HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/08/06 Item 10 PGD Specific Plan with Appendixes
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
Table of Contents
1. Introduction p. 1
1.1 What is a Specific Plan p. 1
1.2 Consistency with the General Plan p. 1
1.3 Purpose and Intent p. 2
1.4 Community Outreach Process p. 3
2. Existing Conditions, General Plan and Zoning p. 6
2.1 Location p. 6
2.2 History p. 6
2.3 Existing Land Uses p. 8
2.4 Surrounding Land Uses p. 8
2.5 Detailed Existing Conditions p. 8
2.6 Existing Infrastructure p. 11
2.7 General Plan Vision p. 13
2.8 General Plan Designations p. 17
2.9 Existing Zoning Classifications p. 18
2.10 Completed or Programmed Improvements/Infrastructure p. 19
2.11 Constraints and Opportunities p. 19
2.12 Market Study Summary p. 21
2.13 Projected Development p. 22
3. Land Uses and Development Regulations p. 24
3.1 Purpose p. 24
3.2 Applicability p. 24
3.3 Subdistricts Map, Zoning Sheets and Land Use Matrix p. 24
3.3.1 Subdistricts Map p. 24
3.3.2 Land Use Matrix p. 26
3.3.3 Development Regulations p. 30
Palomar Transit Plaza (MU 1) p. 33
Mixed Use Corridor (MU 2) p. 35
Palomar Residential Village (PRV) p. 37
Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster (PNRC) p. 39
3.4 Other Land Use Regulations p. 41
3.4.1 Large-Scale Commercial p. 41
3.4.2 Streets and Sidewalk Regulations p. 41
3.4.3 Sign Regulations p. 41
3.4.4 Parking and Loading Regulations p. 42
3.4.5 Vehicular Access p. 43
3.4.6 Loading, Service, and Refuse Area Screening p. 43
4. Design Guidelines p. 44
4.1 Purpose p. 44
4.2 Northwest Corner of Palomar and Industrial p. 45
4.3 Northeast Corner of Palomar and Industrial p. 45
4.4 Southeast Corner of Palomar and Industrial p. 46
4.5 Southwest Corner of Palomar and Industrial p. 46
4.6 Southwest and Southeast Corner of Palomar & Frontage p. 47
4.7 Northwest and Northeast Corner of Palomar & Walnut Av. p. 47
4.8 Palomar Residential Village p. 48
4.9 Northwest Corner of Anita Street and Industrial Boulevard p. 49
4.10 Site Design Considerations Adjacent to Interstate 5 p. 49
4.11 Streetscape Improvements p. 50
4.11.1 Urban Design Treatment p. 50
4.11.2 Streetscape Palette p. 50
4.11.3 Street Trees p. 52
4.11.4 Sidewalks Design p. 53
4.11.5 Lighting Design p. 53
4.11.6 Public Art p. 54
4.12 Parks, Plazas, and Open Space p. 55
4.12.1 Neighborhood Park and Urban Park p. 55
4.12.2 Plazas p. 55
4.12.3 Private Greenway p. 56
5. Infrastructure and Public Facilities p. 57
5.1 Introduction p. 57
5.2 Growth Forecasts p. 57
5.3 Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste p. 58
5.3.1 Water Demand and Supply p. 58
5.3.2 Sewer p. 60
5.3.3 Drainage Infrastructure p. 61
5.3.4 Solid Waste Infrastructure and Operations p. 61
5.3.5 Objectives and Policies p. 62
5.4 Law Enforcement, Fire Protection & Emergency Services p. 66
5.4.1 Facilities and Services p. 66
5.4.2 Disaster and Emergency Response Program p. 67
5.4.3 Objectives and Policies p. 67
5.5 Schools p. 69
5.5.1 School Facilities p. 69
5.5.2 Objectives and Policies p. 70
5.6 Parks and Recreation p. 71
5.6.1 Facilities and Programs p. 71
5.6.2 Objectives and Policies p. 72
5.7 Energy and Telecommunications p. 76
5.7.1 Energy p. 76
5.7.2 Telecommunications p. 76
5.7.3 Objectives and Policies p. 76
5.8 Mobility Improvements p. 77
5.9 Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms & Funding Sources p. 82
5.9.1 Development Impact Fees p. 82
5.9.2 Community Development Block Grants p. 82
5.9.3 Business Improvement Districts p. 82
5.9.4 Transnet p. 83
5.9.5 Grant Funding p. 83
5.9.6 General Fund p. 83
5.9.7 Other Funding Sources p. 83
6. Plan Implementation and Administration p. 84
6.1 Introduction p. 84
6.2 Specific Plan Adoption p. 84
6.3 Specific Plan Administration p. 84
6.4 Previously Conforming Uses p. 85
6.5 Exemptions p. 86
6.6 Site Specific Variances p. 86
6.7 Development Exceptions p. 86
6.8 Specific Plan Amendments p. 86
6.9 Five Year Review p. 88
Glossary p. 90
Works Cited p. 96
Appendices
A. Urban Design Workshop Summary Booklet p. 97
B. Market Study p. 98
C. Water Supply Assessment p. 99
D. Mobility Study p. 100
Tables and Figures
Table 1 – General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout p. 17
Table 2 – Existing Zoning Designations p. 18
Table 3 – Completed or Programed Improvements/Infrastructure Studies p. 19
Table 4 – Palomar Gateway District Existing & Projected Development 20yr. p. 22
Table 5 – Palomar Gateway District Mobility Plan p. 80
Figure 1 – Palomar Gateway District – Sub-Districts Map p. 25
Figure 2 – Palomar Transit Plaza District p. 33
Figure 3 – Gateways p. 33
Figure 4 – Mixed Use Corridor District p. 35
Figure 5 – Palomar Residential Village District p. 37
Figure 6 – Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster District p. 39
Figure 7 – Parks, Plazas and Open Spaces p. 55
Figure 8 – Water Supply Infrastructure p. 59
Figure 9 – Sewer Infrastructure p. 60
Figure 10 – Parks, Plazas and Open Spaces p. 75
Figure 11 – Conceptual Mobility Plan p. 81
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is a Specific Plan?
