Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Agenda Packet 2006/12/14 .. .. f' I' ! ~ \ / [.'~> 'I iL'-- "\ "1, :<! I V _ 'i CORPORATION CHULA VISTA Chu ,[ (ox, Cluir ,l' (,Fl ,H',;\~Ll f> II' , ',1l: )C..Hi( ,'(:i" jiJl-tn \~\ (, Fu,h R,;nif('/ h't!") Ri!i(;,)~~\, hri~t(,ph\'r Ro(>n\ OIFICERS rim Ih( 'llSO!l, Interim ([0 ,\t;:rr,l ,lCh.t~')u()ti,:n, (f () /\. n'vioc; " Cl'r~l'f';d C,ur"'.l'! [J.1tl,1 'L Smith, SCCtTI.1r\ i riii ;%" j I I I I I I . I f',ad AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC), AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, December 14, 2006, 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 CALL TO ORDER CVRC ROLL CALL Directors Castaneda, Desrochers, Lewis, McCann, Paul, Ramirez, Rindone, Rooney and Chair Cox REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL Agency Members Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Chair Cox CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL Council Members Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Recommendation: Redevelopment Agency November 16, 2006. That the approve the CVRC and minutes of 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS I I Memorandum from Doug Paul requesting an excused absence from the Joint CYRe/Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting of November 16, 2006. Staff recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. RECESS The City Council and Redevelopment Agency will recess at this time. DEVElOPMENT PROJECT UPDATES Staff will present updates to the CVRC on any new development applications or proposals that have been received, are located within the City's Redevelopment Project Areas, and have been through the first RAC review. These items are for information only and do not require any formal action by the Board of Directors. 3. PROJECTS/APPLICATIONS/PROPOSALS a. Vasquez Multi-Tenant Building, 144 - 27th Street b. Public, 354 Church Street c. Exterior Remodel, 357-369 Third Avenue d. Savon Storage, 3712 Main Street e. Douglas Wilson ENA Project, Davidson and Church West f. Social Security, 626 L Street (Social Security building) RECONVENE The City Council and Redevelopment Agency will reconvene with the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS The fol/owing item(s) have been advertised as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Clerk prior to the meeting. 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2006 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVElOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT AREA Staff Recommendation: That the City Council/CVRC continue the public hearing to a future date to be determined and direct staff to re-notice. 5. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE CONTRACT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR SPACE 2 AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK Staff Recommendation: That the Redevelopment Agency continue the public hearing to January 11, 2007. Page 2 of 3 CVRORDA - Agenda - 12/14/06 PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council, CVRC and/or RDA on any subject matter within the Council, CVRC and/or RDA's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council, CVRC and/or RDA from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council, CVRC and/or RDA may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. ACTION ITEMS 6. YEAR-END lEGISLATIVE REPORT ON 2006 REDEVElOPMENT BillS Staff will provide a year-end report on 2006 legislation affecting the Redevelopment Agency. This report is for informational purposes only and does not require formal action. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC/Redevelopment Agency receive and file the Legislative report. 7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS a. Report on Pipeline Process b. EPA Brownfields Grant 8. CHAIR'S REPORT 9. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The City Council will adjourn to its regularly scheduled meeting on December 19, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to their regularly scheduled meetings on January 11,2007, at 6:00 p.m. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a eVRC meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Community Development Department for specific information at (619) 691-5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585- 5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 3 of 3 CVRC - Agenda -12/14/06 THEPAUL COMPANY, LLC De velo p men t/En ti tlemen t8 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the ~ Co~ncil From: Douglas C. Paul Lx:! Date: 11/1512006 Re: Request for Excused Absence It has been confirmed that I am disqualified from participating in the only docketed item before the Board at the November 16th meeting. Therefore, with the recommendation of the City Manager, I hereby request an excused absence from this meeting. Cc: City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Mary Donnelly 2-1 701 B Street Suite BOO San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 235-6471 . .. CORf'ORt\TIOI\: CIIUL!\ VISTA CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 3 DATE: December 14, 2006 TO: CVRC Board Directors FROM: /, Jim Thomson, Interim Chief Executive Officer l Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development~ Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager &- VIA: SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATES Items 3.a. through 3.f. are for information only and do not require any formal action by the Board of Directors 3 - 1 3.a. ~~~ ~ ~~~~ Community Development Department (lIT OF CHULA VISTA Memo TO: Members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee FROM: Miguel Z. Tapia, Senior Community Development Specialist DATE: SUBJECT: October 12, 2006 Review No.1 of DRC-07-02, Vasquez Multi-Tenant Industrial Building Proiect Description: The applicant, Frank and Sons Paving, Inc., has submitted a design review application for a proposed multi-tenant industrial building at 144 2ih Street in the southwest area of Chula Vista. The project proposes the construction of a new 24,585-square foot concrete shell building for use as light manufacturing and limited warehousing space (see attached design plans). The building will be divided into 11 suites each with an approximate area of 2,200 square feet. The building will also include a 2,000-square foot mezzanine to serve as administrative office space for Frank and Sons Paving, Inc. The northeast corner of the site (approximately 22,669 square feet) will be used for parking and storage of trucks and construction equipment associated with Frank and Sons Paving, Inc operations. An existing carport structure is proposed to remain on site. Other site improvements include parking, landscaping, and circulation. The project site is zoned Light Industrial (I-L) and has a General Plan land use designation of Limited Industrial. The proposed uses are permitted uses in the I-L zone. Proiect Location: The subject property consists of two lots totaling 2.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Faivre Street and 27th Street, south of Main Street and west of Broadway (see attached locator map). Existing uses adjacent to the subject site include the following: 3-2 Review No. 1 - DRC-07 -02, Vasquez Page 2 October 12, 2006 North West South East Buildina Desian: The proposed bUilding has a contemporary industrial design, using concrete tilt-up panels. The proposed building height ranges from 20 feet to 35 feet. The mezzanine, located at the southeast corner of the building, would be approximately 14 feet above the main one story building. Proposed colors include blue tones with galvanized corrugated metal accents at the south and east elevations of the building to match the roll-up doors and details at the suite entrances. Storefront systems will be composed of. black aluminum and green-tinted glazing. Site Desian: The proposed development will have street access at two main locations: one driveway entrance at the southwest corner of the lot; two other driveways are located at the northeast corner of the lot. The building is located in the middle of the lot and extends toward the west property line with parking around the perimeter of the site. The site design separates the two land use functions (truck/equipment storage and manufacturing/warehousing) by use of a gate system located next to the access driveway on 2th Street. Landscaping materials, including palm trees, shrubs and lawn, will be located along the periphery of the lot. Discussion Items: Initial comments from City staff provided to the applicant on Design Review application (No. 07-02) submitted in July 2006 focused in the following three key points: Access and circulation: The two driveways at the northeast corner of the lot pose potential conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting the site. The two driveway aisles located along the north side of the site do not meet the 24 feet minimum requirement of the Zoning Code and Fire Code. Additionally, the driveway aisle on the north side of the building creates a dead-end situation, which could result in circulation conflicts. 