The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1998/04/07 Tuesday, April 7, 1998 Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Joint Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv/Council of !he Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -, Salas -' and Chair/Mayor Horton - CONSENT CALENDAR ( Items 2 !hrough 4 ) (Will be voted on immediately following the Council Consent Calendar during the City Council meeting) The staff recommendations regarding the following item listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency member, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. 1f you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulledfrom the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 3. 1998; March 10, 1998 3. COUNCIL GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY RESOLUTION 18959 SERVICES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM AGENCY OF 18 DWELLING UNITS FOR AN AFFORDABLE RESOLUTION ~ ¡SíÎ RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 750 ADA STREET--As part of !heir project to establish an 18-unit affordable housing project in Ihe vicinity of the Palomar Trolley Station Stop, South Bay Community Services is requesting !he State-allowed 25% density bonus. At !heir meeting of 1/14/98, !he Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Agency/Council approval of this request. Staff recommends approval of !he resolutions. (Planning Director; Community Development Director) 4. AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT AND DESIGN PLANS FOR RESOLUTION l5% /S7>f DEVELOPMENT OF THE TROLLEY TERRACE TOWN HOMES AT 750 ADA STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--Sou!h Bay Community Services, a local non-profit corporation, is proposing to construct an 18-unit affordable housing project on property donated by the City of Chula Vista and located at 750 Ada Street wi!hin !he boundaries of !he Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . . ADJOURNMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING -. ..- Agenda -2- April 7, 1998 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency Members. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 6. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to !he Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on April 21, 1998 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of.fi!!!!1 action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of.fi!!!!1 action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 a. Property: 760 Broadway (Parcel Nos. 571-200-13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and Broadway Village Business Homes, LP. Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition b. Property: Parcel Nos. 565-310-09 and 25 Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and City of San Diego Under Negotiations: Price and terms for acquisition/disposition -- Agenda -3- April 7, 1998 9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 Wally Bozek and Henry Gonzalez vs. lhe Redevelopment Agency of !he City of Chula Vista and Walmart Stores, Inc. -. . - MINUTES OF A REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CBULA VISTA Tuesday, March 3, 1998 Council Chambers 5:43 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Horton ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Moot ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager, John D. Goss; Legal Counsel/City Attorney, John M. Kaheny; and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY CHAIR/MAYOR HORTON, headings read, texts waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 (Moot absent) 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 17, 1998 3. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18918/AGENCY RESOLUTION 1570 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - On 3/16/93, the Agency revised the role and functions of the Redevelopment Project Area Committee. With that action, the Town Centre Project Area Committee (TCPAC) ceased to operate as a State-mandated project area committee under the Health and Safety Code, but continued to exist and operate as an advisory group to the Council/Agency regarding redevelopment and parking. An amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan currently underway will include extension of the Agency's existing eminent domain authority. Following adoption of that amendment, the TCPAC will need to operate again within the requirements of the Health and Safety Code. Per staff's recommends, the resolution was approved 4-0-1 (Moot absent). (Community Development Director) 4. RESOLUTION 1571 APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A REISSUED MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM (RMCC); WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATIONS, INC. TO ADMINISTER THE RMCC PROGRAM; AND APPROPRIATING $2,000 FROM THE MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE REVENUE ACCOUNT FOR START-UP COSTS FOR THE RMCC PROGRAM - On 11/18/97, the Agency/Council authorized the application for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC). Since the inception of the MCC program in 1991, approximately 372 MCC certificates have been issued. With the decline in mortgage interest rates and an increased demand from MCC holders to refinance, staff is recommending implementing a Reissued Mortgage Credit Certificate (RMCC) program which will allow current MCC holders to refinance their original mortgage loan and still maintain the tax benefits of the MCC. Per staff's recommendation, the resolution was approved 4-0-1 (Moot absent). (Community Development Director) 4/5ths vote required END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 5. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT OF THE SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE c.J-1 -. ..- RDA Minutes March 3, 1998 Page 2 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD DATES MARCH 19, 1996 TO EXTEND THE PERMIT - In 1996, the Agency approved an OWner Participation Agreement and amendments to the CPA and Special Use Permit for the development of a trash transfer facility at 1855 Maxwell Road. John Sexton San and Gravel Corp, is unable to pursue the project and is requesting an additional extension of the OPA and Special Use Permit in order to allow time to sell the project to a qualified developer. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) RESOLUTION 1572: AMENDING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA DATED MARCH 19, 1996 TO EXTEND THE PERMIT RESOLUTION 1573: APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL CORPORATION DATED MARCH 19, 1996 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRASH TRANSFER FACILITY AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TWO YEARS TO MARCH 17, 2000 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no one indicating a desire to address the Agency, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTIONS 1572 AND 1573 OFFERED BY CHAIR HORTON, headings read, texts waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 (Moot absent). ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR There were none. OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR REPORT(S) - None 7. CHAIR REPORT(S) - None 8. AGENCY MEMBERS COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC/AAE City Clerk o?-d... -. . - --P MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING/WORKSESSION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CBULA VISTA Tuesday, March 10, 1998 Council Chambers 6:40 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Horton ABSENT: Members: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager, John D. Goss; Legal Counsel/City Attorney, John M. Kaheny; and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet BUSINESS 2. REPORT: TO CONSIDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,000 SQ. FT., MULTI-PURPOSE RECREATIONAL FACILITY INCLUDING A 9,300 SQ. FT. GYMNASIUM AND PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 85 CARS - As part of the processing of plans for the Otay Recreation Center, Planning staff noticed a public hearing for March 10, 1998 for the Redevelopment Agency to consider a special use permit and design review request for this project; however, it was determined a public hearing is not required. The Redevelopment Agency will consider the Design Review Committee's recommendations at their meeting on March 17, 1998. (Community Development Director) Mr. Salomone stated this was advertised that a cup was required; a cUP is not required. It will come back next week. ACTION: Per staff's request, the item was continued for one week. 3. REPORT: OTAY RIVER VALLEY WORKSHOP - The Otay River Valley, east of I-80S, includes the otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area, the Otay Landfill, Whitewater Canyon Water Park, the Universal Amphitheater, and the recently annexed Otay Ranch properties. The workshop is intended to address major development issues, including the character of future land uses, recreational opportunities, and open space preservation. Staff recommends that the Council/Agency consider the issues and provide direction to staff on policy and planning matters. (Community Development Director; Planning Director) Fred Kassman, RDA Coordinator, presented some introductory remarks and some historical facts regarding the Otay River Valley. Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner, made a presentation on the Otay Ranch and the Otay Regional Park. John Goss, City Manager/Executive Director, commented that the purpose of tonight was to be a brain storming session. There will be some people here to express their ideas. What staff would like is for Council to hear their ideas and for them to hear Council's ideas. He stated that with the water park and amphitheater, there is the potential to have a regional recreational/commercial area that can be very positive for the area, the region, and the City. Mayor/Chair Horton asked about the southeast corner of the freeway and otay Valley Road. Did Vince Davies own this? Mr. Davies responded yes with the exception of the Shell Station and the Telephone Company. Council/Agencymember Rindone asked what was staff.s estimate for understanding the useful life of the Otay landfill. 02 - 3 RDA Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Goss stated that at one time it was in the five to ten year category. It has been extended, particularly in the part that was never in the City, which is the eastern side. One of the ideas for the landfill is that it should be tied by pedestrian trails into the regional park, so it is part of the regional park concept. The idea is that when it is covered, filled, and finished, you won't be able to construct an industrial park on it, but there is no reason it couldn't be open space area which could be an adjunct to the regional park. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated the life of the Otay landf ill was fifteen years. Council/Agencymember Rindone commented that the land use decisions really become a moot issue other than for an open space or a park since it will not be developed at all. What he was specifically thinking of was the City of Industry took a landfill and created a fabulous hotel. Would that be feasible within land use options. Mr. Goss stated that in his discussions with County staff when it was owned by the County, the answer was no. Addressing Council/Agency were: . John Willett, Chair of the Otay Regional Valley Park Citizens Advisory Committee, stated that he had some concerns regarding some of the chokepoints: (1) the buffer abutting the horse and bike trails; (2) one near the amphitheater parking lot; and (3) there is a piece of property about 250 feet wide and 1800 feet long which we should acquire; if we don't, there would be another chokepoint under the Heritage bridge. The Citizens Advisory Committee does support the park concept before the Council which has been before the San Diego County Planning Commission and approve unanimously. . Rod Davis stated he had the following concerns: (1) Signage -- we need to recognize the fact that our sign ordinance and Caltrans sign ordinance makes it very difficult to do the job we need to do to show people where to go to the water park, the amphitheater, and the auto park. We need to talk about signs that are not on-premise, the use of the one billboard sign that is there because the rules and regulations technically would not allow the water park and amphitheater to use it because they are not in the redevelopment area. This is an issue that we need to deal with. (2) Otay Valley Road, Otay Lakes Road, Otay Mesa Road. The Chamber has not taken a position on renaming the road, but we need to do something to separate these roads. . Josef Sedivec, of Seda Products, Inc., elaborated on a number of problems he has in trying to build his own distribution facility. Mr. Goss stated that we did receive a letter from the owner of the property across from the amphitheater suggesting that we take a look at this as commercial. He was not sure if any of the other property owners had ideas they would like to present or if they want to listen to what Council has to say. Council/Agencymember Rindone commented that the issue of renaming the road was essential, but one that was very difficult for Council to do. It is one of the early preliminary steps that we need to look at. This area is developing in a manner not anticipated a few years ago. Marketing experts would tell you that the first thing you have to do to be successful in business is to be able to have people find your location. Otay Lakes Road and Otay Valley Road are often confused. He felt that Council needed to provide direction for staff to come back and begin a process for that name change. The earlier that this is done before everything is developed is most appropriate. Mr. Salomone responded that they have had a discussion with the regional director of Caltrans on that issue. He indicated he would give us a cost estimate and timeframe because you would have to change about nine signs on the freeway when you do that. Rod Davis has joined with the auto dealers and people in that area in trying to get an understanding of their needs. The understanding is that the road name has to change. What it will change to is the issue. Staff has begun the process. We need to know how much it will cost because it can be ~-4 RDA Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 3 significant. We will need to work with the land owners and tenants and then come back to Council with some options. Mr. Goss commented that the property owners further interior on the Otay Ranch property may not be supportive of a name change. . Marco Polo Cortes, Chair of the Otay Valley Road PAC, expressed his concern regarding the impact on Otay Valley Road. They have seen an impact on the road since the opening of the water park, and with the amphitheater opening this summer, he felt this needed to be addressed even before the name change. He was not against the name change, but it was not one of his priorities at this time. Council/Agencymember Moot stated his frustration was the length of time it takes to examine these things. Maybe our directions should be more specific; we had previously decided to change the name of the road, so it shouldn.t need to be examined any more; we should come up with options on how to do it. This is something that needs to be done. These people have to advertise their businesses; they are bringing a lot of people to this location. The longer it delays, the more people have to change their advertising. Mayor/Chair Horton asked if Mr. Salomone could give Council a time frame as to when he thinks this will be coming back to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Salomone replied he thought a report with options could come to the Agency within a very short period of time if Caltrans provides us with the cost estimate; this is the key. Once we get the information from Caltrans, he felt staff could get a report to the Agency within 30 days. Rod Davis stated that there were two other issues he would like to see addressed: (1) some mechanism to allow the water park and amphitheater to be able to utilize the existing billboard. Obviously, it be difficult to call this a blighted area, but if we could pick up some piece that goes up to Heritage Road which is blighted so we can tie them together, then we could advertise the amphitheater and water park on the one billboard on I-80S in the City of Chula Vista. (2) If we are going to reach our potential and make this the regional entertainment hub, then we have to talk about a signage program that lets us have some gateway signs coming into the community, such as some reader boards. Mayor/Chair Horton stated she would like to see something developed on Vince Davies' property although the gas station would have to stay there because it is needed in the area. She asked what was the status of PAC Bells property; they have a long-term lease, but how long was the lease. Do they have any intentions of moving. Mr. Kassman replied that their last lease extension expires about 2002-2003. The owner of the property is impacted and would be favorable towards discussing redevelopment with us and perhaps in coordination with something on Mr. Davies. property, we could work with them. But we would have to wait until PAC Bell either voluntarily leaves or until 2002 when the lease expires. Mayor/Chair Horton felt this area was a window to the Otay Valley area. It was in the redevelopment area, and we should be focusing on this for some type of retail-commercial. We need the restaurants and businesses that compliment the recreation and the auto park. Mr. Kassman emphasized that we can go a step further; if that area develops with PAC Bell leaving, it will be a very awkward transportation solution on Otay Valley Road. Perhaps another traffic light will be needed in close proximity to the traffic light that Pac Bell put in. This will be very difficult to deal with until the lease expires. Mayor/Chair asked if we could go through a process such as eminent domain. Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney, stated that under limited circumstances that property outside the redevelopment area can be subject to condemnation to the extent that it is directly tied to a project within the project area. It is not 02-5" RDA Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 4 something agencies commonly exercise, because it is a tenuous link back to the redevelopment project area. Staff would be happy to look into this. Mayor/Chair Horton expressed that we needed to; this was a key area. It was the beginning of an area which was emerging into something very beneficial to the City. Maybe we need to focus on how we can accomplish what we want to by combining some of these properties so they will be available for development that would complement what was happening in this area. Mr. Davies stated that the City was negotiating for the SDG&E parcel on Maxwell Road. That would be an excellent location for the telephone company and maybe the City could be instrumental in encouraging them to move. Mr. Kassman responded that we have spoken to Pac Bell representatives several times, and they are adamant about stay ing where they are. They have a very beneficial lease arrangement. Actually the owner built the property to suit PAC Bell to their specifications. He felt it would be very difficult to get Pac Bell to leave. It would be appropriate for us to recontact them to see what their thoughts are, because it will take them two years to replicate the facility. Mr. Goss stated that we could talk with them, but having seen both sites, he felt it would be difficult to combine both operations on one site. The SDG&E property would have a surplus of office and storage space. The garage area is too small for us already, and we will have to add a couple of bays or more just to accommodate our trucks. However, it would be worthwhile to explore this. Council/Agencymember Moot stated that no one has commented on the suggestion that we need to come up with a sign solution. He felt it would be worth giving staff some specific direction to see if we can come up with a solution to that problem even if it is creating a redevelopment area so we can get the signs there. To let people know that the amphitheater, water park, and auto park is out there, is extremely important. Mr. Goss asked Council would you like to look at some alternatives for liberalizing the sign policy that we have in this area. Council/Agencymember Moot responded absolutely yes. Mayor/Chair Horton stated that she has been working with staff for years trying to accommodate the needs of the auto park, and now the water park, in getting additional signage. There never seems to be any movement. Finally she called in Gary Gallegos, Director of Caltrans, to come down and meet with staff. So we are dealing with the top person in San Diego County. She did not know what we could do in addition to that. If we had the options of changing our sign policy to accommodate them, then why haven't we done it sooner. Council/Agencymember Padilla added that he remembered having this discussion about signage before. It was his understanding that we were in the process of working on a report to Council on exactly what the situation was and what our options were. If Council failed to make that clear, we need to do so now. Mr. Salomone commented that the City did adopt an ordinance in response to Council's direction to allow a reader board sign to be built on I-805. The issue there was that there were not enough dealers in the auto park yet for it to be sensibly financed by the auto park. These things can run a couple hundred thousand dollars plus operating costs and lease payments. It was felt that when the White Water Canyon and the amphitheater came on board, they would all share expenses, and we would work with them to get it done. There are a couple of reasons why it hasn't gone: (1) f inanc ial and (2) the location is in the redevelopment area but for the south bound traffic you pass the auto park before the sign is seen. One of the things that the Mayor/Chair asked Caltrans to come back, and the director said he would get back to us, were the locations at Hilltop High School and I-80S at the City-owned parcel at H Street and I-80S and at the lower Sweetwater 54/805 connection if Caltrans would look favorably upon any type of off-premise signage there. In the past, they have said no. 02. - G:. -. ..- RDA Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 5 Council/Agencymember Padilla asked if this was simply an arbitrary policy decision on the part of Caltrans; at what point do you run into the state regulations. Mr. Goss stated his personal view was that it was arbitrary. There are examples throughout the State where the regulations which we are trying to deal with are not administered in the same manner. Council/Agencymember Moot stated that if staff provided Council with the information regarding what the problem is, then we can work on Denise Duchaney, Steve Peace, and Susan Davis. Rod Davis stated that the problem was federal. I-80S is a federal highway. Federal jurisdiction applies 660 feet from the right-of-way of a landscaped freeway. What constitutes a landscaped freeway is completely arbitrary on the part of the Feds because if it is out in the middle of "no place" like Sacramento, it can have all kinds of signs because its a rural setting. We have a landscaped freeway, so we can't have any signs. The State runs the State roads, so we could talk to them about I-54. The Feds are the problem with I-80S and its declaration as a landscaped freeway, except for the area by H Street which is not considered part of the landscape. Council/Agencymember Moot stated that this is the type of information which we do not have. If we had that information, then we have the ability to talk to Federal representatives also. Mr. Kassman stated that in the '80s staff spent a lot of time, effort, and money trying to get rid of all billboards not only along the highways, but in Chula Vista. We have a policy in place and now we seem to be changing it. Perhaps we need a policy change. We have had meetings with Ca1trans concerning the whole City regarding putting signs up along the freeway. The Port District has announced that it is putting identification signs adjacent to their property along the freeway. We need to discuss what our policy is going to be. The auto park developers can put up a billboard sign on their own property, although it would have to be pretty high to be visible from the freeway. Mr. Salomone stated that we did get some news in our meeting with Gary Gallegos which was that we could put some generic signs out on the freeway such as "amphitheater next three exits." We hope to get those installed prior to the opening of the amphitheater. Council/Agencymember Rindone stated that should be a priority. The last thing we want is to have the amphitheater open and people driving up and down the freeway trying to find it. Clearly that is a direction from the Council that the "green" (generic) signs should be completed before the opening of the amphitheater. Council/Agencymember Moot stated there was only one other issue he had in this area which has to do with the expansion of the auto park. Because of the sales tax revenue that is generated from the type of activity, he would like to see us make a concerted effort to see what options were available to encourage or make possible the expansion of the auto park. Ed Weschey, 580 Auto Parkway, stated he purchased the Chevrolet auto dealership about five months ago. He suggested that if the Council wanted to promote the auto mall and if they want to attract more dealerships, we need to support the auto mall by allowing the name change to include the auto mall in any type of promotions within the City, and actively going after manufacturers and other automobile dealers that have an interest in developing this area. He felt that we could bring another four to five agencies here. Council/Agencymember Moot stated that when we were doing the priorities for the City, we had talked about different councilmembers volunteering to be an omnibudsman. He volunteered to have the Otay Valley area, if the Council agreed. He would be more than happy to try to coordinate all these different ideas and activities to try to be the counci1member responsible that everything we want to c;;2-Î -- 0.- RDA Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 6 get done gets done. He felt that this area was a huge potential income generating source for the City. Council/Agencymember Rindone expressed that this was the purpose of why we have a city manager and why we have a council-manager form of government. If you would like to have a champion on the council, there wasn't any reason for not doing that, but he held the city manager and his staff accountable at all times. To have a councilmember serve as a liaison is always helpful. Mayor/Chair Horton stated that we are sending a clear message to staff that this is top priority for the City. We have all recognized for a long time that the auto park will be financially beneficial to the City. If we don't help assist them in getting the proper advertising for this area and continue with the name change, then we were the losers in the end. Regarding the name change, she felt it was also important to preserve the integrity of Otay Valley, so they worked out an alignment that would bring it to the end of the road where it starts to curve and then when SR-125 come through, it will continue on to be otay Valley Road. Council/Agencymember Rindone stated we spent over a year looking at the priorities of the Council and came up with seven priorities or areas for major improvements. One of them was revenue generating options. This is exactly what the Council was requesting to be incorporated within meeting that specific major area of improvement. . Doug Fuller stated that he welcomed Mr. Moot's comment about spearheading some sort of a committee, whether its official or unofficial. We have been doing this for over twelve years, When you talk about the auto park, we don't have an auto park in Chula Vista. We have the recreation of what we had on Broadway. We have moved from the business area to an isolated area that we are trying to survive in. We have the possibility of an auto park. To get our arms around this issue, he would welcome some sort of a committee that could focus on this ~ssue. . Fred Borst, P. O. Box 2008, El Cajon, 92021, stated we needed to focus on doing what is possible to assist Vince Davies in developing his property to help him in making this a gateway to the City. He felt we should also lose the word Otay, because it was too confusing in the area. Mr. Goss stated that the County wanted to make this area next to the landfill residential which doesn't make any sense. The area was industrial with a potential of some commercial. Would Council be amenable to some commercial as well