According to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, a Specific Plan is
“a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a
link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development
proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad
policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from
the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from
the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a
subdivision.” Specific Plans must comply with Sections 65450 - 65457 of the California
Government Code.
Specific Plans must also be consistent with the policies contained within the General
Plan and may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance. This differentiation allows cities
to choose whether their specific plans, or portions thereof, will be policy driven (adopted
by resolution), or regulatory (adopted by ordinance). This Specific Plan is adopted by
ordinance. All zoning related portions of this Specific Plan (i.e. land use matrix,
permitted uses and development regulations) are prepared to serve as regulatory
provisions and supersede other regulations and ordinances of the City for the control of
land use and development within the Specific Plan boundaries. Other portions, such as
the development design guidelines provide direction for future planning and public
improvement efforts. Future development projects, subdivisions, public improvement
projects and other implementing programs should be consistent with the adopted
Specific Plan.
The Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) is established pursuant to
the authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans,
and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections
65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government
Code Section 65451.
1.2. Consistency with the General Plan
The most recent update to the City of Chula Vista General Plan occurred in 2005. The
main focus of the General Plan Update (2005) was primarily focused on the currently
developed areas of the city, in particular the western portions of the City. Within the
Southwest portion of the City, the General Plan designated five areas of change that
would need to go through a more detailed planning process. One of these areas is the
Palomar Gateway District, which is the subject of this Specific Plan. As such, the
planning effort was confronted with balancing “how” the City should grow over the next
25 years given the continued growth projections with “where” the growth should occur,
given the numerous established stable neighborhoods. This challenge was seen as an
opportunity to utilize the key principles found in smart growth strategies relative to urban
revitalization and apply them to areas that have experienced recent decline or
2
underutilization. The General Plan is based on many of the common elements and
concepts of smart growth such as:
• Provide a mix of compatible land uses
• Take advantage of compact building design around transit centers
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
• Create walkable neighborhoods
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
• Provide a variety of transportation choices
Due to the length of time that build-out of the Specific Plan is expected to take (i.e. 20+
years), as well as the nature of urban revitalization, the exact extent, timing and
sequencing of development is difficult to predict. However, the Specific Plan is not a
static document and as such will be revisited on an on-going basis to evaluate progress
towards build-out projections, establish priority rankings of important public
improvements and consider other issues that may arise. A series of checks and
balances will be part of that process and may include review under the City’s Growth
Management Ordinance, the biannual budgetary and Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) cycle, and five-year progress check of the Specific Plan.
1.3 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan is to encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity adjacent to the existing San Diego Trolley
light rail transit station at Palomar Street. The Specific Plan was created to promote a
pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, and private automobile-supportive development
environment and by integrating these mobility elements with a complementary mix of
land uses, all within a comfortable walking and bicycling distance from the light rail
station. Transit-oriented development will generally occur as infill and reuse within the
Palomar Gateway area. Uses that do not support light rail transit ridership are generally
discouraged within the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan.
The specific objectives of this district are to:
create a vibrant, safe, pedestrian friendly live/work/play environment that
emphasizes the area as a southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista;
achieve a compact pattern of development conducive to walking and bicycling;
encourage light rail transit use and convenient access to services and jobs;
allow for a mix of uses, designed to attract pedestrians;
maintain an adequate level of parking and access for automobiles and integrate
automobile use safely with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users;
provide sufficient density of employees, residents, and recreational users to support
transit; and
generate a relatively high percentage of trips serviceable by transit.