3-3 Review NO.1 - DRC-07-02, Vasquez Page 3 October 12, 2006 Frank and Sons Paving, Inc. propose to locate their administrative offices in the mezzanine located at the southeast corner of the proposed building and the truck and equipment storage on the northwest corner of the lot. There is no direct physical connection between these two elements and the access is not marked by pathway or sidewalk, which could create vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Architecture: The design of the proposed building should include additional articulation and color to break up the long expanse of blank walls on all the elevations. The color of the standing seam metal roofing at the roofline should contrast with the color of the metal siding to add visual interest. Colors and materials of roll-up doors should be non-glossy reduce glare. The existing carport structure should be enhanced or refurbished to blend with the design of the main building. Landscaping/Wall/Fencing: The concept plan does not meet current requirements in terms of screening, plant type (e.g. trees and lawns), appropriate use of landscape materials to focus on certain elements of the site, such as the building entrances, or areas designated for pedestrians. The proposed truck and equipment storage must be screened from public view through a combination ofwalls/fences and landscaping. Plans must show location, type and details of the proposed walls/fences and landscaping. Conclusion: The above comments summarize the primary design issues related to staff's initial review of DRC-07-02. At this time, staff has not received additional modifications in response to city comments. Attachments: . Locator Map . Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Elevations 3-4 ~u?- ~ ~~~~ 3.b. Cln' OF CHULA VISTA Community Development Department Memo DATE: November 2, 2006 TO: Members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee FROM: Janice F. Kluth, Senior Community Development Specialist cc: Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development SUBJECT: 354 Church Avenue, Nine For-sale Town Homes Proiect Backqround: On May 11, 2006, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the developer, PUBLIC, to determine the feasibility of a proposed project on the subject property located at 354 Church Avenue. In accordance with the ENA timeline and with the RAC review process, an ENA project's first opportunity for public input on preliminary design occurs after execution of the ENA. The timing of the first review was planned to give the RAC members and the general public ample opportunity to comment on the project as early as possible in the design process. Proiect Description: The developer has prepared a preliminary site plan and elevations for review and comment by the public and the RAC. The proposed project consists of nine fee-simple, for-sale town homes on a 0.6-acre lot. Each home is a structurally independent three- story home with its own two-car garage. The lot is comprised of two parcels, which are both owned by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. The APNs for these parcels are 568-351-04-00 and 568-351- 05-00. Please refer to the attached map for site location. In preparation for today's meeting, the developer has met with the City's Fire Department and Building Department to target any potential challenges associated with the site plan and basic building design. 3-5 Project Review No.1, 354 Church Avenue November 2, 2006 Page 2 Proiect Location: The subject property is made up of two parcels, totaling 0.6 acres located at the corner of Church Avenue and Madrona Street, in the urban core. Currently the property is used as a public parking lot. Existing uses adjacent to the site are as follows: North South East West Church arkin lot Public Street Public Street Public Aile Site Desiqn: The proposed development will have one driveway, which provides access onto Church Avenue. The nine units form a U-shape around the central driveway. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the units is located on the street level. Landscape (both hardscape and softscape) will be located around the perimeter as well as in the interior of the site. Discussion items: The project has not been officially submitted at this time. In accordance with the ENA timeline, its submittal is pending the adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan. The developer, however, has taken the initiative to begin developing a conceptual design for the project for purposes of receiving early input and feedback from the public and from City Staff. The developer has met with the City's Fire and Building departments for clarification on several items. Based on the information provided at this time, Fire does not have an issue with the site plan as designed. Building has raised an issue associated with exiting, but is working with the developer to address its concerns. Conflict: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee members and found a conflict exists: Alternate Committee Member Jasek has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Next Steps: The developer is looking forward to receiving input and feedback from the public and RAC on their conceptual designs. Following the RAC meeting, the developer will consider that input and feedback and begin preparing more detailed site plans and elevations for formal submittal to City staff for review and comment. Prior to finalizing the project design, the developer will return to the RAC for a second workshop to receive additional public input and participation. 3-6 Project Review No.1, 354 Church Avenue November 2, 2006 Page 3 Attachments: . Map 3-7 3.e. ~u~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~- Community Development Department CITY OF CHULA VISTA Memo DATE: November 2, 2006 TO: Members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee FROM: Brian P. Sheehan, Senior Community Development Specialist SUBJECT: Review NO.1 of DRC-07-22, 357-369 Third Avenue - Exterior Renovation Proiect Description: The applicant, Ken Assi, has submitted a design review application for a proposed exterior renovation of two existing multi-tenant buildings, located at 357 through 369 Third Avenue in the Village District of Chula Vista. The project proposes no new square footage or expansion of the existing buildings. The two existing buildings are proposed for renovation and continued use as commercial retail or commercial office space. The design of the project is currently subject to the provisions of the Town Center Design Manual (TCDM) and the City of Chula Vista Design Manual (OM). Upon adoption, the project would be subject to the provisions of the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) design guidelines, which will replace the TCDM. As a result, the UCSP will also be referenced when reviewing the plan. This is important to note since the TCDM does not include provisions for storefront renovations and the City's Design Manual is of limited relevance. The site is approximately 8,604 square feet, with the two buildings covering the entirety of the site. Both buildings are divided into 3 suites, each of varying dimensions. Proposed site improvements include exterior renovations only. The project site is zoned Commercial Business (CB) and has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use with Residential (MUR). The Urban Core Specific Plan designates the site V-2 Village, with residential, retail 3-8 Review No. # - DRC-07 -22, Assi Page 2 November 2, 2006 and office designated as primary land uses.The existing and proposed uses are permitted uses in the CB zone and would be permitted in the V-2 sub-district. The building to the south (361-369 Third Avenue) includes a public paseo that serves as a pedestrian connection to/from the City-owned public parking lot immediately adjacent and east of the project. The parking lot is not a part of this improvement project. Proiect Location: The subject properties consists of two lots located at the southeast corner of Madrona Street and Third Avenue, just east of the terminus of Park Way, and across the street from the Chula Vista Heritage Museum and Memorial Park (see attached locator map). Existing uses adjacent to the subject site include the following: North Commercial Office West Memorial Park South Commercial Retail East Citv owned Parking Lot The buildings are located on the corner of the block and extend south to the property line. The existing buildings have easy pedestrian access from the sidewalk on both Madrona Street and Third Avenue and street automobile access from one main location, a driveway entrance to the City-owned parking lot on Madrona Street. Six existing mature street trees are evenly distributed on the sidewalk. Desiqn Elements: The project site consists of two different buildings, each with a unique architectural design and storefront character. The northernmost building (357-359 Third Avenue) reflects a Cape Cod style with a cupola; shingle wood awnings, bay windows, dark brown wood trim and weathered blue wood siding. The building height ranges from 14 feet to 18 feet. The southernmost building is a Spanish eclectic style with tile awnings, arched doorways, and brightly colored stucco with green wood trim. Building height is 14 feet. The proposed building renovation proposes to merge the two buildings with an eclectic contemporary style through the addition of a new cupola and new parapets, doorways, windows, stucco, rustic tile and decorative base tile and new storefront colors. The proposed building height would range from 14 feet to 18 feet for both structures. 