as industrial in the this area. There are some illegal industrial uses down by the regional park. There is a proposal by the property owner to make the area commercial which is right across the street from the amphitheater. Staff would like to look at these. Council/Agencymember Rindone stated yes. Mr. Goss asked if someone would like to be a liaison like we have with the police building. Mayor/Chair Horton responded that Mr. Moot could help. . Greg Smith urged Council to think before changing the name Otay Ranch because this was going to cost millions of dollars. He did not question that there was a problem today with "Otay", but he also knew that the ranch developers are going to be advertising using the word, "Otay". It would be ironic if in five years we wished we had not changed the name of the road. There won't be an exit off I-80S that has the Otay name in it. He felt that as we looked at the alternatives, Council might want to consider that issue, Mayor/Chair Horton stated that she did say that we didn't need to preserve the integrity of the Otay Valley area, so if this is what Council ends up doing, there might be a break at the turn. o2-g -. .. - .... RDA Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Smith felt that this might be confusing, like Telegraph Canyon and otay Lakes Road. Council/Agencymember Rindone stated that we have made that mistake once. The direction that has been given to staff is to look at a name change. That name change might also be Otay Ranch. Council/Agencymember Moot stated that Otay Ranch is just a generic name for seven or eight different land owners. Mr. Goss stated that what his point was is that the perception of Otay Ranch might be the same as the people look at EastLake today. In the region, it is a very positive place. Mayor/Chair Horton stated that maybe we address this once we find out what kind of signage we can get for the auto park. This has to be a priority and to come back to Council as soon as possible to see what our options are on Hilltop and the other areas which were identified for signage off I-54 and I-80S. Ken Lee stated there was another issue which was the auto recycling area in terms of where we might be going with that. We have industrial land immediately to the east. If we are really trying to encourage quality industrial development, do we see the auto recycling more short-term, mid-term, or long-term. We need to look at that. They are a legitimate business. How does this fit into the picture. Mayor/Chair Horton felt it would be appropriate to phase them out. Council/Agencymember Rindone felt it would be appropriate to direct staff to come back with a review and some options on the recyclers. He felt that staff had already presented that when the leases are up in 2002-2003. He offered a staff referral that the specific question comes back within the next 12-18 months with a recommendation for that. Council/Agencymember Moot also urged staff to contact the owners of these businesses; that business is not what it used to be nor what you think of when you talk about that business. It has become a very sophisticated business generating a lot of revenue. We should not make assumptions that it is not necessarily a desirable business, because some of the current owners of those businesses would dispute that. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None 5. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC/AAE City Clerk ;2-9 -. . - JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ..3 Meeting Date 04/07/98 ITEM TITLE: COUNCil RESOLUTION 1f?'1~-r:¡ /57Î AGENCY RESOLUTION ~ GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES TO AllOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF EIGHTEEN (IB) DWElLING UNITS FOR AN AFFORDABLE RESIOENTIAl PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE lOCATED AT 750 ADA STREET SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /i?/t & C.m~"" ""'pm""' ';'"""~ REVIEWED BY: Executive Director J~ ~./7 (4/!iths Vote: Yes- No..xJ BACKGROUND: As part of their project to establish an lB-unit affordable housing project in the vicinity of the Palomar Trolley Station, South Bay Community Services is requesting the State.allowed 25% density bonus (Attachment 1). The density bonus must be approved by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, after a recommendation from the Planning Commission. State law does not require a public hearing in order for a recommendation to be given, or for a final decision to be made by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on the density bonus. The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the subject density bonus is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 210BO.14 of the Public Resources Code. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council/Agency approve the request for a 25% density bonus pursuant to the respective City Council and Redevelopment Agency Resolutions of Approval. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On January 14, 199B, the Planning Commission voted 7.0 to recommend that the Council/Agency approve the request for a 25% density bonus pursuant to the respective Resolutions of Approval. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The 1.21 acre Project Site, located within the Southwest Redevelopment Area, is located at the northwest corner of Ada Street and Industrial Boulevard, generally across the street from the Palomar Trolley Station. The parcel is, at present, vacant, but was previously occupied by detached single family dwellings. The general area is characterized by transitioning housing types with a mixture of detached single family dwellings. --3- I Page 2, Item ..3 Meeting Date 04107198 2. General Plan. Zoning and land Use General Plan Zonino Land Use Site Res.Low/Med (3-6 du/ac) R-2P (Duplex) Vacant North Res.Low/Med (3-6 du/ac) R.2P (Duplex) Residential South Res.Low/Med (3.6 du/ac) R-2P (Duplex) Residential East Open Space & Public/Quasi-public S-94 (County) Trolley Stop/SDG&E ROW West Res.Low/Med (3-6 du/ac) R-2P (Duplex) Residential 3. Pronosal The Applicant, South Bay Community Services, is applying for a State. and City.allowed 25% density bonus permitted under Section 65915 of the State Government Code and the City's Housing Element. Briefly, State law permits a 25% increase over the allowable density for the project, based on zoning, provided that the owner agrees to make at least 20% of the units affordable to lower income household. In this case, all units will fall into the "affordable" category (Project). The building design and site layout aspects of the Project were considered and approved by the Design Review Committee on December 15, 1997 and will be considered as a separate item by the Redevelopment Agency on this date. 4. Analvsis When the Montgomery area was annexed to the City in 1986, a zoning translation program (ZTP), included in the Montgomery Specific Plan, was developed in order to convert County zoning to City zoning. Under the ZTP, the Project Site was converted from County zoning of RV-15 to the City zoning of R2-P - Residential Duplex - Precise Plan. The minimum lot size in the R2 Zone is 7,000 square feet or 3.500 square feet per unit. Under normal circumstances, the 1.21 acre site would allow 15 units, but with the 25% density bonus, 18 units are proposed (1.21 acres X 43,560 sq.ft. = 52,708 sq.ft. parcel size + 3,500 sq.ft. per unit - 15.06 units X 25% - 18.82 units). Thus, 18 units are allowable with the density bonus. In order allow development of 18 dwelling units and to meet State requirements, certain incentives have been offered and/or recognized as components of development for this project. These are explained in the following section: Trolley Terrace Townhomes' Justification for Density Bonus This site is ideal for this type of development due to several reasons. There is: . Easy freeway access at Palomar Avenue and 1.5. . The Palomar Trolley Station across Industrial Boulevard from the Project Site. . Shopping nearby immediately to the east of the Palomar Trolley Station. . An elementary school approximately 2,000 feet to the north. . A day care center contemplated for the site immediately tn the east of the residential development. J~02. -. . - Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 04107198 In addition, Trolley Terrace complies with two top priorities set out in the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a planning document that identifies housing and community development needs, and outlines a strategy to address those needs. The Plan is required to describe the jurisdiction's housing and community development needs and market conditions, set up a strategy that establishes priorities and establish a short-term investment plan that outlines the intended use of financial resources. The Plan's two top priorities are 1) Continue to implement the City's Affordable Housing Program so that more newly constructed rental and for sale units are made available to low, moderate and middle income households with high priority given to very low and low income families; and 2) Continue to support non-profit corporations to develop or rehabilitate rental housing for very low and low income households. Beyond filling these goals, the project targets large families, which is a priority need addressed in the Housing Element. Trolley Terrace is an important step to making quality affordable housing available in the older part of the City and will help revitalize the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, it has strong community support, is compatible with the neighborhood image, and will be a catalyst for physical improvement and investment in that area. It is