3
1.4 Community Outreach Process
Creating and implementing a strong public engagement strategy is at the core Chula
Vista’s specific planning efforts for the Palomar Gateway District. The community
outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens and interest groups of Chula
Vista in the Specific Plan process. Careful initial steps were taken to involve the citizens
of Chula Vista. The following is a summary of the outreach efforts included in the public
participation process that helped to shape the Specific Plan.
In developing a public participation strategy for the Palomar Gateway District Specific
Plan, staff was fortunate to be able to build this effort on top of several preexisting
community outreach and education efforts that had been conducted in the Southwest of
the City beginning in 2007. In 2007-2008 the City began the “Southwest United in
Action” community strengthening process. One goal of this effort was to foster dialogue
between the City and the Southwest Community in advance of specific planning this
area. Through community events, surveys, and meetings, the Southwest United in
Action process attempted to clarify the priorities of the community. The final component
of this effort was the “Southwest Leaders’ Conference” which took place in May and
June 2009, and worked to provide greater detail on subjects ranging from planning to
municipal finance to leaders who had emerged in the Southwest United in Action
process.
Many of the graduates from the Leaders’ Conference went on to become active
participants in the first stage of the specific planning process for the Southwest, a series
of three Urban Design Workshops, each focusing on different “areas of change” that
had been identified by the 2005 General Plan Update. Public notification of the
workshops was provided through a variety of means, including direct mailings, posting
flyers at local businesses and public buildings (e.g. library), e-mail and Nixle blasts to
interest lists, press releases, and publication in local newspapers. Flyers promoting
these meetings were distributed in both English and Spanish.
These workshops also attracted new participants -- business owners, residents and
community members with a particular interest in each district. These workshops were
held in June and July 2009 and were intended to bring forth the community’s diverse
perspectives for implementing the General Plan in each district. The workshop for the
Palomar Gateway District was attended by 18 community members from various
backgrounds. Participants listened to an informational presentation about specific
planning, took a walking tour of the Palomar Gateway District and the other Southwest
Districts, and collaboratively worked to map out their future vision for the area. The
results of these workshops have been summarized in an informational booklet titled
“Urban Design Workshop Summary.”
Southwest Working Group
In developing a public participation strategy for the Palomar Gateway District specific
plan, staff worked to incorporate both the feedback received from earlier planning
4
efforts, and to work with community members who had already demonstrated their
commitment to planning the future of the area through their participation in the initial
steps of the planning process.
From the Southwest Leaders’ Conference and
the Urban Design Workshops, staff identified
and reached out to a group of individuals with
interest, knowledge of the area, and leadership
abilities to participate in the Southwest Working
Group (SWWG). The SWWG represented a
cross-section of the southwest community,
including community organizations,
businesses, and residents. This group was
tasked both with providing oversight for the
southwest planning efforts, and with working to
engage other members of the community with
the process. SWWG participants met monthly to review and direct the latest efforts,
and have attended more targeted workshops for individual planning areas, including the
Palomar Gateway District.
In addition to these working group meetings, the SWWG participated in several
workshops designed specifically to get input on the Palomar Gateway District SP.
Working group participants would be encouraged to get other members of their
communities/ organizations to attend both working group meetings and these broader
workshops to ensure that as many members of the public are involved as possible.
Meetings were held throughout 2010 and 2011.
Topics included an introduction to the Palomar
Gateway District Specific Planning process,
including the scope of work for the process.
The working group participants had a generally
positive reaction to the scope of work for the
program. Another meeting featured a
presentation by SANDAG staff explaining the
2030 Regional Comprehensive Plan, and how
the local efforts in Chula Vista relate to this
process. In March 2010, SWWG participants
were provided with a “SWOT” Analysis (aka
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) prepared by staff for the Palomar
Gateway District, and asked to augment the list as they saw fit. This early input helped
form the baseline conditions for the specific planning effort. The SWWG participants
were provided with an overview of the existing conditions findings for the Palomar
Gateway District. Working group members expressed frustration with the limited area to
be studied under the Specific Plan, suggesting that much of the success or failure of the
Palomar Gateway District will rest upon the surrounding areas. In particular, Working
Group Participants were concerned about the pedestrian connectivity to the Palomar
5
Gateway District down Palomar and Orange Avenues, which continue to have areas
with informal or unpaved sidewalks.
Working group participants were also particularly focused
on how to resolve traffic congestion in the Palomar
Gateway district, and suggested widening streets, or
creating a Main Street exit off the I-5 to relieve congestion
at the Palomar exit. Presentations by planners from
SANDAG on the 2030 Regional Comprehensive Plan and
the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan suggested that
future grade separation of the trolley and improvements to
the Blue Line overall may also help reduce traffic
congestion in the area.
