overview of the points-based Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification standards program. Assistant Planning Director Lytle then noted a recommended modification in the proposed ordinance under section 19.57.021 Purposes, item (c), to add the word "or" in the first sentence after "buildings and..." which would amend it to read "buildings and/or additions to existing buildings.. . " Page 2 of8 CVRC/PC - Minutes - February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Planning Commission Chairman Tripp requested a speaker slip, which had been submitted for oral communications and was inadvertently overlooked, be handled at this time as a procedural matter. ORAL COMMUNICATION Russ Hall expressed his appreciation for the Commission/Corporation's deliberation of the merits for the ordinance amendment. He expressed concern with the Jentz Initiative, which if passed would limit construction of certain types of buildings that are needed in the area and are traditionally over three stories high, i.e. hospital and/or courthouse buildings. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Planning Commission Chairman Tripp provided an overview of the process the two groups would be following which included posing questions to staff, followed by public comment, and then deliberation and action. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp then requested questions of staff from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Bensoussan made inquiry regarding overlay districts within the City and the process for change if implemented. Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded that they would be handled the same as a zoning amendment. Commissioner Clayton inquired, and Assistant Building and Housing Director Remp responded, that should a calamity to an existing structure in the proposed overlay district occur, the owner would need to comply with current standards, and noted that for major catastrophes, in order to qualifY for FEMA funds to reconstruct, they would be required to meet the new standards. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp inquired, and Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded that the proposed ordinance would not affect the Congregational Tower Senior Apartments at F Street. With no further questions, Planning Commission Chairman Tripp closed the question and answer portion for the Planning Commission. CYRC Chairman Lewis requested questions of staff from the CYRC Directors. Director Rooney inquired, and Assistant Building Director Remp responded as to how building officials would address the inspection and certification process to ensure that green building standards were met. Mr. Remp stated that although no City staff members were currently qualified to do this type of certification, staff was moving forward in obtaining the necessary training. In the interim, the inspections and certification would most likely come from an outside party. Next Director Rooney inquired and Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded, that the end parcels were reduced to 84-feet for consistency. Planning Manager Ladiana provided further Page 3 of 8 CYRC - Minutes - February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) definition of the step-back requirement and noted that across "E"' and "G" Streets, the parcels would still be allowed to go higher. Director Reyes inquired about the rationale behind setting the height limit to three stories versus four or five stories, and Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded that although she was not present in the initial discussions, most likely it was based on maintaining the historic character of the urban core district, taking into account the narrow parcels and how they interface with the small buildings around it. Planning Manager Ladiana confirmed Ms. Lytle's statement, adding that the lot depth mandated looking at a lower height. Director Paul inquired and City Attorney Moore responded that the tool of the "overlay district" came from the City Charter and Municipal Code Zone ordinance. CVRC Chairman Lewis closed the question and answer portion for the CVRe. CVRC Chairman Lewis and Planning Commission Chairman Tripp opened the public hearing. Lisa Cohen, Chula Vista resident and CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce stated that her Board of Directors had reaffirmed their support for the Urban Core Specific Plan and green building practices. Further, that they supported the Third A venue Village Association's position on the proposed ordinance. Leo Miras stated the green building caveat under this proposal was very weak and would have no impact on the environment. Further, that the City needed a more aggressive green policy in order to be able to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2010. Greg Mattson, President of Third A venue Village Association stated that T A V A supported sustainable construction, however, they felt the language in the ordinance was too vague, and that green building standards should be encouraged, but not mandated. Mr. Mattson also stated that T A V A was concerned with the overlay district's restriction on development opportunities and believed that it diluted the DCSP land use guidelines and policies. In closing, Mr. Mattson stated that the T A V A board did not support the City's overlay district as proposed, and was in support of the DCSP land use guidelines along Third Avenue, i.e. densities, land use mixes, height etc.; as they allowed the gateway tips and tail parcels to be at higher densities and height. Peter Watry, Chula Vista resident representing Crossroads II, stated that his organization opposed the ordinance amendment because they felt it was a ploy to defeat the Jentz Initiative in the June election. If the Jentz Initiative was to pass, it would become law, however, the ordinance could be amended at any time. He urged a vote against