consistent with the General Plan and will be a new model for future developments in the City. Staff has full confidence in all the participants and wants to encourage such partnerships to achieve affordable housing goals. Trolley Terrace will facilitate the City's efforts to meet the City's fair share and regional share of affordable housing units. Implementation of the density bonus on this project will contribute compliance with housing element law as well as density bonus law. Basis for Eligibility Pursuant to State Law Trolley Terrace Town homes is eligible for the density bonus and incentives for the following reasons: . Trolley Terrace exceeds the five unit minimum by providing 18 units. . Trolley Terrace will qualify household incomes and set maximum rents according to HUD, TCAC and HDME requirements for very low income, which all meet the State law requirements. . Trolley Terrace exceeds the required 1 D% of total units for very low income households or 20% of total units for lower income households, by providing 100% of the total units for very low income households. . Trolley Terrace also exceeds the required 30 years of affordability if both density bonus and additional concessions are granted, by providing 55 years of afford ability. . Trolley Terrace has a Disposition and Development Agreement with the City of Chula Vista binding the property to the affordability covenants if ever sold or transferred. Additional Incentives Given to Trolley Terrace Townhomes According to State law, each jurisdiction must specify which of the three following types of developer incentives will be provided. These three are: ..3-3 -- Page 4, Item 3 Meeting Date 04/07/98 1) Modify Development Standards Incentive: The City waived development standards for this project by not requiring implementation of Section 19.26.120 of the Municipal Code which requires a minimum of 75% of the parking accommodations in R.2 zoning to be in the form of garages, of which 50% would be 2 car garages. This requirement was substituted by allow the use of thirty.six parking spaces under covered carports. 2) Permit Mixed.Use Zoning within Housing Development Incentive; As mentioned earlier in this report, the overall project includes two components: Residential and day care. As an additional incentive, the density that would normally have been allowed on the day care portion of the project is being added to the residential portion in order to increase the over unit yield. 3) Allow Other Regulatory Incentives Incentive: Under "Other Regulatory Incentives," the use of public financing is one permissible inducement. For this project, the City of Chula Vista has contributed $523,965 in HOME funds in the form of a low interest loan (3%) payable in 55 years from residual receipts. The City also provided the funds to buy the land, $372.940, payable in 55 years at 3% from residual receipts. The total City financial contribution equals $896,905. This financial incentive contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the project. 5. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, staff has concluded that the Project implements the land Use and Housing Elements of General Plan and conforms with State law related to density bonuses. FISCAL IMPACT: The Planning Department staff costs related to the processing of this Density Bonus are being covered by the City. ATTACHMENTS 1. letter dated September 17, 1997 from South Bay Community Services requesting a 25% density bonus. 2. locator Map IMMI H,\HOME\COMMOEV\STAff.REP\O4.07.98\9823A.113IAp,,11. 199811'55...11 ..3-4 RESOLUTION NO. ('ilC;~--r:¡ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF EIGHTEEN (18) DWELLING UNITS FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 750 ADA STREET A. RECITALS 1. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 1.2 acres of land located at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista ("Project Site"); and 2. Project Applicant WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM-98-23, for a density bonus was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on December 18, 1997 by South Bay Community Services ("Applicant"); and 3. Project Description WHEREAS, said application requested a density bonus to a residential development project to allow the construction of eighteen (18) dwelling units ("Project"); and 4. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on January 14, 1998 at which time the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 adopting Resolution No. PCM-98.23 recommending that the City Council approve the Project in accordance with this City Council Resolution No. -; and WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan and that public necessity, convenience, and good zoning practice support the amendment, and implements portions of State related to density bonus h: \home\planning\martin\tmlley\9823cc. res ....8-5 -. . - ... Resolution No. 18q:5J"""9 Page #2 and that the granting of said density bonus does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses; and 5. City Council Record on Application WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista considered the density bonus on April 7, 1998 and weighed the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and 6. Incentives Provided WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has provided adequate incentives, as listed in the staff report on this matter, to the Applicant in order to balance the financial feasibility of the affordable housing project with the usual amenities found in a development of this type. NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their meeting on this project held on January 14, 1998 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the subject density bonus is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the Public Resources Code. D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. h:\home\planning\martin\~01Iey\9823cc.res ..3-' -. .. - Resolution No. .L%'1 :S-9 Page #3 E. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS The City Council hereby finds that the density bonus implements the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan, that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the density bonus, that the approval of a density bonus is consistent with State law related thereto and that the granting of said density bonus does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses. F. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the requested density bonus for the development of a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by "' Bob Leiter Director of Planning h: \home\planning\martin\trolley\9823cr. r" .$-7 -- /577 RESOLUTION NO. ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF EIGHTEEN (18) DWELLING UNITS FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 750 ADA STREET A. RECITALS 1. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 1.2 acres of land located at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista ("Project Site"); and 2. Project Applicant WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM-98.23, for a density bonus was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on December 18, 1997 by South Bay Community Services ("Applicant"); and 3. Project Description WHEREAS, said application requested a density bonus to a residential development project to allow the construction of eighteen (18) dwelling units ("Project"); and 4. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on January 14, 1998 at which time the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 adopting Resolution No. PCM-98-23 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project in accordance with this Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. -; and WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan and that public necessity, convenience, and good zoning practice support the amendment, and implements portions of State related to density bonus h, \home\planning\martin\trolley\9823cc. res ~-~ -- Resolution No. /S"7s-" Page #2 and that the granting of said density bonus does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses; and 5. Redevelopment Agency Record on Application WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista considered the density bonus on April 7, 1 998 and weighed the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and 6. Incentives Provided WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has provided adequate incentives, as listed in the staff report on this matter, to the Applicant in order to balance the financial feasibility of the affordable housing project with the usual amenities found in a development of this type. NOW, THEREFORE the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their meeting on this project held on January 14, 1998 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the subject density bonus is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the Public Resources Code. D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. h, \home\planning\martin \troll,y\9823œ. r" .,$-9 -- Resolution No. /$'7.s- Page #3 E. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDINGS The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the density bonus implements the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan, that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the density bonus, that the approval of a density bonus is consistent with State law related thereto and that the granting of said density bonus does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses. F. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVAL The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the requested density bonus for the development of a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista. P'@: ~ Approved as to form by \ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development h:lhomelplanninglmartinltrolleyI9823cc.res -3-(() -- Attachment 1 " ~ ~ -- I",,@ u:~ U \.j Ie; i¡~ i;, SEPI-;~!iil!1 i~ --~¿;I L____- September 17,1997 Mr. Chris Salamone Community Development Director City of Chula Vista Community Development Dept. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Mr~ Ken Lee Planning Director, Acting City of Chula Vista Planning Dept. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Request for Density Bonus for Trolley Terrace Townhomes This letter is to request a density bonus for the above mentioned project. South Bay Community Services (SBCS) proposes to build Trolley Terrace Townhomes, an eighteen (18) unit affordable housing development consisting of 14 three-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units for very-low income families~ The units will be rented to very low-income families earning 40% of area median income. Trolley Terrace Townhomes is being designed as a Limited Equity Cooperative (Coop.). This "Coop." will be a separate nonprofit organization where the residents will have a leasehold interest on the property. Residents will become members of the Coop. by purchasing a "share" which will serve as their equity. As a result, the residents will be involved and concerned in the welfare of their neighborhood. The project will be located at 750 Ada Street, nearly on the corner of Ada Street and Industrial Boulevard in Chula Vista. The site is currently owned by the City ofChula Vista~ SBCS is planning on purchasing the land from the City by November 1, 1997~ SBCS is in the process of obtaining a lot-line adjustment, which will move the lot line east into the neighboring parcel, also owned by the City ofChula Vista. This lot-line adjustment will adjust the size of the parcel for the proposed development to meet current zoning for the project. This lot-line adjustment will be completed and recorded on title concurrently with transfer of ownership of the land. The current zoning allowed for the site is R-2, or one unit for each 3,500 square feet of gross site area. When the lot-line adjustment is complete, the parcel will be 1.21 acres, thus allowing a total south boy community se,vices 315 Fo"'thA~,""e.S"'t,E.Ch"lov"",Col;lom;o91910 ~-II Tel: 619.420.3620. Fox, 619,42ê~8722 24 h,. Hotline: 800.640.2933 -. .' - m~' of fifteen (15) units under existing zoning. SBCS is requesting a 25% density bonus, which would allow for eighteen (18) total units on the site. As per California state law, a minimum of a 25% density bonus should be granted to housing developers carrying out affordable housing projects. I look forward to answering any questions or providing you with more information on this project, should they arise. Please contact me at 420-3620. Sincere:y, /¡ ;¡~~ø Chris Moxon I Community Development Associate cc: Juan Arroyo, Community Development Dept., City of Chula Vista Sheri Schott, Community Development Dept., City of Chula Vista Ken Sauder, Community Development Director, SBCS Enclosures: Project Pro Forma Project Rent Schedule Architectural Conceptual Drawings Adjustment Plat (showing lot-line adjustment) ~ -(¿). -- ..- $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 v ~m~ ~ ~ N'" ~ N M ~ '" - ~ ~-~ - 0 ~-~<Ô";'M":";";"':";'" ..: -OM - M ~ M N ~ N- -~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ê ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~-...: <Ô M '" 0 ..: ,,; ,.; ...:~'" ~ -OM - N ~ M N - N~ - O~ : E ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ,,; ,.; ~~~ ~ Ng~ : ~ ; S ~ ~ ~ sS~ ~ ~ ~N~ - N '" M N - "'~ ~ 8 ~ g ~ 8 ~ ~m~ ~ $ ~~~ ~ ,.; ~ ro ~ ,,; ,.; ~,.;~ ~ - 0 N ~ '" '" M '" "'~M ~ '" ~~ æ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ...: ~ ~~~ ~ Ñ <Ô ~ ~ ,,; ,.; NM~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 a ~$~ ~ ~ ION'" '" M 0 N - ~ ~~~ - 0 "'~~ ~ Ñ ,.; ~ ~ ,,; ,.; ~Ñ~ ~ ~~ : ~ : ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~g ~ ~ "'8"; ~ NOM ..: ~ M "':Ñ~ '" N~ - ~ M N - 0 ~ M ~ '" N M '" "'~~ M ~ ~gâ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~~ ~ ~ N~ - ~ ~ M N ~ m g ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 m ~~~ M ~ ",OOM~ ~ ~ ~ ~ â ; ri ~~~ - ~ N~ - 0 '" M N - ~ '" ~ ~ ~ 0 M M "'ION g ~ ~8~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~~ - ~ N~ - ~ '" M N ~ ~ m ~ g ~ æ 8 ~ ~~; æ g ~~oo~ ,,; :1 ~ ~ <Ô ,,; ~ ~~: ~ ~ N~ - 0'" M N - g ~ ro ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ON 0 ~ '" '" ~ - ~ ~~O ~ - M~ê ~ Ñ ~ ro ~ ,,; Ñ ~...:~ '" "'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~ro ~ ~ N~~ ~ ~ g g ~ ,,; ~ ~~~ ~ '" N N '" 0 '" M ~ "'~~ æ M ~~",: ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ 5:~ - ~ ~'" - '" ~ M N N ~~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ N ,.; ., u E .E 0 i< .t= c: ~ . 0 . I. " ¡... E E m m .¡: 1',~ ¡¡ .¿ §~~~ .~ ~~ ~ ml-m~&:~> ; ~~ ~3§ð¡¡~¡¡&:~ ¡¡ >oU æ > g m x m ~ go ~h '" ..5' -/3 ~ ~ i ~ : ~ g J . ~I~ Œ 8 ~ OU£I&õm:t:!l."~'Eum ¡... ~ > 0 w ~ Z Œ 0 ~~- 0 Z -. ..- ooocooooo co - 0....0 .... ro OCOID .... ro~E ai~"¡ '" õr::'" ~N'" '" I-<Ccr ~~OOO~~~OO ~ - - cr - . . - tOr:: ~~.... r-- Õ°(j) l-:2z "" >.Eoooæ:g:goo r:::;::", M"""" ::J-cr 0i5(j) a.:2z ooo~oooo ....'" '" ;È :5 'ê~ ~ ::J.r:: ~ .:. E c:i ",0 .... a.:2 .. ¡ijE:C~~~~~~~~ ~ 'g8-E°oo~~~00 'g ~-=g :2 ~ <C Õ 00000000 0 000 000 0 000 ~ rot ~~d ~ ~~~ ~ õ~ ~ ~ ~-- r:: I-U) ø ::J .. ~ ~ 00000000 ~ E ~ 'ê~~~gg~~~~ ~ ~ 0 -::J~ ~~~~ :c '" ~'" ~ Oid ~ u ~~ ~ a.U) ~ ~ ou £ coco ~..~ 1--= ~ Oi -- ",I-E ~:§ì =: E U~~ ¡¡¡i.i~.g ~ ~U)S¿ tcr~ ~ Z I-~~ ~~ ¡: £ E 1-.01- I-¡ij¡ ~ '" -'ê ~-E~ ~x~ '" ~ ro~ 0",0 ~ .- g >. ¡¡: I- U) cr U) =~ E ~crcrcrcrcrcrcrcr ro rororo eE ~ Erorororororororo õ õõõ I-::J <C ::J--NNMM...."" I- 1-1-1- ....? - I c.f i ~ B ~ " "~" - ".... " ,. 0 ~ =" ;¡~t; ,., <'." 135 ~"I'" :r:_> .. '" el' ... z" ' c e . ><" !:: ;:.. u en w "' 5. 0 " ¡:: " ,¡, 'g, eé' ¡ ,¡, '1', woC ~I--o< u~ ~ 6 u-.... ' , , '.i . , "" " -e , <: "xi:! :>~< :>8i':< ~ x:; B; u, ¡::::; <: 0 1-<8< <" .-"1-;:0 ¡::::;-'U 0 . "0 ., ." 1. , ., w 0 > ~ '8:1 '", ,,' , ,¡, , 'g f-H C - 'L 00" :- " '0' 0 5. c' " ;, ¡, , '" " ", ~ c 0 - 0 " , ~ , " "¡ " ,., 0 c " ~ ~ 0 ¡::::; f- ~ ~ -J ';? ~ == ~ ~ f- - êñ :' ~ ~$ ; ,,", .', - :;', - 'ò- -,c ,;1 " (jJ f- (jJ Z S ~ 0 :2: ¡::" 0 :2 , < ~ ~ u I . I >:;: Z ;; r-'-~ " ¡..r.¡;:; > 0:: \ L. "'",,¡";::..< '" ('-.- ;:;; ~ ~ 0 u <J) ß-- u- P.,~ ' it ~ ~ f- - ç: Zf- j,;\ ~ ¡..r.¡ ~ Z 0", ,., ZO f- ~'" ::0 ¡::::r;; . of- U U-::E -<" I;:- ~ ¡::::;:;; ~ <;> ::E ~8'[: ~~ < ~~ 8 "'5 ¡::Js:r:: ~::> ¡... !;;'" ! """ U f-x-< o~ ~~ V >- u ; e:~ o::r': Z ~ 0 õ ....¡ 0 ....¡ ....¡ <J) 5 g ¡:;Q f- --. '" " 0 X f- ~ z< Z~ or;; 0" ~" ¡::::8 ~8 ~5 ¡;j¡§ ::J¡¡; ¡;; """ ~ """ "'~ 9~ o::~ <J)~ êR~ j f- 63 < z ~o 3 ::( ~D ;¡: .. ~=~¡j;;",i;! ê:2 z~§~:82 ¡;:ë~5;¿D" o~ :J:5;¡:1::~ "" :::;OÔ~",LJ~:J ~ !!)~E~~i5~uj 0 ofi¡i:)zzf:wl" , ffi ~D~~~DÔO \- ~ ~~ß338ô8 /_.----"( ~ w ~;¡:LJ«3LJ3 ~- 1'1-'" -( " -. -.. ---J-- (f) >- ¡;s i \ z~ ¿: . "'. Q,O" - "" ~" ~ c -, !;", LIÎ ~! z ~ '-'1;:; 3: <: ::;; Z u:J ~ o~?" 0 "' f-< <: !: ¡:: r:o::; Ii f- ;¿ -<: '-'1 '-'1", ::: ;> f- U-.è, ~"' U -<>¿: "'i3 -< ~<:o '"';r; r:o::;~,.., u Z Z -< '-'1::> :>- 0 ~ :r: f-:r: ;;¡ e:f? u '-'U:r:: - ~ '"' ",:;08 \.J '-'1::0 "" ....¡ 0 ;:)'" ~....¡ V) U'J@ 0 0 ,",<0 ..-J ~ ~'" 5 f- ~~ ~ Ö § e' ~ ~ :liB ~ < <2 u .. 5'" 'Új ~ R ð ~ ~~g~"tS~ ê ~~;§~Ò~'S :'i :¡Oo::'-z:o: ¿ "'~E5~~t;;¡: ëi 0286"0(')0 i5 UO~:;:c'878 ¡; ~~8~~,,8~ w "'~ --3-/7 - ~ UJ ¡,¡,¡ :2: en 0 "' 1- ~ ~ ' " 0 .. .." ~U" ~ ¡ a,¡; ~ < È - . e Z ~ [j) ¡,¡,¡ '" ;:0 ~ Z U; ::E ~ -< -<::E 0 ~ ~<o 0 ~ eo ,.,; -' U .,;¡¡; - 8 @:o >-< "'~ ~ ~ f-<:r: < . :Æ~ 0 ~ u ~ 1-<0 0 i5 G; I-< <--' ti ~ ~ g ¡¡; 'ê ~ en ::E f-< ':' 0 0 Z ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ f-< 0:: Q "'- ",. o~ ~;;; 0 0 --' u. ~ UJ C. c. ::0 .. z;:¡ ~:= ~ "~~8= :;:3~~ð ~ ~~~@:;;~~§~EQ - :;D"'~~ :1 . . § """..;.;';,"",¿~-- .. 3: S ..:5-1'(; ~.. I '-' vnUL..J-\ VI~IA ENGINEERING DEPT.lPtANNING DEPT. ADJUSTMENT PLAT NO.. ~6 - 12. CONSOLIDA TION PLAT NO. SCALE 1 IN. = 100 FT. i \78'" \ O'O '" ",II' \ ':: C"""" {: \; L~~T 7 \~ !?éJ'O :22.~: -_.. CXIOTI>J~ z.C""N~' R-2-P PRoPo"", Vso: ""'I-F_c~: PAR«L I M'i c^,," en.; PAR"'L 2 LE("AL D"S'-"'PY,ON: ~ PCRT"N c' "OT~ 5:, ~ h 0" 'A'~"'"t1) MAP >1o, 13~, IN r"" C'T'io" C"ULA ~"'M, ,Du"" 0' <>'W "'"GoD, ~"'AT" OF GAClFOR""A. -" r VIC:""Tý N.T.S. O¡'¡¡;ER C-,TY 0,," C-HULA VISTA DOV"!£f§t SOUT>\ SA.'! C:""'MUIJIT'1 ""'NiŒS INc.. ADDRESS ~'7r. 4" tWENU€ (' "VLA VI"'TA r:~ ADDRESS 315 4-'" AVONVE ",TO F. ('"VIA ""~TA I'A PHONE NO. (lòl~) <\'%-5",5 PHO~~NO. (("",>, 420-%20 SIGNATURE SIGN"?,,TURE ...; '1"-,' OWNER --- MAP LREPARED BY MMr£t.L. 'ò. MO~~m ADDRESS ADDg,~S 2~8Z c.AMIIJO VloA RO",LE" . ""-",to. PHONE NO. PHO~tNO. ("",,» ~31-0Z~o c.ARk!oßAD, CA,. SIGNATURE R.E,--OR LoS. NO. 5'D3+'¡ "" APPROVAL: RECORDATION: PLANNI~~: ENGINEERING DIVISION: RECORDED BY COUNTY BY: Y\^" ¿ :::0 ::>-..., BY: DOCUMENT NO. DATE: .4", 1\ 19.h DATE: DATE: ..3-/9 ----- -. ", . - Attachment 2 GEORGANNA TRAILER PARK SF TF SF SF SF -- ADA STREET SF SF SF SF SF SF ! SF ----------- C HULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR Ä~~cl~c;,1T: Trolley Terrace Townhomes PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT 750 Ada Street Request: Proposal for an 18 unh affordable housing ADDRESS: project In the R.2 (One & Two Family Residence) Zone. SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: Density Bonus. NORTH No Scale DRC.98-14 / PCM-98-23 h:\homelplanning\carlosllocatorsldrc9814.cdr 1 m98 ~-c:LD - . . - ..-- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4 /6-78 Meeting Date 04107198 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ~ APPROVING PROJECT AND DESIGN PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES AT 750 ADA STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA SUBMITTED BY: Comm..;!, D...op~"! o;re'to~ REVIEWED BY: Executive Director J6 ~ r? (415ths Vote: Yes- No..J.j BACKGROUND: South Bay Community Services, a local non-profit corporation, is proposing to construct an 1 8-unit affordable housing project on the property located at 750 Ada Street within the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The project includes the construction of 2 and 3-bedroom flats and 3-bedroom Townhomes, a 36-space parking lot and associated landscaped areas. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and determined that it would have no significant impacts. Negative Declaration IS-98-14 and addendum was adopted by the City Council on May 21, 1996. Since the proposed project is within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, it is being presented to the Redevelopment Agency for consideration and final approval of the design plans. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the resolution approving the project and design plans for the development of the Trolley Terrace T ownhomes project. BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed concept plans on November 17, 1997 and December 15, 1998 (see Minutes, Attachment A), and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions listed in the resolution. DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The site for the proposed project is 1.23 vacant acres located next to another smaller parcel potentially slated for the construction of a day care center. The subject site is located on the north side of Ada Street, just west of Industrial Boulevard (see Locator Map, Exhibit A to Resolution). It is bounded to the north, west, and south by single family residences, and to the east across Industrial Boulevard by the Palomar Trolley Station. The site is located in the area known as Harborside that was part of the 4-1 -. .. - Page 2, Item -.!:L Meeting Date 04/07/98 Montgomery community annexed to the City of Chula Vista in 1986. It also is located within the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The subject site was previously owned by the City of Chula Vista and was recently conveyed to South Bay Community Services at the price of $372,940 for the development of the proposed project pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement approved by the City Council on October 21, 1997. Prooosal The proposed project consists in the construction of 18 residential units to be occupied by low/moderate income families. The 18 units will be located in six buildings clustered on the parcel (see Design Plans, Exhibit B to Resolution). The units are divided between 2-bedroom flats (4 units), 3-bedroom flats (4 units) and 3-bedroom Townhomes (10 units), which constitute the majority of the dwellings. A seventh building will serve as a commons and will have an office space, meeting room, kitchen, and laundromat. The 36 parking spaces are located in an open space which wraps the north and west sides of the site. A lawn area and a tot lot are located in the center of the building cluster. The project is being developed as a limited Equity Cooperative (Coop). This Coop will be a separate non- profit organization where the residents will have a leasehold interest on the property. Residents will become members of the Coop by purchasing a "share" which will serve as their equity. The units will be reserved for families earning 40% of the County's median income. land Use Desionations Existino Uses General Plan Desionation Zonino Desionations Site Vacant Res. low/Med R.2P North Residential Res. low/Med R-2P South Residential Res. Low/Med R-2P East SDGE ROW/Trolley Station Open Space/Public S-94 West Residential Res. low/Med R.2P land Use Comoatibilitv As shown in the previous table, the subject property has a General Plan designation of low/median density residential and a zoning designation of R-2 with a precise plan. These designations allow for a minimum lot size for attached units of 3,500 square feet per dwelling unit. Under normal circumstances, the established land use designations would allow a maximum of 15 dwelling units on the 1.23.acre site. However, the project is permitted to have 3 additional dwelling units through the use of the 25% density bonus allowed by state law. A separate item on tonight's agenda will present a joint Agency/Council resolution for consideration of approval of the proposed 25% density bonus addition. 4-~ Page 3. Item ~ Meeting Date 04107198 Parkina The proposed project will be providing a total of 36 parking spaces which translate to a ratio of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The parking spaces are proposed to be located on the north and west periphery of the lot in order to de.emphasize the parking lot and minimize its impact on the neighborhood. The parking spaces on the west side (13) are compact spaces. Normally, only 10% of all spaces would be allowed to be compact. In this case, however, allowing this number of compact spaces provides for an increased amount of landscaping which will serve to screen the parking area and will enhance the appearance of the residential complex and the adjacent neighborhood. landscaoina The landscape plan shows a significant amount of well.balanced landscape material. The plan calls for the retention of several trees that are currently on the site and provides for the planting of a variety of evergreen and flowering trees throughout the site, including the parking lot. Hedges, shrubs and ground covers are provided throughout the site and in the areas between and around the buildings. In the center of the complex is a central open space that provides a grassy area. Based on the assessment of the City's Landscape Architect, the proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the requirements of the City's Landscape Manual. Conclusion It is staff's opinion that the proposed Trolley Terrace Townhomes Project will be a great addition to the Harborside neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. The development of the project will contribute to eliminate blighting influences by putting the vacant parcel to a higher and better use; the design and attributes of the project will contribute to enhance the appearance of the site and the neighborhood; the provision of quality housing for low-income residents will contribute toward the Redevelopment Plan goal of providing low and moderate income housing to satisfy needs and desires of the community and meet the requirements of State Law. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the requested action, since the Trolley Terrace financial agreements have already been negotiated and approved. All the financial transactions related to this proposal are between the City Council and South Bay Community Services; the Redevelopment Agency was not part of these transactions and therefore will not face a fiscal impact. However, because the proposed project will be built by South Bay Community Services. a non'profit organization, no tax increment revenue will be generated by this project for the Redevelopment Agency. Attachment A - DRC Minutes of November 17, 1997 and December 15. 1997 Exhibit A to Resolution - Locator Map Exhibit B to Resolution - Design Plans IM2T! H:IHOMEICOMMOEVISTAFF.REPIO4.07.98\TROlTERR.RPT [April!, 1998 19:22amll 4-3 -. .. - .... /.;T7 ? RESOLUTION NO. /'S"7~ RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING PROJECT AND DESIGN PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES AT 750 ADA STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, South Bay Community Services proposes to build the 18-unit Trolley Terrace Townhomes project to be located at 750 Ada Street within the Southwest Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the parcel where the Project will be built is diagrammatically represented in the Locator Map, attached to and incorporated into this resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Area under the jurisdiction and control of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed Project and issued Negative Declaration IS-93-07 which determined that the Project would have no significant impact on the environment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted said Negative Declaration IS-93-07 and an addendum thereto through resolution 18310 on May 21, 1996; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 1997 and December 15, 1997 the Design Review Committee recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project and design plans subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has been presented the Project and design plans for the development of the Trolley Terrace Townhomes project depicted in Exhibit B, subject to conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed Project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan and shall assist in the elimination of blighting influences by putting a vacant parcel to a higher and better use and will provide quality housing for low income residents and thus contribute to satisfy the needs and desires of the community and meet the requirements of State Law. 2. The Redevelopment Agency hereby approves the Project for development of the 18-unit Trolley Terrace Townhomes project at 750 Ada Street in accordance with design plans shown in Exhibit B and subject to the following conditions: a) Revised elevations of the Ada Street frontage, both residence and commons buildings, shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. The revised elevations shall indicate variety in color and features and shall specifically address the following: 4-4 -. ..