3-9 Review No. # - DRC-07-22, Assi Page 3 November 2, 2006 Proposed colors include muted red and brown tones with rustic slate tile accents and a mission tile roof. The existing cupola at the north corner would be re-faced with a copper top and the existing roofing shingles would be replaced with tile. A new cupola would be added above the existing paseo, using the same copper top and tile roofing materials. Both cupolas would receive a new decorative flag feature. New signage above the existing paseo is proposed along with new signage plates for each storefront. Storefront systems will be composed of clear glass with light green tint and white vinyl mullions. It is anticipated that the existing mature street trees will remain. Additional landscaping materials have not been proposed along Madrona Street or Third Avenue. Discussion Items: Initial comments from City staff have not yet been provided to the applicant on Design Review application (No. 07-02), submitted in October 2006. The preliminary comments on the proposed renovation that follow are based largely on the Public Hearing Draft UCSP, due to the limited relevance of the TCDM and DM: Design Manual/Draft UCSP · Architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and roofline. (DM) · Repetitive building massing creates an uninteresting street scene (DM). Every effort should be made to retain traditional storefront features. · Subdued color combinations consisting of a limited number of colors are encouraged, and should be used to articulate entries (DM). No more than 3 colors should be used. Use contrasting colors that accent architectural details, and this is especially true of the storefront entrances. · Com ice lines should transition with the buildings on adjacent properties, as the proposed parapets are not consistent with buildings found in the Village District. · Canopies and/or awnings should be integrated into the design and are particularly appropriate for a west facing fayade. · The use of accessories such as grillwork is strongly encouraged. 3 -10 Review No. # - DRC-07-22, Assi Page 4 November 2, 2006 · Operable windows and facades are encouraged to take advantage of the mild climate and may serve to passively cool interior spaces. · Give preference to reusable, recycled and rapidly renewable material choices. The renovation seeks to create a contemporary design between two existing structures that are of a significantly different character. Although the existing storefront rhythm would be retained, the positive shape of a street cannot be achieved by repeatedly staggering the building storefronts. The building edge requires greater depth at strategic locations to provide more visual interest, allow for coverings and offer places to sit, lean and walk. As proposed, the structural uniqueness of each building would be compromised and result in a loss of character to the street. While the applicant is encouraged to pursue the renovation and revitalization of these buildings, the design should be carefully re-considered so as to preserve the unique character and identity of the Village District. The applicant may refer to the Community Character Photographic Essay, Storefront Design Guidelines, Photographic Essay and Building Renovation Guidelines (V1I-6 through VII-32, and VII-52 through VII-63) in the UCSP for further guidance. They may also refer to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Exiting Buildings (LEED-EB) reference guide for more information on green building methods and practices. The concept plan does not reflect existing landscape conditions but it also does not propose any landscape improvements. However, plans need to be revised to show the location, type and details of any existing or proposed landscaping. The applicant may also refer to the Landscape Guidelines (VII-54) of the UCSP for further guidance. Conclusion: The above comments summarize the preliminary design issues related to staffs initial review of DRC-07-02. At this time, staff has not received additional comments from other City departments. The proposed renovation creates a hybrid between two existing structures, which are of a significantly different design style and character. The existing storefront rhythm would be preserved but their uniqueness would potentially be lost. The applicant should endeavor to retain and repeat traditional facade components and the design should be carefully re-considered. 3 - 11 Review No. # - DRC-07-22, Assi Page 5 November 2, 2006 Committee Member Conflict: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and has found a conflict exists, in that Alternate Committee Member Jasek has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Attachments: . Locator Map . Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Elevations cc: Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager, Community Development Department 3 -12 3.d. ~J~ ~ ~~~~ Community Development Department (llY OF CHULA VISTA Memo DATE: November 2, 2006 TO: Members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee FROM: Brian P. Sheehan, Senior Community Development Specialist SUBJECT: Review No.1 of DRC-06-65, 3712 Main Street Proiect Description: The applicant, Mestler Construction, Inc. has submitted a design review application for a commercial project consisting a new office building and three additional storage buildings at 3712 Main Street in Southwest Chula Vista. The project proposes a new office building and two new storage buildings, having a total 10,400 square foot expansion of the existing building footprint on the site. The project site consists of an existing office building and thirteen storage buildings. The storage buildings are located to the rear of the property and are to remain. The office building located at the southwest corner of the site is to be demolished and replaced in a centrally located portion of the property. Other site improvements include parking, landscaping, and circulation. The project site is approximately 4.78 acres and is zoned Limited Industrial Zone (ILP) with a General Plan land use designation of Limited Industrial (IL). The existing and proposed uses are pennitted uses in the ILP zone. The design of the project is subject to the provisions of the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscaping Manual. If the existing storage structures are legal-nonconfonning (I.e. applicant to provide date of construction), then only the proposed construction and site design of the adjacent area are subject to design review. 3 -13 Review No. # - DRC-06-65, 3712 Main Street Page 2 November 2, 2006 Proiect Location: The subject property consists of a single lot located adjacent to the northwest corner of the intersection of Hilltop Drive and Main Street. Existing uses adjacent to the subject site include the following: North Single Family Residential (20+ feet elevation difference) West Transit Maintenance Facility South Proposed Mobil Gas Station and Car Wash East Industrial BuildinQ The existing office building is located at the southwestern edge of the lot, set back 10 feet from Main Street, facing east towards the interior of the property. The property has street automobile and pedestrian access from a single driveway on Main Street at the southwestern edge of the site. Desiqn Elements: The project consists of the construction of a new office building and two new storage buildings. The office building reflects a contemporary industrial design with brown decorative parapet trim and polar blue roll-up doors, bronze anodized storefront windows, dark stucco and a tower feature with a standing seam metal finish roof. The office building height ranges from 17 feet to 19 feet with the tower reaching to 31 feet. The storage buildings are functionally designed with exposed concrete walls, and steel garage doors. Building height is 10 feet-8 inches. A new driveway would be added at the southeast corner of the site and additional landscaping materials have been proposed at both driveway entrances. The parking area would be re-paved, with landscaping added to the border. A new fence, main gate and automobile access gate are proposed with the new office building to restrict access to the main storage area. The central portion of the southerly property line of the site is proposed for parking and storage of trucks associated with Savon Storage operations. . Discussion Items: Initial comments on the Design Review application (No. 06-65) were provided to the applicant on July 11, 2006. The preliminary design comments on the proposed project are summarized below: 3 -14 Review No. # - DRC-06-65, 3712 Main Street Page 3 November 2, 2006 Site Plan . Parking spaces should be re-oriented to align with adjacent spaces to eliminate vehicle conflicts with entry gates and intersection. . The proposed new driveway requires additional study and detail including design and improvements on-site and in the street right-of-way, including sidewalks, cross-walks, the adjacent traffic lanes and the left turn into the site. . Twenty-foot wide driveways must be designated as one-way or widened to 24 feet if desired for two-way use. . Rental truck parking should be located behind Building A, or if temporary, be screened by 10 feet of on-site landscaping. . Plans must show vicinity map, parking table (proposed and required), lot size, general plan, zoning information, trash enclosures and interim use for site of building D. . If Building D is not included in this project, it should be deleted from the plans. Landscaping . Parking lot requires 10 feet of landscape planter from the edge of the property line to provide screening. . Recommend landscape planters on the north and south side of Building A to soften transition between pavement and buildings. . Slope at the rear of future storage building D should also be landscaped and a cross-section showing upper driveway, landscape, retaining wall, adjacent grading and any proposed structures is recommended. Site LightinglUtilities . Provide a conceptual site lighting plan. . Show any roof mounted mechanical equipment on the roof plan. This equipment must be clustered and screened and should take the location of any adjacent uses into consideration. 