it. Mitch Thompson, Chula Vista resident. asked for clarification on an earlier statement that there was not a story limit except for public buildings, noting that there was language in the ordinance, which stated that there was a three-story limit. City Attorney Moore stated that the language in Page 4 of8 CVRC/PC - Minutes - February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) the staff report referenced the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), however, the proposed Ordinance Amendment was capping it at three-stories or a maximum of 45 feet. Glenn Googins, Chula Vista resident, stated that green building construction was a very good idea when set up as an incentive and when it is applied to public projects. He further stated that the UCSP included important provisions that encouraged green building standards by allowing additional development intensities. However, he expressed concerns with green building being a mandatory requirement and applied to private construction. Mr. Googins then stated that a 45 foot height restriction for the entire Third A venue was not appropriate and urged the members to stand up for the process and development standards that were set forth in the UCSP. Jose Cortes, Third Avenue property owner, applauded the City for adopting green building standards, and stated that he supported the UCSP. but opposed height restrictions along Third Avenue, believing higher densities were needed. CVRC Chairman Lewis and Planning Commission Chairman Tripp requested clarifying questions from their members for the speakers. Commissioner Bensoussan made inquiry regarding the potential impact of the proposed ordinance on the Social Security Administration building project that had recently been presented to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. With no further speakers wishing to speak, CVRC Chairman Lewis and Planning Commission Chairman Tripp closed the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding what constituted a story (height) and at what point you start to count floors when considering underground or above level parking lots. Staff made a point of clarification that parking lots did not count towards the floor-area-ratio (FAR), but that they did count as a story. Director Felber requested clarification as to whether a building could be four stories, but under 45 feet, to which Executive Director Garcia responded that the proposed language of Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.57.22 set the maximum height at three stories, up to the height of forty-five feet, and therefore a four-story building would not be acceptable. Executive Director Garcia then added that the section could be changed to state "three stories or up to forty-five feet" to allow for more flexibility ifthe members wanted to recommend that. Director Rooney received clarification from staff that no sites currently under Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA's) would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Director Reyes made inquiry regarding why the back portions of lots were allowed to be higher if the lots were consolidated. Executive Director Garcia responded that it was to allow for flexibility oflots that had land outside of the overlay district and that this was the reason the term "predominantly" was used. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Page 5 of 8 CYRC - Minutes - February 25, 2008 Director Felber stated that he thought language other than "predominantly low rise" should be used as it seemed to conflict with height. Deputy City Attorney Shirey noted that the "Purposes" section of the ordinance was not intended as a control section, and that the language used came from the General Plan. Planning Commissioner Bensoussan stated that she believed the ordinance amendment was compatible and consistent with the vision ofthe UCSP and General Plan and that it preserved the historic character along Third Avenue. Further, she indicated that she would like to see tighter language for the green building requirement and recommended that the language read "that construction follow a nationally recognized green building standard or equivalent to LEED Silver certification, or 20% above Title 24 standards." Planning Commissioner Felber stated that the key to a successful, vibrant Third Avenue downtown district was to put feet on the street. Additionally, he stated that he was concerned that imposing strict green building standards may be cost-prohibitive and would be a deterrent to the development that was needed. Planning Commissioner Clayton stated that she believed the ordinance imposed restrictions that could be perceived as infringing on property rights of the owners of the affected parcels, and therefore did not support it. Planning Commissioner Spethman stated that he liked the height variable that the tips and tail parcels added to the overall design flow along Third A venue and that he would not like to see it turned into a bowling alley corridor. He also expressed concern that a restrictive ordinance would impact the property owners along Third A venue in terms of resale value or modification of their properties. Planning Commissioner Vinson stated that he wholeheartedly supported the City's endeavor to go green and believed it to be an excellent marketing tool to attract investors. Further. that the City could become a nationally recognized progressive city leading the way in smart growth development practices and tying it in with cutting edge green building standards and technology. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp stated that the UCSP and other documents had been developed to allow flexibility in an area of our City that was fading, and being too restrictive was a disincentive for investment if we wanted redevelopment to occur. Further, he stated that there was a need to be flexible in order to be attractive enough for investment. Director Munoz stated that many of his sentiments had already been expressed by previous speakers, particularly Planning Commissioner Felber, and stated that he was in support of the ordinance amendment. Director Rooney applauded the City's attempt to incorporate LEED standards, however, he expressed reservation on the way it was being handled. He stated that other jurisdictions were incorporating LEED standards by offering incentives to the developer. i.e. LEED Silver in exchange for a bonus FAR point on their property-a much more positive approach than mandating it. He expressed further concern with the expertise and specialized training required to inspect these buildings as they were constructed, and to certify their compliance when completed. Director Rooney then indicated that the tips and tail parcels were prime parcels in prominent intersections and the City would be forfeiting or reducing their value by limiting their PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Page 6 of 8 CVRC/PC - Minutes - February 25, 2008 height, noting that here again, the incentive to build green at a higher standard could be used in exchange for an increased FAR. Director Reyes stated that in urban design, nodes are generally used as landmark or gateway demarcation parcels to give character and stability to an area. By capping the height and density in these areas, this was a disincentive for investment because it would not pencil out financially for the developer; therefore, you end up with single story development, eliminating the opportunity to create the environment to sustain a vibrant urban core. Director Paul stated that going green was a noble cause, however, one had to recognize the trepidation that some of the small business owners, i.e. T A VA, must feel when considering the cost of going green. He then stated that he concurred that green building certification should be used as an incentive to go higher, i.e. four stories at 45 feet, and not be a mandate. CVRC Chairman Lewis stated that he supported the green building practice, however. he too was concerned that it appeared the ordinance was exclusively endorsing LEED certification over other nationally recognized programs. Further, he stated that green building practice was defined in many different ways depending on who is asked. He felt a comprehensive standard that measured how to reduce the cost and use of a building and how to make it sustainable and environmentally sound was needed. Furthermore, based on his professional research. he had found that developers would voluntarily build green because sustainable development was profitable. He stated that sustainable development added value to the building and the community, and that there was a demand for it that would attract development. Chair Lewis added that the UCSP was plenty clear on the building heights and didn't need to be modified. In closing, he stated he would like to make a recommendation amending the ordinance to maintain the spirit and intent of the UCSP with regard to height and strongly recommended that new buildings and additions to existing buildings consider employing sustainable development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Vinson, seconded by Commissioner Bensoussan, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance as presented. Commissioner Felber offered a friendly amendment to the motion that the "tips and tail" parcels be left alone, and language be incorporated similar to what CVRC Chairman Lewis offered regarding a strong recommendation that green building standards be used, but not mandated. Deputy City Attorney Shirey noted that the "Maker and Second" of the original motion needed to be in agreement to amend the motion. Commissioner Vinson (Maker) accepted the amendment, but Commissioner Bensoussan (Second) did not. Motion by Commissioner Vinson, seconded by Commissioner Bensoussan, to approve the motion as originally stated. The motion carried 4-2-1-0 with Commissioners Felber and Clayton voting no, and Commissioner Moctezuma abstaining from participation. Page 7 of8 CVRC - Minutes - February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACTION: Motion by Director Rooney, to recommend adoption of the ordinance with the following amendments: . That the tips and tail parcel be reduced from 84 feet, as designated by the UCSP, to 65 feet, with an incentive to allow it to be at 84 feet subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally-recognized green building standard, and . That the center parcels, between the tips and tails, that have a 45-foot or three story restriction be allowed as an incentive to go to 50 feet and four stories subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally- recognized green building standard. The motion died for the lack of a second. Motion by Director Reyes, seconded by Director Rooney, to recommend adoption of the ordinance with the following amendments: . That the tips and tail parcel be reduced from 84 feet, as designated by the UCSP, to 65 feet, with an incentive to allow it to be at 84 feet subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally-recognized green building standard, and · That the center parcels, between the tips and tails, that have a 45-foot or three story designation be allowed as an incentive to go to four stories (at 45 feet) subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally- recognized green building standard. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Director Desrochers absent and Director Salas abstaining from participation. ADJOURNMENT At 8: 17 p.m., CVRC Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of February 28,2008, at 6:00 p.m., noting that the Regular Meeting of February 14,2008 had been cancelled. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to their next Regular Meeting on February 27,2008. Page 8 of8 g~ Eric Crockett, Secretary CVRC/PC - Minutes - February 25,2008