- i) The front porches along Ada Street shall be redesigned to vary from each other and shall be compatible with the existing single family neighborhood. ii) A solid wood front door with a view panel shall be selected. b) Light fixtures, both parking lot and building-mounted, shall be compatible with the neighborhood and shall be submitted to staff for review and approval at the building permit stage. Presented by Approved as to form by &. \~~ \ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development [(MZT) H,IHOMEICOMMDEIARESOSITROLTERRHES (April " 1998 (BS2.m)] ¿j-S- -. ..- EXHIBIT A PROJECT [ LOCATION ...--. SF SF TF SF SF SF TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES ADA STREET SF SF SF SF SF SF SF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATOR Ä~~I'&11: Trolley Terrace Townhomes PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT 750 Ada Street PROJECT APPROVAL ADDRESS: Request: Proposal for an 18 unn affordable housing SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: project In the R.2 (One & Two Family Residence) Zone NORTH No Scale DRC-98-14/ PCM-98-23 & wI1hln the Southwest Redevelopment Area. h:\homelplanning\carlosllocators\cd9814.cdr 1/7/98 (drc9814.cdr) ~ -(p -. . - EXHIBIT B t: . ~ ' w ~ " ~ ' :~ ¡ ffi~ "~- ,,¡¡, 1",--: ¡ ¡ ¡~ CD~ ¡/I~ :!¡¡::¡¡II; ¡,!"i¡I',: ¡--: !II' I" ::: ; !;,,: ¡I!; 'Ii ¡"5';; 1'-11/1'(:- ¡ '- ¡ ¡ ! ': j II ¡.! , i¡ . ¡ - ;,. . WI ¡;' ¡i' i ¡ ì m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES ~ §.~~ : ~ . Z 0') CHULA VISTA. CA ~ on ~- SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES ~ ~- :- 4-7 ; - - . - !8 !~ ~~ ~g ;~ r ;ô ~ ~ c ~ 5 ~ ~ 2' ~ Q r ~ ~ ~ ~ OJ OJ c m ::g 0 m '" :0 0 ~ 0 5 s: .~ ~q ." r » -< en ¡ ¡'! ¡'! ¡ ¡'! ;55 ;5 '22' ;2' QQ Q r :;!:;! 5 :;! ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ »» :0 () ~ .,; ~ ~ ~ 8 r); 0 ); :0 ~:z :0 :z ~N C N :;:; ,::g - ;;:; ~ ~~ i~ : ~ ri1 00 i è' 0 :0 '" '" i g '" 5 iSiS!:o is ¡¡ s:s: s: -<-< ." 00 ç ~~ -< ZZ en II 00 s:s: mm en en ¡ ~ ~ ¡ ~ ¡ TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES ~ ~~§ : ¡¡ ::J CHULA VISTA. CA ~ -'i; - SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES i! ~- ;- -4-g 0 _. .. - [~ ~ - r:o ,Om q Z :;; - GJ < » :':; -Õ ~z In! - .0:0 ~ ~~~ ~ '~~ - ø~ OJ :':; Cõ ¡= z 0 Z GJ '" Õ ,Tn em ,¡;; ~ '" õ ~ z ~ ~ < '" > ~ g ~ z ~ Õ z " .¡¡ ~z ,., ,~ :£ ~< c :':; :;' Õ m z :;; ;; ~ õ z I I ,I" i ¡ pHi ~ § . ~ "¡ ! . , " ì - ¡ ~ ¡ ~. qi ~ . . 0 ¡, . I ~ I i ~ I m ¡ ~ .: TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES . , , ~ ' 0 -' . .~. ¡¡¡ ..¡ CHULA VISTA, CA ~ er SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES ¡ ~f ~ = 4-9 : - - ..- ì ð ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ i. Dol i 0 ~ ~oÇ?>9:cl. ~: !¡I!!I ¡ t! 11111 H ¡mil U Ii!!! H 1¡lImlt. ~I 111111 lilt 11 Iii il !II 1.1 ¡¡¡ljli¡.IIII¡! ~ '111!¡I!~ (H}li¡ II¡¡J¡II¡!ii!\J'¡i¡II!lill¡i!lll¡ ill¡:111¡111 ¡¡: , ¡¡..it!< t! i ,I !! "I' i ¡! ! ' , . , ¡ ., . . . I ,UII' ¡mj ! Imn . !Im I wnH ! ¡¡Iii' ¡m HI 1'1! H ! If! !jï ¡ !~ % 1¡11 WI ¡p ¡II. ~'í HI Ilf 'I II !i it! li"1 ¡ '.' ¡ .1'1 ¡ ì !il'! Hi II! '., !Ii:! '! ~ ... III:.; PH ~ ~ 11.1' õ¡ ~J /0 - - ~ ~ ; - '!,~ ! --, - ; - - - - . Attachment A Design Review Committee 2 November 17, 1997 D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-98-14 Trollev Terrace Townhomes 750 Ada Street 18 unit affordable housing project on a 1.2 acre site Staff Presentation The Design Review Coordinator Ms. Ann Pedder Pease reviewed the project, which consists of 18 residential units with 36 parking spaces. She went over the site's surrounding characteristics and indicated that the project is in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Ms. Pease stated that it was detennined initially that a primary objective of this proposal was to allow this affordable residential project to blend into the established single family neighborhood without calling attention to itself. She continued her presentation by explaining staff's concerns which focused on the 'play lawn' area, and some exterior architectural details. Member Pat Aguilar asked staff if the units were owned or leased, and how the landscaping was going to be maintained. Ms. Pease stated that these issues would be addressed by the applicant. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Ken Sauder, representative of South Bay Community Services, reviewed the "co-op" program and explained that there would be a committee set up to oversee that the landscaping, etc.. is being maintained. Mr. Sauder turned the presentation over to Mr. Brad Burke of Studio E. Architects. Chair Rodriguez asked the applicant if he accepts staff's recommendations listed in conditions cl-c4. Mr. Burke stated that he is open to staff's recommendations, but would like more clarification and/or direction, particularly with respect to the play lawn area. 4-11 Attachment A Design Review Committee 3 November 17, 1997 Committee Discussion/Concerns The Committee members and the applicant reviewed and discussed the following: the 'play lawn' area, tot lot equipment, lighting, fencing, landscaping/irrigation, bike racks, the front doors to the units, and the building elevations. Member Patricia Aguilar stated that she did not feel that the proposal blended well with the surrounding single family residential area. MSUC (Rodriguez/Spethman) (5-0) to continue this project to the meeting of December 1, 1997, with the following direction/recommendations; conds. A, B1 as is, B2-a with changes to include "for DRC review and approval", and to focus on breaking up the lawn area by possibly adding some amenities; condo b as is; condo c with changes to include "for DRC review and approval"; condo c1 - define and clarify; condo c2 - an alternate front door shall be selected & indicated on the elevations; condo c3 - define & clarify; condo c4 - as is; condo C5 - as is; condo d - as is; condo e - Committee would like to see an enlarged detailed drawing; condo f - as is; condo g - as is; condo h -as is; added condo i-a complete lighting plan shall be submitted; added condo j - alternate fencing design, suggested wrought iron shall be submitted; added condo k - a conceptual irrigation proposal shall be submitted; added condo 1 - bike racks shall be incorporated into the site plan; added condo m - layout and equipment specifications for the tot lot shall be submitted. The Committee asked that the revised elevations clearly indicate compatibility with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. E. MEMBERS COMMENTS Discussion on how detailed the Committee should get on architectural solutions. L ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. A:ll-17-97.min 4-/;)..... -- .. - .'"- Attachment A Design Review Committee 2 December 15, 1997 2. DRC-98-14 Trollev Terrace Townhomes 750 Ada Street 18 unit affordable housing proiect on a 1.2 acre site Staff Presentation Design Review Coordinator, Ms. Ann Pedder Pease, reviewed the proposed project and the areas of concern discussed at the November 17, 1997, meeting. She stated to the Committee that the applicant had not addressed all the issues of concern. Ms. Pease indicated that the site plan and parking were acceptable to staff. Applicants Presentation Mr. Brad Burke, project Architect, reviewed the proposed project and the changes that were made to the drawings. He reviewed the site plan, trash enclosure site, lighting plan, and pointed out were the bike racks are to be located. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Spurlock. Mr. Spurlock addressed the concern with the project not being compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. He went over a compatibility study. Mr. Marty Poitier reviewed the fencing plan, play equipment, and showed pictures depicting the proposed benches to be used in the lawn area. He stated to the Committee that they prefer to keep the lawn area opened and uncluttered. Mr. Ray Hernandez reviewed the proposed landscape plan. The applicant agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the front doors, and is willing to change the design to something with a glass view panel. Applicant also indicated that because of plenty of overhang on the buildings, they would prefer not to provide gutters and downspout. It was noted that the applicant feels strongly about having an opened lawn area. Committee Discussion/Concerns During discussions the Committee agreed that the architectural design seemed to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but thought by using color variations and porch overhangs, the buildings could slightly differ from each other. It was stated that the commons building didn't seem to fit in 4-/3 Attachment A Design Review Committee 3 December 15, 1997 architecturally with the rest of project. The applicant addressed the issue and explained the reason for wanting to stay with the proposed design is the need to make a transition to the adjacent commercial zone. Other issues discussed were: light fixtures, sign details, tot lot, treatment for porch supports (angled beams), and landscaping. MSC (Spethmanl Aguilar) (4-0) to adopt Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-07. MSC (SpethmanlAraiza) (4-0) to approve DRC-98-l4 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report; B 2a - omit; bl with changes to include revising front elevations to indicate variety in color and features; b2 to read - a solid wood front door with a view panel shall be selected.; b3 to be omitted; cl & 2 to be omitted; add condo d to include having lighting details submitted to staff for reviewed and approval. 4-/ r.j -.. .. -