3 -15 Review No. #- DRC-06-65, 3712 Main Street Page 4 November 2, 2006 WallSlf"ences · Provide design details of the fencing, retaining and freestanding walls, and gates. · Where visible to the public, the design of all walls and fencing should be decorative. · Height should not exceed 3 1/2 feet if located within the front yard setback area (i.e., 20 feet from the property line), or 6 feet maximum if behind the front yard setback. Architecture · Enhance the side and rear elevations of proposed storage buildings B & C. Buildings B & C should incorporate some of the design elements or be consistent with the design of the front elevation of Building A. · Delete the ornamentation on top of the cornice at the southeast and southwest comers of Building A. · Clarify if the decorative roll-up doors at the base of the tower element are an interior or exterior feature. Signage · Show dimensions and other design details of wall and freestanding signage on the elevations. · If proposed, show location of any additional signage on the site plan and details on the elevations. Finally, the applicant may also refer to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design- for New Construction (LEED-NC) reference guide for information on green building methods and practices. Conclusion: The above comments summarize the preliminary design issues related to staff's initial review of DRC-06-65. The applicant has recently resubmitted and staff has not yet completed a review of the plans. 3 -16 Review No. # - DRC-06-65, 3712 Main Street Page 5 November 2, 2006 Committee Member Conflicts: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Attachments: . Locator Map . Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Elevations cc: Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager, Community Development Department 3 -17 ~Jft.- ~ ~~--~ -- -~~ 3.e. CITY OF (HULA VISTA Community Development Department Memo DATE: December 7, 2006 TO: Members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee FROM: Diem Do, Senior Community Development Specialist cc: Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Northwest and Southwest corners of Church and Davidson Proiect Backoround: On May 11, 2006, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the developer, Douglas Wilson Companies, to determine the feasibility of a proposed project on the subject property located at the northwest and southwest corners of Church and Davidson. In accordance with the ENA timeline and with the RAC review process, an ENA project's first opportunity for public input on preliminary design occurs after execution of the ENA. The timing of the first review was planned to give the RAC members and the general public ample opportunity to comment on the project as early as possible in the design process. Developer Backoround: Douglas Wilson Companies is an experienced developer of mixed-use urban infill projects in the San Diego area, based in San Diego and founded in 1989. Douglas Wilson Companies primarily develops low-rise and mid-rise residential projects, including condominiums and mixed-use developments incorporating retail and office space. Douglas Wilson's portfolio and business plan include iofts, town homes, flats, and live/work residences. Notable completed Douglas Wilson projects in the San Diego region include: D Parkloft. 120 one- and two-story residential lofts, ranging from 930 to over 3,000 sf. in the East Village of the City of San Diego. D Svmphonv Towers. This mixed-use development in downtown San Diego consists of a 34-story office tower, a 2,255 seat theatre for the San Diego Symphony, a 264-room hotel and a five-level parking structure. Notable current Douglas Wilson projects in the San Diego region include: D The Mark. Thirty-two story, 244-residential condominium project in the East Village of the City of San Diego consisting of 233 condominium units, 11 two-story townhomes, and 8,000 sf of retail ground floor space. 3 -18 Project Review No.1, Northwest and Southwest Corners of Church and Davidson December 7, 2006 Page 2 Proiect Description and Location: The developer has prepared a preliminary site plan and sample elevations for review and comment by the public and the RAC. The proposed project consists of sixteen fee-simple, for-sale town homes on a 0.6-acre lot. Each home is contemplated as a two or three-story townhome unit with access from a two-car garage. The development site is comprised of three parcels, totaling 25,538 square feet, and is owned by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. The subject properties are located at the westem comers of Church Avenue and Davidson Street, in the urban core. Currently the properties are used as public parking lots. The neighborhood to the east is primarily residential and small office locations and directly to the west on Third Avenue are primarily commercial and residential uses. The APNs for these parcels are 568-07- 118,568-07-119 and 568-16-125. Please refer to the attached map for site location. Site Desian: The proposed development will comprise two separate and distinct buildings centered around a courtyard. The units will front Church Avenue with entryways sited on Church Avenue and additional access from the attached two-car garage. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the units is located on the street level. Discussion items: The project has not been officially submitted at this time. In accordance with the ENA timeline, its submittal is pending the adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan. The developer, however, has taken the initiative to begin developing a conceptual site plan for the project for purposes of receiving early input and feedback from the public and from City Staff. Conflict: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee members and found a conflict exists: Committee Member Moctezuma has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the subject properties. Next Steps: The developer is looking forward to receiving input and feedback from the public and RAC on their conceptual designs. Following the RAC meeting, the developer will consider that input and feedback and begin preparing site plans and elevations for formal submittal to City staff for review and comment. Prior to finalizing the project design, the developer will return to the RAC for a second workshop to receive additional public input and participation. Attachments: . Map . Proposed Site Plan 3 -19 ~u?- ~ ~~=~~ 3.f. CITY OF CHULA VISTA , Community Development Department Memo TO: Chula Vista Redevelopment Advisory Committee FROM: Miguel Z. Tapia, Senior Community Development Specialist DATE: December 7,2006 SUB.JECT: Review NO.1 of PCC-07-022, Social Security Office at Existing Building Proiect Description: The applicant, Chula Vista Social Security Building, LLC, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for the relocation of the Social Security Administration (SSA) offices from Third Avenue in Downtown Chula Vista to the property located at 626 L Street, west of Broadway (see attached Locator Map). The existing building on L Street was built in the early 1990's for the Rollerskateland Rink, which will soon be closing its doors. The building has a gross floor area of 22,437 square feet. The SSA proposes to use 16,210 square feet (72%), with the remaining area retained for potential future leases. The proposed modifications to the building are limited to interior tenant improvements necessary to convert the existing building interior from a rollerskating rink to an office setting. Exterior building improvements are limited to the installation of six windows on the west elevation and one window on the north elevation of the building in order to allow additional natural light. The existing landscaped areas are proposed to be repaired and enhanced (see attached plans). Conditional Use Permit Requirement: The proposed SSA office is considered a public/quasi-public use under section 19.54.20 (M) of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, and as such it requires the processing of a CUP to be reviewed and approved by the City Council after a recommendation by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation. CUP's are subject to the requirements of 3 - 20 Project Review No.1, Social Security Office at Existing Building December 7, 2006 Page 2 Section 19.14.060 et. seq., including specific findings listed in Section 19.14.080, which are made by the City Council. Proiect Location: The subject building is on a 1.27-acre parcel located on L Street, approximately 300 feet west of Broadway. The site contains 50 parking spaces and approximately 15% of the site is landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The existing use and land use and zoning designations adjacent to the subject site are shown on the table below: General Plan Desianation Zenina Existin!l Uses Desianatien Site Limited Industrial (IL) Limited Industrial (lL) North Mixed Use - Residential Limited Industrial Industrial (MUR) (ILP) warehouse/single family residences East Mixed Use - Residential Commercial Gas Station w/mini (MUR) Thoroughfare (CT) mart and car wash South Limited Industrial (IL) Limited Industrial Single family (ILP) residences West Limited Industrial (IL) Limited Industrial Office Depot (lL) Existina Buildina Desian: The existing building has a contemporary industrial design and was built of split-face and smooth concrete block painted in light brown and red colors. Building exterior articulation includes thin columns, glass block and four service doors on the west elevation. The north elevation facing L Street has a similar wall treatment, plus two showcase windows and two wide columns that frame the main entrance door. The building height is 27 feet (including a parapet 2.5 feet in height) and covers approximately 40 % of the lot area. The only proposed change to the building exterior is the introduction of windows to allow additional natural light. Discussion Items: City staff have reviewed the plans for the proposed establishment of the SSA office at 626 L Street. Initial comments discussed with the applicant on the CUP application submitted in October 12, 2006 focused on the following key points. 