Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/03/01 Item 4COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT • Item 4 Meeting Date 3/1/88 ITEM TITLE: Resolution ~~ ~ ~ ~ Granting tentative site approval for two large family public housing sites in Chula Vista (revised) r SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director' REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) At the City Council meeting of February 23, 1988, the City Council received an agenda statement (attached) recommending a tentative site approval for two sites in Chula Vista for public housing. The Council continued that item to today's meeting in order to consider the issue with a full Council. In the meantime, there has been a change in the status of one of the other potential sites considered by the Housing Authority which leads staff and the Housing Authority to recommend that site in preference to the Sweetwater River Valley site recommended at the February 23rd meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council: a. Adopt the resolution granting tentative site approval for Large Family Public Housing sites at 778-798 Dorothy Street and on the extension of • Third Avenue between "C" Street and Trousdale; or b. If the City Council finds the site at the extension of Third Avenue between "C" Street and Trousdale unacceptable, adopt the alternative resolution granting tentative site approval for Large Family Public Housing sites at 778-798 Dorothy Street and on two acres of the Agency-owned parcel in the Sweetwater River Valley. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Montgomery Planning Committee at their February 3 meeting voted 6-1 to approve in principal the development of up to 22 units of affordable public housing on a 2.81 acre site at 778-798 Dorothy Street (minutes attached to the original agenda statement). DISCUSSION: In the February 23 agenda statement, a two-acre portion of the relocation mobilehome park site in the Sweetwater River Valley was recommended for tentative site approval for public housing: The site was characterized as very tentative, with many development questions unresolved; but the site was recommended as a means to attempt to reserve public housing funds that would otherwise be lost and as a means to assist families displaced from discontinued mobilehome parks. It was pointed out that it was not known if HUD could approve such a tentative proposal, although HUD staff have indicated a positive attitude towards the effort. Page 2, Item 4 • Meeting Date~7TJ$$- Also, in the agenda statement, it was pointed out that the Housing Authority had looked at a "potentially attractive" site at "C" Street (on the Third Avenue extension) which was not recommended because high improvement costs would have required a large cash contribution from the Redevelopment Agency to make the site feasible. However, since the February 23 meeting, the owner of this property has significantly lowered his asking price, making this site financially feasible for public housing development without assistance from the Agency. As a result, the Housing Authority has requested that this site (map attached) replace the Sweetwater River Valley site in the site approval request to the City Council. The Dorothy Street site, described in the attached original agenda statement, remains the most favored site. Staff concurs with the Housing Authority request and the new staff recommendation and resolution reflects that change. If, however, the Council does not find the Third Avenue extension site acceptable, it is then requested by the Housing Authority and recommended by staff that the City Council approve the Sweetwater River Valley site as a second choice, in an effort to get HUD to accept this very tentative site. The Third Avenue extension site consists of 1.67 acres located approximately 800 feet north of "C" Street on a 30-foot-wide partially-improved extension of Third Avenue. The westernly three-fourths of the site is generally level and at grade with a mobilehome park to the west, the Sweetwater Industrial Park to the north, and vacant property to the south. The easterly one-fourth of the • site consists of a 2:1 slope which rises some 55 feet to a single family dwelling located at the top of the hill directly to the east. The General Plan designation for the property is high density residential (13-26 dwelling units per acre), which would allow a net density of 32 dwelling units per acre. However, the property is currently zoned R-1 (single family residential/7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), requiring a rezoning to be developable with the 25 multi-family units proposed for the site by the Housing Authority, which would be at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. On December 15, 1987, in a public hearing (minutes attached), the City Council turned down a rezone consideration for the property to R-3-P-21 (multi-family residential/21 dwelling units per acre/precise plan). That request was in response to a precise plan by the property owner for a 35-unit 2-and 3-story apartment project. The City Council directed the staff to further study the area as to the appropriate General Plan designation and zoning and to report back to the Council. That further study is underway and will involve reconsideration of the issue by the Planning Commission, which had supported the rezone to multi-family at its November 18, 1987 meeting by a vote of 5-0, with two members absent (minutes attached). Although the requested study has not been completed, and the Housing Authority has no specific site plan to evaluate, the Planning Department advises that, in general, a multi-family use of the proposed density could at this point be supported on the property. The property is a transition area between • industrial, mobilehome, and single family uses; the 60 apartment units at the i Page 3, Item~~ • Meeting Date northeast corner of "C" Street and the Third Avenue extension are developed at 29 dwelling units per acre; and the easterly slope provides a physical as well as visual separation from the single family area to the east, which is 80 feet distant and 55-60 feet above the developable portion of the property. Single family development of this particular property does not appear likely, as the property does not physically relate to any single family neighborhood environment. However, the higher elevation property to the east, as well as the vacant property at the northwest corner of "C" Street and Del Mar, should remain R-1 and be developed with single family homes. The tentative site approval would allow the Housing Authority to proceed with applications to HUD for the funding. Subsequent to that, the Housing Authority would proceed immediately with a rezone request with a precise plan for the project, which could be coordinated with the requested planning study of the area. If the rezone were not approved, the property transaction would not proceed. Also, it should be noted that the unit count on the two sites as proposed is 46 to 47 units, while the HUD funding is for 40 units. In actuality, if both the Dorothy Street site and the Third Avenue extension site are approved, the Housing Authority would negotiate with the Dorothy Street property owner for a reduction in the size of the parcels to be acquired to allow a reduction in unit count to the requisite number (15 dwelling units). The Dorothy Street • property owner is already requesting a lot split which will allow him to retain two single family lots for his purposes, a scenario which would require the Housing Authority to reduce the unit count to maintain a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. If neither the Third Avenue extension site nor the Sweetwater River Valley site are approved by the City, the Board of Supervisors, or HUD, the Housing Authority would want to proceed with the 21-22 unit count for the Dorothy Street site. The Housing Authority has conducted a meeting of neighbors of the Third Avenue extension site, as well as a meeting of neighbors of the Sweetwater River Valley site, and neighborhood comments can be conveyed to the Council at this meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action would involve no expenditures by the City or the Redevelopment Agency. If two acres of the relocation mobilehome park site were sold to the Housing Authority, income to the Agency would be approximately $23,000. WPC 3446H • b the City Council of Chula Visa, California Dated