Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/03/25 Tape: 334 Side: 1/2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. March 25, 1992 Council Chambers Public Services Building COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, Tuchscber, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Fuller (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Contract Planner Gray, Community Development Director Salomone, Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan, Environmental Facilitator Richardson, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF AIJ.gGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice-Chair Casillas and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice-Chair Casillas reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~ None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-01: RECONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SALT CREEK I CONDOMINIUMS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 91-01 - The Baldwin Company Associate Planner Miller noted that the Planning Commission had denied this project at the previous meeting. City staff was recommending that the Planning Commission reconsider the PC Minutes -2~ March 25, 1992 map because of provisions in State law and the Municipal Code, while the applicant was requesting reconsideration in order to clarify their position for seeking approval and respond to any concerns which would cause the Commission to reverse the negative vote. After further discussion among the applicant, City staff, and members of the Commission, additional conditions were drawn up. Mr. Miller read those conditions into the minutes as follows: "B.27. Automatic garage door openers shall be installed in all units, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. "B.28. Address numbers shall be placed on both the front and garage sides of each unit to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning." Mr. Miller stated that staff recommended that the hearing for Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-91-01 be reopened and that testimony be taken. Based on the findings of Section E of the staff report dated March 25, 1992, staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek I Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 91-01, subject to the conditions in the staff report, or as modified or added thereto. Associate Planner Miller then turned over the presentation to Community Development Director Salomone who explained that Baldwin was trying to build for-sale low-income housing. An agreement had been negotiated with Baldwin, which centered on design, phasing, and affordability. Staff was able to bring mortgage credit certificates to this project, and because of this project, the City of Chula Vista was able to get $8.5 million worth of mortgage credit certificates from the State of California. They were able to achieve 7-1/2% moderate income affordability and 2-1/2 % low-income affordability. Upon Commissioner Carson's query, Assistant Planning Director Lee explained that the project could be constructed as an apartment project but had to go through the condominium tentative map process in order for the applicant to be able to sell any units. This type of apartment project had been approved routinely by the Design Review Committee, and staff was caught off guard when the Commission denied the project. Commissioner Carson said her whole concept changed when informed of the low-income housing. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf added that another reason for it not being immediately rectified was that staff did not realize the ramifications of the denial until after the applicant had left and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why it came back to the Commission after prior approval for apartments by the Council. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated it was coming as a for-sale unit instead of apartment units. If it was not approved as a for-sale condominium project, it would then revert back to an apartment project. PC Minutes -3- March 25, 1997 Assistant Planning Director Lee also noted that Baldwin had an agreement with the City for low- income housing. Upon Commissioner Martin's query, Community Development Director Salomone explained that in order to subsidize low-income housing, the City would use a combination of a contribution by the developer and the mortgage credit certificate. He proceeded to explain the use of a mortgage credit certificate and the benefits derived from their use. At Commissioner Martin's request, Associate Planner Miller read Section 66427 of the Subdivision Map Act which explained that the Commission was required to either approve or deny an apartment-to-condominium conversion project but that if denied, design-related findings could not be used. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf clarified that there were grounds per the Subdivision Map Act under which the Planning Commission must approve or must deny a map and reviewed the specific grounds for denial. He indicated the positive findings in the staff report and stated that if any of these grounds existed, staff would have recommended denial. At Commissioner Casillas' request, Community Development Director Salomone clarified that when a lending institution looks at an eligible low-income buyer, looking at that applicant's ability to pay monthly loan payments and that eligible low-income buyer has the mortgage credit certificate, they have a credit against their annual federal income tax. Therefore, that translates to the lender that the borrower does not have to pay that federal income tax and has more buying power to put toward a mortgage on a monthly basis. Therefore, that mortgage could be increased and they could more than likely be able to afford the unit. The mortgage credit certificate could only be used by a low- or moderate-income family for an affordable unit. Commissioner Martin stated he had met with the developer regarding this matter. Commissioners Tugenberg and Martin said they had also met with the developer. MSUC (Martin/Carson) 5-0 to reconsider PCS-91-01 (Chair Fuller absent; Commissioner Tuchscher had left the dais - conflict of interest). This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Claudia Troisi, representing the applicant, specified the location of the project area and urged the Commission to recommend that Council approve the conversion of the apartments to a for- sale condominium project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Carson/Tugenberg) that based on the f'mdings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Salt Creek I Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract PCS-91-02, subject to conditions 1 through 28. PC Minutes -4- March 25, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked that condition 29 be added to provide section garage doors to ail units. Discussion ensued regarding the area needed for back-up in front of the garages. When the applicant was asked if that was a reasonable request, Ms. Troisi stated that she felt the sectionai doors would have to be wood because of the design of the buildings, and that the cost would be excessive for an affordable housing project. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the first motion addressed the design issue, and there was no ordinance or standard regarding the door itself. The design exceeded the standard distance of 24' by 10'. The Commission could not deny or condition it on this motion. Commissioner Martin commented that he would like more room at the end of the hammer head at the end of the "T". He asked that the applicant consider moving the building back to give more room. Vice-Chair Casillas called for the vote on the amendment. Commissioner Decker withdrew his motion to amend. Commissioner Decker asked the rationaie for condition 16. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich answered that the public sewer lines were larger; since it was a private project, the applicant would be ailowed to reduce the size to whatever is standard practice for the capacity necessary for the project, possibly a 6" diameter sewer. Commissioner Decker inquired as to why the public sewer lines were larger. Mr. Ullrich stated they were easier to clean, and the Maintenance Department required the larger size. It was a matter of who would be paying for the maintenance. It would add to the cost of the unit to have an 8" sewer line. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: .%0 to approve. (Commissioner Fuller absent; Commissioner Tuchscher had left dais.) ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-03: AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS SITE UTILIZATION PLAN AND THE EASTLAKE I (EXPANDED) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PARCELS R-24 AND R-25, CONSISTING OF 5.0 ACRES AND 7.4 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. PARCEL R-24 IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY AND GREENSGATE DRIVE AND PARCEL R-25 IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY AND CLUBHOUSE DRIVE PC Minutes -5- March 25, 1992 Contract Planner Gray presented the staff report, gave the history of the project, and recommended that Negative Declaration IS-92-04 be certified, and that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the amendments as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Decker questioned the number of parcels included in the amendment. Mr. Gray noted that only parcels no. 24 and 25 were included. Upon Commissioner Martin's query regarding the comprehensive sign regulations included in the packet, Mr. Gray said they are part of the zoning regulations for the EastLake planned community. The existing zoning regulations are being amended only by adding the Residential Condominiums 10 land use district. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Gray noted that parcels R-27 and R-28 have been taken out of this proposal and set aside for additional study. They are included in the Negative Declaration because originally there were four parcels in the application. In reviewing the consistency of R-27 and R-28 with the General Plan, it was determined that additional analysis would be required. EastLake Development Company then modified their application to take R~ 27 and R~28 out of the application for additional analysis, and requested that R-24 and R-25 proceed because no additional density is involved with this request. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the density bonuses given based on the golf course and trail that would be open to the public. Mr. Gray said that no density bonus had been given. EastLake Greens is at the mid-point of the Low Medium Residential land use category (3-6 du/ac). Commissioner Carson questioned whether parcels R-27 and R-28 should be removed from the Negative Declaration since it may appear the Commission is giving some approval of R-27 and R-28 by leaving them in the Negative Declaration. Discussion ensued regarding whether there would be legal ramifications by approving the Negative Declaration with parcels R-27 and R-28 left in. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf did not believe the Commission would be committing to anything since a Negative Declaration is not an approval of a project but rather a disclosure of any environmental impact. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that it would be helpful if staff could put a memo in front of the data with background describing what had been withdrawn or changed in the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to page 4, #4 of the Negative Declaration, asked if the increased population by 425 persons was specific to parcels 27 and 28. He stated he did not see a similar statement under "traffic." PC Minutes -6- March 25, 1992 Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the increased population related only to parcels 27 and 28; and original traffic analysis was based on the proposed 3600 dwelling units. Any increased population was still well under the original analysis since the East ,~ke Greens project was reduced to 2774 dwelling units. - This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Lawrence, 1067 Waterville Lake Road, CV 91915, was concerned with the proposed transfer of density because 69 more units would be on two parcels which would affect other properties in the area. He was also concerned with traffic flow. He was against the project. Albert L. Rizos/Michele F. Rizos, 1065 Waterville Lake Road, CV 91915, submitted a letter of opposition to the Planning Commission, but had to leave before the public hearing had opened. Vice-Chair Casillas read their letter, which also opposed the increased density. They said they had invested heavily and felt their property would lessen in value. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Decker asked if aggrieved homeowners had any legal recourse. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf answered that there was a legal channel. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the following finding if the Commission decides to recommend approval. "If, from the facts presented, the commission finds that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice requires the adoption or modification of a portion of the comprehensive zoning law or the classification or reclassification of property to any zone, the commission may recommend, by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, by resolution, the adoption of an ordinance by the city council adopting or modifying a comprehensive zoning law, or classifying or reclassifying property into particular zones." MSUC (Martin/Carson) 6-0 (Chair Fuller absent) to certify the attached Negative Declaration (IS-92-04) to the previously certified EIR {SEIR-86-4) for EastLake Greens, exclusive of parcels//27 and 28. MSUC (Martin/DeckeD 6-0 (Chair Fuller absent) to recommend that the City Council approve amendments a through c, based upon the findings set forth in the additional staff report and as previously stated by Assistant City Attorney Rudolf. Vice-Chair Casillas declared a 5-minute break at 8:35. The meeting resumed at 8:40 p.m. PC Minutes -7- March 25, 1992 ITEM 3: PCM-92-10: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT #10 TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA - Rohr Corporation Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan, assisted by Environmental Facilitator Richardson and Consultant Gary Cinti, gave the background of the project and a description of the LCP Amendment. It was noted that the Negative Declaration for this project had been circulated for 30 days with the State Clearinghouse review closing on the previous Monday. Comments had been received from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, State Public Utilities Commission, and Chula Vista Elementary School District which were included in the Commission's packet. Ms. Richardson stated the CEQA process had been completed in accordance with State policies and the CEQA requirements. Commissioner Decker, referring to page of the Negative Declaration, asked how many parking spaces would be added. Mr. Cinti answered that the south parking garage would add 387. Commissioner Decker inquired if the applicant could be asked to do zeriscape landscaping. Ms. Richardson replied that the applicant had prepared landscape plans for the site, and much of the landscaping was drought tolerant as required by e City s Landscape Architect and by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Commissioner Decker said he was curious if the Fire Department would require extra equipment. Ms. Richardson stated the reply from the Fire Department was that all requirements were met. Vice-Chair Casillas noted that in the list of positive factors, additional taxes to be generated were not listed. Ms. Buchan answered that there would be a 1% base tax increment in the redevelopment area. Once the redevelopment was dissolved, the City would receive considerable taxes. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. lan Gill, Senior Vice President of the Starboard Development Corporation, 1201 Kettner Boulevard, SD 92101, representing Rohr Industries, commended the Community Development Department for their leadership role in the process. He endorsed staff's recommendation to adopt the Negative Declaration and send forward a recommendation to Council to approve the LCP Amendment. Vice-Chair Casillas asked how they planned to keep predators off the roof. Mr. Gill explained that non-reflective glass would be used to discourage birds from flying into the building, and on any potential perching surfaces a slope was added to discourage perching. The ledges surrounding the roofs of all the buildings would be treated with a product to deter perching. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -8- March 25, 1992 MSUC (Decker/Tuchscher) 6-0 (Commissioner Fuller absent) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum thereto, f'md that this project will have .Mitigated Negative Declaration, no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Addendum thereto, and Mitigation Monitoring Program ~ssued on IS-92-18; and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed LCP Amendment as presented. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he was very pleased to see Rohr's continued commitment to the community as a member of the community, and hoped Mr. Gill would carry that message to Rohr management. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee reviewed the revised schedule of joint meetings with the County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTR Commissioner Martin stated that he would be out of town April 15 through 22. Commissioners Carson and Decker said they appreciated the change in dates and times of the joint meetings. Commissioner Decker recommended cancellation of the April workshop. No action was taken. The Commissioners requested a map to the County PERB Room where some of the joint workshops were to be held. Commissioner Casillas said it would have been helpful to have had the Code information at the previous meeting. He stated, also, that perhaps he should have shared more with the Commissioners regarding affordable housing· Commissioner Carson commented that she would like to revisit the statement that everything be g~ven to the Commission at least a week in advance. She reiterated that staff direet that the item would not be heard that evening unless the information was received in advance. She directed that a letter be written to Community Development stating that the item would be continued if the information was not received the week before. Commissioner Martin asked that the staff reports and back-up material be numbered similar to the Council packets. Item 1 pages would be numbered 1-1, 1-2, etc.; item 2 would be numbered 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, etc. It would be easier for the Commissioners to refer to the page numbers during discussion. PC Minutes -9- March 25, 1992 ADJOURNMENT at 9:15 p.m. to the Special Workshop Meeting of April 1, 1992, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nan~cy Ripl4, Secre{axy Planning Commission