3 - 21 Project Review No.1, Social Security Office at Existing Building December 7, 2006 Page 3 Site Accessibility/Parking: The proposed site for the SSA office is located on L Street approximately 300 feet from Broadway and near Interstate 5 access ramp on L Street and Industrial Boulevard. The site is easily accessible by private automobile and public transit. Bus route 932 (a regional route) runs along Broadway every 15 minutes from National City to San Ysidro. This route connects to other local and regional bus routes that provide service throughout Chula Vista. As indicated previously, the proposed SSA office is an unclassified public/quasi-public use, which does not have a specific parking requirement in the City's Zoning Ordinance. It is a governmental service office with unique functional characteristics and as such has been evaluated in comparison to other SSA offices in the region to determine use specific parking demand requirements. The Applicant has provided a survey of offices throughout the County of San Diego and Los Angeles. Below is a table with information on the number of parking spaces available at other similarly sized SSA office locations. 55A Location Existing Chula Vista National Ci San Die 0 EI Ca'on La Mesa Pacific Beach Oceanside Escondido San Marcos Los Angeles (Breed Street Los Angeles Adams Blvd Information provided by the Applicant indicates that the new office would employ a total of about 30 persons (the same number as the current office on Third Avenue) who would report for two work shifts throughout the day. A number of their employees (approximately 30%) currently use public transportation. In addition, SSA recipient's visits fluctuate throughout the day, with a percentage of visitors using public transportation. The SSA also provides a shuttle service to and from various points throughout Chula Vista to the SSA facility three times during the day. Based on the 3 - 22 Project Review No.1, Social Security Office at Existing Building December 7, 2006 Page 4 regional and the Chula Vista site specific information, the 50 on-site parking spaces would more than meet parking demand. Landscaping: The subject site currently has landscaping around the building and throughout the parking lot and circulation areas. This landscaping is based on landscape plans approved by the City and implemented as part of the construction of the building in 1994. The landscaping in some areas of the site, however, is in poor condition and in need of repair, including replacement of the landscape material and potential repair or upgrade of the irrigation systems. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the CUP application. The City's Landscape Planner has reviewed the concept plans and is requiring that complete and detailed landscape plans be prepared at the time of building permit application. These plans must be based on and comply with the requirements of the City's Landscape Manual. Conclusion: Due to the fairly recent development of the site, staff has identified limited design issues. The site-specific use issue (site accessibility/parking) has been adequately addressed by information provided by the applicant. Comments from staff and the RAC members will be forwarded to the Applicant to make appropriate revisions and proceed with the CUP application to CVRC for recommendations to the City Council. Committee Member Conflicts Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Attachments: . Locator Map . Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Elevations cc: Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager, Community Development Department 3 - 23 . .. CORF'OR/\TIOt\ CHlJL/\ VISTA CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 4 DATE: December 14, 2006 TO: CVRC Board Directors FROM: ./ Jim Thomson, Interim Chief Executive Officer :/i I- Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager@ VIA: SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE 2006 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT AREA Staff recommends that the City Council and CVRC continue the public hearing to a future date to be determined and direct staff to re-notice. 4-1 . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. Co CORPORATIOi'\ CHULA VISIA DATE: December 14, 2006 FROM: Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors CVRC Board of Directors /;", Jim Thomson, Interim Executive Director/CEO ,; i Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development~ Ken Lee, Principal Community Development Specialis~" Year-End Legislative Report on 2006 Redevelopment Bills TO: VIA: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Keto v" City of New London, sending ripple effects through almost every state legislature in the country. In California, the topic of eminent domain heated up quickly as local government watchdogs and key members of the Legislature began a dialogue at the Capitol that would rapidly move eminent domain to the forefront of the Legislature's agenda during the 2005- 2006 Two-Year Session. Key policy committees in the Senate quickly converged on the issue, calling for a series of special hearings that later spurred the introduction of several substantive redevelopment bills, and eventually opened the doors to a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 90. While Proposition 90 failed at the ballot in November, just months prior, the Legislature passed eight separate bills that directly impact the powers and procedural requirements of California's 386 + redevelopment agencies. Seven of the eight bills were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September. The provisions of those seven bills will become effective on January 1,2007, and are briefly described in the following table. Bill No. & Author Chapter No. Bill Summary Senate Bill 53 (Kehoe) Chapter 591, Statutes of 2006 Requires redevelopment plans to spell out how, when, and where redevelopment officials will use their eminent domain powers, and requires redevelopment officials to document "blight" before extending the time period for using eminent domain. 6-1 Staff Report - Item No.6 Page 2 Bill No. & Author Chapter No. Bill Summary SB 1206 (Kehoe) Chapter 595, Tightens the statutory "blight" definition, increases Statutes of 2006 oversight by the State Department of Finance, and makes it easier to challenge redevelopment decisions. SB 1210 (Torlakson) Chapter 594, Requires redevelopment officials to document "blight" Statutes of 2006 before extending the time period for using eminent domain, and changes the procedures for taking condemned property. SB 1809 (Machado) Chapter 603, Requires local officials to add information about a Statutes of 2006 redevelopment agency's possible use of eminent domain in the formal statements that current law requires officials to record about redevelopment project areas. Assembly Bill 773 Chapter 161, Increases the referendum petition period for (Mullin) Statutes of 2006 redevelopment decisions. AB 782 (Mullin) Chapter 113, Repeals the subdivision exception to the statutory Statutes of 2006 "blight" definition. AB 1893 (Salinas) Chapter 98, Codifies the Ruffo decision, banning redevelopment Statutes of 2006 spending on city halls. The following Year-End Legislative Report provides a more detailed description and discussion of each of these bills, and the events in Sacramento that led up to their introduction and passage. This report is for informational purposes only. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that: a) The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and Redevelopment Agency receive and file the 2006 Year-End Legislative Report. 6-2 Staff Report - Item No.6 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Different State, Different Rules The Supreme Court's Ke/o ruling affirmed that the City of New London's exercise of eminent domain to take private, non-blighted property for the purpose of economic development satisfied the constitutional "public use" requirement. To understand how the state laws of Connecticut and California differ, and how the Ke/o ruling interacts differently with those state laws, several key policy committees in Sacramento initiated a series of hearings to explore these questions. On August 17, 2005, the Senate Local Government Committee, chaired by Senator Christine Kehoe of San Diego, held an informational hearing on Ke/o and received testimony from five attorneys with extensive experience in eminent domain. An October 26, 2005 Briefing Paper written by the Committee's Chief Consultant, Peter Detwiler, summarized the hearing's results in four key findings: . None of the witnesses said that Ke/o affected California's counties, cities, special districts, or school districts. All focused on how Ke/o affected redevelopment agenci es. . The witnesses disagreed on how Ke/o affected redevelopment agencies' eminent domain powers. One declared that a Ke/o-like taking was impossible in California because of the "blight" requirement. Others claimed that California's situation is worse than Connecticut's. The witnesses also disagreed over property owners' protections under the existing statutes. Some called for legislative changes that would benefit property owners who oppose eminent domain. Others defended the existing statutory protections. State law limits redevelopment agencies' eminent domain powers to redevelopment project areas where the area must be blighted. . . Redevelopment at Center Stage The Committee's findings concluded that Ke/o did not affect cities, counties, special districts, and school districts, and instead shifted Sacramento's focus to California's redevelopment agencies. Several of the Committee's witnesses confirmed that the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code 9933000 et seq.) already contains very stringent property owner protections and requirements for the inclusion of "blighted" properties in redevelopment project areas, and the use of eminent domain on those blighted properties. Other witnesses and members of the Committee, including Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), however, cited specific cases of eminent domain "abuse" by certain redevelopment agencies in California. While the merits of these "abuse" cases were the subject of debate at the hearing, the Committee's discussions had clearly opened the door to much broader topics of redevelopment reform in California that went above and beyond just the issue of eminent domain. 6-3 Staff Report - Item No. 6 Page 4 Transforming Toward Reform Discussions from the Senate Local Government Committee's hearing on Kelo spilled over into the Fall Recess, after adjournment of the 2005 legislative year. During October and November of 2005, four policy committees (two from the Senate and two from the Assembly) convened to hold joint Interim Hearings and special study sessions on the specific topic of redevelopment in California. The four participating policy committees included: (1) Senate Committee on Local Government, (2) Senate Committee on Transportation & Housing, (3) Assembly Committee on Housing & Community Development, and (4) Assembly Committee on Local Government. Two joint Interim Hearings were held by the Committees in San Diego and Sacramento, both of which attracted enormous amounts of attention from a diverse range of stakeholders from throughout the state. The October 26, 2005 Hearing in San Diego focused specifically on Redevelopment & Blight, reopening decades of controversy and scrutiny over how public officials and property owners use the statutory definition of "blight" to redevelop California's downtowns and neighborhoods. The November 17, 2005 Hearing in Sacramento covered a much wider range of issues and topics, transforming the committees' discussions to broader talks about "redevelopment reforms." The combined effect of the two joint interim Hearings revealed itself in january when the Legislature reconvened. A number of redevelopment bills quickly surfaced, indicating that Sacramento was ready for the next wave of redevelopment reforms. The Next Wave of Reforms The last comprehensive redevelopment reform bill, AB 1290 (Chapter 942, Statutes of 1993), was passed by the Legislature more than a decade ago. AS 1290 made sweeping changes in the redevelopment law to increase redevelopment agencies' accountability to the state through increased reporting requirements, tax increment spending restrictions, and stricter requirements for findings of blight. As witnessed in the months of heated policy debate that followed the Supreme Court's ruling, Kelo provided the Legislature the perfect opening for the next wave of redevelopment reforms in California. The following section of this report provides summary descriptions and analyses of the seven redevelopment reform bills that were passed, signed, and chaptered in 2006. 2006 Redevelopment Bills . SB 53 (Kehoe) - Chapter 591, Statutes of 2006 Summary. When a city adopts a redevelopment project area, it is required to prepare a redevelopment plan that sets forth the goals and limitations of the Agency's activities for the area. One of these limitations is a time limit of 12 years 6-4 Staff Report - Item No.6 Page 5 to commence eminent domain proceedings to acquire property. Existing law allows cities to extend that time limit through an amendment of the redevelopment plan. SB 53 (Kehoe) will establish the following new requirements. New redevelopment plans adopted on or after January 1, 2007 must contain a "program to acquire real property by eminent domain." The program may include self-imposed restrictions on the use of eminent domain to acquire specified types of properties (e.g., owner-occupied residences, single-family residences). For all redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 2007, cities must adopt an ordinance by July 1, 2007 containing a description of their "program to acquire real property by eminent domain," as described under #1. To extend the 12-year time limit for the commencement of eminent domain proceedings in a project area, cities must amend the redevelopment plan for the subject project area and make both of the following findings, based on substantial evidence: 1) That significant blight remains within the project area. 2) That this blight cannot be eliminated without the use of eminent domain. Analysis. The adoption of any new project areas, orthe expansion of existing ones, in the City of Chula Vista will require the City to adopt the newly mandated eminent domain program. By July 1, 2007, the City will also be required to adopt ordinances for existing project areas that describe the City's eminent domain program, including any restrictions on the use of eminent domain to acquire specified types of properties. Because the City has already adopted local restrictions prohibiting the use of eminent domain to acquire residentially zoned/used property, these new state requirements are generally consistent with existing local policies. The new blight findings required by SB 53 will also apply to any future plan amendments that include the extension of the Agency's time limit to commence eminent domain proceedings. . SB 1206 (Kehoe) - Chapter 595, Statutes of 2006 Summary. Of all the redevelopment bills passed in 2006, SB 1206 (Kehoe) made the broadest sweep of changes to the law, amending twelve existing sections of the Health and Safety Code and adding seven new sections. SB 1206 was also the most controversial of the seven, receiving attention from a wide array of stakeholders at the local, regional, and state levels. By the end of August 2006, 14 organizations and individuals were listed in support of SB 1206; 71 were listed in opposition, 6-5 Staff Report - Item No.6 Page 6 many of which included individual cities and redevelopment agencies. The provisions of 56 1206 are generally summarized below. Topic ChJllgf'c, , Blight Findings Tightens the requirements for making findings of "blight" by eliminating the looser requirements ("antiquated subdivision conditions") and modifying the statutory definitions of physical and economic blighting conditions. Also seeAB 782 (Mullin). Blight Findings New requirement that blight surveys/inventories must include specific, quantifiable evidence that documents specified physical and economic blighting conditions (e.g., crime rates, calls for service, lease rates). Blight Findings Increases requirements for blight findings in ordinances adopting redevelopment plans, including "clearly articulated and documented evidence. " Blight and Tax Increment An unblighted parcel may not be included in a redevelopment project area when the only substantial justification for including the parcel is to obtain the allocation of taxes from the area. Use of Tax Increment Clarifies that the existing prohibition of using tax increment funds to pay for city hall facilities includes: land acquisition, site clearance, and design. Also seeAB 1893 (Salinas). Financial Mergers of Requires that findings be made for the financial merging of project Project Areas areas that: (1) significant blight remains in one of the project areas; and (2) the blight cannot be eliminated without the merger. Referendum Establishes a consistent 90-day time limit for voters to circulate and submit a referendum petition for the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan. Also seeAB 773 (Mullin). Statute of Limitations Extends the GO-day statute of limitations for actions challenging the validity of a redevelopment plan to 90 days. Requires copies of such challenges of validity to be served on the Attorney General. Increases the ability of the Attorney General to intervene. In summary, 56 1206 accomplishes three primary goals: (1) tightens the statutory "blight" definition; (2) makes it easier for interested parties to challenge redevelopment decisions; and (3) increases state oversight of redevelopment takings. Analysis. The last redevelopment project area expansion that was adopted in the City of Chula Vista occurred in 2004, after a multi-year effort involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting costs, extensive public outreach and education, and several rounds of studies and plans designed to support the City's required findings of "blight." Under 56 1206, all future efforts to expand the City's project areas will become significantly more challenging, costly, and limiting. Earlier this year, the Redevelopment Agency approved a 2005-2009 Five Year Implementation 6-6 Staff Report - Item No.6 Page 7 Plan that contained a work program establishing the expansion of the City's redevelopment project areas as a priority during the next two to three years. Additional Comments. Specified sections of SB 1206 mirrored provisions from the three Assembly Bills identified in this report. This is a common practice in Sacramento to prevent one bill from "chaptering out" another when the same sections of the law are affected. SB 1206 was signed and chaptered into law after AB 773 (Mullin), AB 782 (Mullin), and AB 1893 (Salinas) and is, therefore, the operative legislative vehicle for those statutory changes. . S8 1210 (Torlakson) - Chapter 594, Statutes of 2006 Summary. SB 1210 (Torlakson) makes several changes to the Code of Civil Procedure which governs the procedural requirements for condemnation proceedings. Specifically, the bill: Revises the provision in existing law that permits a plaintiff to make ex parte application to the court for pre-judgment possession of land and instead allows the issuance of pre-judgment possession orders only when the property owners has been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Allows the property owner or occupant, within 30 days of receiving the notice, to submit to the court written opposition to the taking, signed under penalty of perjury, and containing a brief description of the hardship that would be caused by the taking. Allows the court to grant an order of possession (i.e. to authorize a taking) if denying the order would create a "substantial hardship" to the plaintiff and the hardship to the plaintiff outweighs the hardship to the property owner. Requires a public entity seeking to exercise eminent domain to pay the reasonable costs of an independent appraisal, not to exceed $5,000. Analysis. SB 1210 tries to "level the playing field" between condemning entities and property owners during condemnation proceedings. Specifically, SB 1210 makes changes to the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure that currently allow condemning entities to make ex parte applications to the court for pre-judgment possession of land before property owners have received notice and an opportunity to be heard. SB 1210 tries to tip the scales back in the favor of the property owner by placing the burden of proof back on the condemning entity to show why immediate possession of the property is urgently necessary, and how it would avoid a substantial hardship. These new requirements will force redevelopment agencies and developers to slow down and reevaluate their timelines for development projects that could involve condemnation. 6-7 Staff Report - Item No.6 Page 8 . SB 1809 (Machado) - Chapter 603, Statutes of 2006 Summary. Existing redevelopment law requires redevelopment agencies to record with the County Recorder a legal description of any land that is contained within a redevelopment project area. This ensures that title reports disclose to property owners and prospective homebuyers whether property is within a project area. SB 1809 expands these requirements as follows: Recordation must occur within 60 days of the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan. There is currently no time limit. If the redevelopment plan authorizes the Agency to use eminent domain, the recorded statement must also contain: (a) a prominent heading in boldface type that the property is located in a project area; and (b) a description of Agency's power of eminent domain, including any restrictions. Requires, by December 31, 2007, that cities re-record all legal descriptions of any previowsly adopted or amended redevelopment plans in accordance with the new requirements, if those plans authorize the use of .eminent domain to acquire property. Prohibits the Agency from commencing eminent domain proceedings until the required statement and description are recorded. Analysis. SB 1809 seeks to increase protections for property owners and prospective homebuyers by ensuring that owners and buyers have full disclosure that a property is in a project area and may be subject to eminent domain. According to the author, homebuyers should be informed when there is a risk that a home might be taken by a redevelopment agency under eminent domain, "thereby allowing the risk to be quantified in the final selling price of the home." By December 31, 2007, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency will be required to record revised statements with the County Recorder for all applicable redevelopment plans, if any, in accordance with the requirements of SB 1809. . AB 773 (Mullin) - Chapter 161, Statutes of 2006 A8 773 (Mullin) was mirrored and chaptered out by 58 1206 (Kehoe). Please refer to the 58 1206 table on Page 6 of this report. . AB 782 (Mullin) - Chapter 113, Statutes of 2006 A8 782 (Mullin) was mirrored and chaptered out by 58 1206 (Kehoe). Please refer to the 58 1206 table on Page 6 of this report. . AB 1893 (Salinas) - Chapter 98, Statutes of 2006 A8 1893 (Salinas) was mirrored and chaptered out by 58 1206 (Kehoe). Please refer to the 58 1206 table on Page 6 of this report. 6-8 . .. CVRC Board Staff Report - Page 1 Item No. 5 CORI)OR,A.TION (HULA VIST\ DATE: December 14, 2006 FROM: The Honorable Chair and Redevelopment Agency Members /: Jim Thomson, Interim Chief Executive Officer ',if Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development~ Mandy Mills, Housing Manager i~ CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE CONTRACT AND RElATED DOCUMENTS FOR SPACE 2 AT ORANGE TREE MOBllEHOME PARK TO: VIA: SUBJECT: Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency continue the public hearing to January 11, 2006. 5 - 1 . .. CORPORATION (HULA VISTA CVRC Board Information Memo - Page 1 DATE: December 14, 2006 VIA: The Honorable CVRC Chair and Directors / Jim Thomson, Interim Chief E#utive Officer .j/ Dana M. Smith, Secretary~ TO: FROM: Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director ~ SUBJECT: "Pipeline" Policy (Council Referral #287) At the November 16, 2006, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation meeting, a referral was made by Directors McCann and Rindone to provide information on the City's policy regarding "pipeline" provisions for projects, and in particular, related to the draft Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). This memorandum, as well as a companion memorandum prepared by the City Attorney's Office (Attachment 1), has been prepared in response to the referral. A pipeline provision is typically associated with projects that are being processed during the preparation of new land use policy or regulations. The provision can provide a level of certainty for those projects that are submitted, reviewed and/or approved during, in many cases, a multi-year planning process. This issue is particularly pertinent to the City's development review process and private property development given the recently updated General Plan and the status of on-going updates to the City's Zoning Ordinance to implement new General Plan land use designations. To address this issue, City staff is currently assessing the various options that could be pursued. The existing Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 19.06.030 December 14, 2006 "Pipeline" Policy (Council Referral #287) Page 2 (General Plan) and 19.07.030 (Specific Plans) include provisions for the review of projects that have been "substantially processed" during and after the adoption of such plans. The following are excerpts from the existing CVMC: 19.06.030 (General Plan): " those projects which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning and which are affected by the general plan amendment may proceed; provided, that the zoning administrator issues, in each case, a permit to complete processing based upon the findings that the effectiveness of the general plan and the order and amenity of the community would not be substantially impaired by the issuance of the permit. Projects shall be deemed to be substantially processed where the property owners have procured approved tentative subdivision or parcel maps, building permits, conditional use permits, or design review committee approvals, in furtherance of the proposed projects. The zoning administrator, furthermore, may deem that projects have been substantially processed where the involved property owners have submitted tentative subdivision or parcel maps or applications for design review, but are awaiting consideration by the appropriate city agency or official, as well as projects which have been submitted to the planning department for design review consideration not more than six months prior to the adoption of the general plan. The property owner shall provide evidence to the zoning administrator not more than 90 days after the general plan adoption that the submittal of project plans has occurred within the aforementioned specified period to qualify for this provision. 19.07.030(C) (Specific Plans): ......those projects which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning and which are December 14, 2006 "Pipeline" Policy (Council Referral #287) Page 3 affected by a specific plan may proceed; provided, that the zoning administrator issues in each case a permit to complete processing based upon the findings that the effectiveness of the specific plan and the order and amenity of the community would not be substantially impaired by the issuance of the permit. Projects shall be deemed to be substantially processed where the property owners have procured approved tentative subdivision or parcel maps, building permits, conditional use permits, or design review committee approvals, in furtherance of the proposed projects. The zoning administrator, furthermore, may deem that projects have been substantially processed where the involved property owners have submitted tentative subdivision or parcel maps or applications for design review, but are awaiting consideration by the appropriate city agency or official. " Also, in response to public comments made on the draft UCSP, staff has prepared the attached preliminary draft pipeline language to be considered for incorporation into the UCSP and implementing Ordinance. This draft language would be in keeping with the existing Municipal Code provisions outlined above. In addition, there are other pipeline options that could be considered either for the UCSP, or for other City actions in the future. Planning and Community Development staff are currently reviewing a range of options used in other jurisdictions, which extend from the "AVCO" rule -- which essentially requires projects to have all required permits and be substantially under construction to be considered in the pipeline -- to the "Deemed Complete" option, which applies to projects that have filed an application and such application has been determined to be complete per the City's submittal requirements. The benefits December 14, 2006 "Pipeline" Policy (Council Referral #287) Page 4 of other pipeline options would need to be weighed against the issues of fairness/certainty for applicants, as well as any detrimental effects on implementing the new vision for the City as established by the 2005 General Plan. One of staff's preliminary observations is that revised pipeline provisions should be tailored to each specific ordinance or action, such as the UCSP, because each regulatory situation is unique. Outside of the draft UCSP Pipeline language (Attachment 2), any additional recommendations or revisions to existing regulations will be brought forward early next year by the Planning Department as part of the Interim Zoning Ordinance that is currently under preparation. ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney's Office 2 - Draft UCSP Pipeline Language PREPARED BY: Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager J:\eOMMDEV\eVRe\lnfo Memos\2006\ 121406 eVRe Info Memo re Pipeline.doc ATTACHMENT 1 OlY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: December 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation VIA: Ann Moore, City Attorney FROM: Michael J. Shirey, Deputy City Attorney II~ CC: Jim Thompson, Interim City Manager Dana Smith, Assistant City Manger Ann Hix, Assistant Director of Community Development SUBJECT: City Council Referral No. 287 - "Pipeline Policy" At the November 16, 2006 Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation ("CVRC") meeting, Vice Chairman/Deputy Mayor McCann and CVRV/City Council member Rindone requested that an analysis be provided to the City Council and CVRC regarding the City's current policies on when a developer obtains a vested right to complete a proposed project in accordance with [existing] City ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the project is being processed by staff. This issue has been referred to as a "pipeline policy" meaning that once a project is formally submitted to the City and is in "the pipeline" the City may not amend any ordinances or revise any policies or standards for the project, basically "locking in" all project requirements until the development is actually constructed. The above issue was posed in the context of the Urban Core Specific Plan ("UCSP"), i.e., one developer has indicated that he wants to process an application for a project under the current zoning in the UCSP area and not under the new zoning and requirements of the proposed UCSP. City's Current Vested RiQhtlPipeline Policy for Specific Plans Pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.07.030(C), proposed projects which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning and which are affected by a specific plan may proceed, provided that, the zoning Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation December 4, 2006 Page 2 administrator issues in each case a permit to complete processing based upon the findings that the effectiveness of the specific plan and the order and amenity of the community would not be substantially impaired by the issuance of the permit. This code section goes on to state that proposed projects shall be deemed to be "substantially processed" where a developer has procured approved tentative subdivision or parcel maps, building permits, conditional use permits, or design review committee approvals, in furtherance of the proposed projects. In addition, this code section states that the zoning administrator may deem that projects have been substantially processed where a developer has submitted tentative subdivision or parcel maps or applications for design review, but are awaiting consideration by the appropriate City agency or official. If a developer has not processed any of the above discretionary actions then section 19.07.030(C) also provides for a Specific Plan amendment process. This section states in pertinent part that, when a specific plan is adopted and existing zoning is inconsistent with the specific plan and a developer desires to develop a property in accordance with the existing zoning, the developer must first submit a proposed amendment to the specific plan. All such amendments shall be subject to public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the amendment is adopted, the developer can proceed with the processing of the development pursuant to the previous existing underlying zoning. Lastly, this code section also contains provisions for an appeal period and provides that appeals from the actions of the zoning administrator may be filed, within 10 days after the dates of said actions with the Planning Commission and City Council. VestinCl RiQhts - Current State of the Law As indicated above, a "pipeline" provision for a proposed project to lock in current City ordinances, policies and standards is, in the eyes of the law, a "vesting rights" provision. In 1976, the landmark case of Avco Community Developers, Inc, v, South Coast Reqional Commission 1 established the rule for vested rights in California. In Avco the California Supreme Court held that unless a developer has a [statutory] Development Agreement with a public agency or a Vesting Tentative Map, if an agency changes its land use regulations, a developer cannot claim a vested right to build out a project unless they have obtained a building permit and substantially performed actions to implement the 1 Aveo Communitv Develooers. Inc. v. South Coast Reaional Commission, 17 Cal. 3d. 785 (1976) Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation December 4, 2006 Page 3 building permit and also incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon the permit.2 Avco owned approximately 8,000 acres of land in Orange County, of which a small portion of it was in the coastal zone. Prior to February 1, 1973, the date on which the coastal development permit requirement became effective under Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq. (the California Coastal Act), Avco obtained zoning and tentative and final map approvals and had completed or was in the process of constructing project infrastructure at a total cost of $2,750,000 but had not yet obtained any building permits for any residential construction. Based upon this capital outlay, Avco argued that they had obtained vested rights for its development and were exempt from any requirements for obtaining a coastal permit. [Citations] Although the lower court opined that fairness suggested that Avco be allowed to complete its development in accordance with the final map and previous regulations (which the project was processed under), since Avco did not have a building permit, it did not have a vested right to complete the project as entitled.3 As discussed above, the California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that Avco had not obtained any vested rights. Although the Avco rule may seem excessive, it is based upon the idea that the government's right to control land use policy cannot be impaired.4 Even though the California Supreme Court ruled on Avco in 1976, vesting rights issues have been continuously litigated ever since and Avco has not been overturned. As recently as March 2005 a Fourth Appellate ruling reaffirmed Avco as the rule in California.5 Conclusion As can be seen from the above discussion, the City's current ordinance regarding establishing vested rights is more liberal than the rule established in Avco and its progeny. Where Avco requires a developer to obtain a building permit and have incurred substantial liabilities on implementing that permit (basically, the final stages of development), the City allows for vesting where a developer has obtained any number of discretionary approvals. These many discretionary actions are basically at the beginning of the development process. 2 Ibid. at 791 and 793. 3- Id. at 791. 4- Id. at 797. 5 Hafen v. Gountv of Oranqe, 128 Gal. App. 4'h 133, 142 (Gal. App. 4'h, 1976). Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation December 4, 2006 Page 4 Avco does not govern City Council action regarding vested rights. The City Council may expand upon (or limit) the City's current vesting rights rules by amending Municipal Code section 19.07.030(C) as these rules relate to specific plans. End of memorandum. J:\Attorney\MichaeISh\Memoranda\VestingRts.12. 06~Final.doc Attachment 2 INSERT TO PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN: CHAPTER VI. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULA nONS Insert subsection in Chapter VI.A.2 (Applicability) following first paragraph: Rename (a) "New Projects" - and see 1st paragraph of existing text. (b) Pipeline Projects - The provisions of the Specific Plan shall be applied to new development applications submitted after the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Specific Plan. The provisions of the Specific Plan do not apply to projects which have been legally constructed or are under construction in conformance with all City required permits, or to projects which have received required discretionary permit approvals but are not yet under construction. On a case by case basis the zoning administrator may, as requested by the project applicant and pursuant to the provisions of CVMC 19.07.030(C), afford pipeline status to those projects which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning prior to the Specific Plan adoption, but which have not yet received discretionary approvals.