As the planning process advanced, staff sought to involve
SWWG participants in the selection of consultants to
perform the traffic, market, and environmental studies
conducted for the Palomar Gateway District SP. Consultants often met with the SWWG
as one of their initial steps in the process, and SWWG participants provided valuable
input on drafts of the Market Study and other documents, reflecting their day-to-day,
practical experience of the Palomar Gateway District.
The finished Palomar Gateway District SP document bears the mark of this extensive
public outreach process. Staff and SWWG members have worked hard to develop a
plan that both allows transit-oriented development in the Palomar Gateway District, and
at the same time doesn’t overburden this already-congested area with additional auto
trips. Ideally, SWWG efforts to balance the demands of this area will be supported by
broader infrastructure change that will allow intensification in the Palomar Gateway
District while still ensuring that it is a pleasant place to live, work, and enter the
Southwestern portion of Chula Vista.
6
2.0 Existing Conditions: Land Use and Infrastructure
2.1 Location
The approximate 100-gross acres Palomar Gateway District is located at the interchange of
Palomar Street and the Interstate 5 freeway. The
Palomar Gateway District is considered the major
southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista for
visitors entering both from the freeway and from the
San Diego Trolley Blue Line. The Palomar Street/I-5
Freeway interchange is considered one of the busiest
traffic interchanges in the City. The district radiates
from the Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of
Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. The
Palomar Gateway District includes the properties
north of Palomar Street around Walnut Street,
Trenton Street and Industrial Boulevard. Further east,
the district also extends north from Palomar to Oxford
Street to include several warehouse buildings that
contain a variety of commercial and industrial uses.
South of Palomar Street, the Palomar Gateway
District extends along Industrial Boulevard and
Frontage Road to Anita Street, and contains a variety
of single-family and multi-family residential uses, as
well as a few commercial and industrial uses. Below
is a detailed description of each of these areas.
2.2 History
The area we now know as the Palomar Gateway District was settled by Native American
cultures for more than 9,000 years prior to Spanish Colonization. The early Native American
inhabitants established settlements, hunted game, and utilized the area’s abundant resources
including its natural salt flats.
The first western settlers were Spanish missionaries sent by the King of Spain to establish
missions along the coast of California. Subsequently, land was granted by the King of Spain to
settlers of the region for use as pastureland for large “Ranchos.” The area that encompasses
the Palomar Gateway District was part of Rancho Melijó, which was awarded in 1833 to
Emigdio Arguello, the son of Don Santiago Arguello, one of San Diego’s early military
Comandantes1. Don Santiago Arguello had twenty two children, and the grant of Rancho Melijo
as well as Rancho Tijuana (encompassing present-day Tijuana) was given by Governor
Figueroa for the purpose of helping Emigdio’s father support his large family2.
In order to confirm his right to Rancho Melijó, Emigdio constructed an adobe on a portion of the
area known as “La Punta3.” The La Punta Adobe was located on a hill at the Southern extreme
1 (Pourade 1963)
2 (Corona 2004)
3 (Committee 1986)
7
of San Diego Bay, at the end of present-day Anita Street, just beyond the southern boundary of
the present day Palomar Gateway District. After the Mexican-American War and the annexation
of California in 1848, the property rights of many Spanish land-grant holders were called into
question, including the right of the Arguello family to Rancho Melijó4. The US Land
Commission rejected the Arguello Family’s claim to Rancho Melijó in 1853, and despite twenty
years of efforts to prove their title, the Arguello Family never regained their rights to the land5. In
the meantime, settlers moved onto the land, unaware of the conflict regarding the property
rights. Pioneer families built homes and planted fields in the area known today as the “Palomar
Gateway District,” and the La Punta Adobe itself was used as a temporary waystation for
settlers seeking to establish themselves in the region6.
The 1850s through 70s also saw the beginning of industrial development at the southern
extremes of San Diego Bay. By 1871 the “La Punta Salt Works” was producing salt at the
southern end of San Diego bay at the site now occupied by Western Salt Works7. In 1868, the
Kimball brothers bought the Spanish land grant of Rancho de la Nación, which lay directly north
of Rancho Melijó, and began planning and developing National City with the expectation that it
might be a terminus for a transcontinental railroad. By 1882 the California Southern Railroad
connected National City to Colton, California, and began to spur economic development along
the southern reaches of San Diego Bay8. By 1886 the Kimball brothers financed the National
City and Otay Railway Company, which ran an additional rail line from National City to the
Southern end the bay and which was largely used to transport salt.
The old Rancho La Punta Adobe and the area around the Salt Works continued to be a
waystation for settlers newly arrived to the Chula Vista area through the turn of the century.
Some of the settlers took jobs in the Salt Works, while others farmed the surrounding area
known as “Las Salinas”9. The railroad connection to National City helped crops and salt get to
market, and supported the growth of the area. Additional settlement came to the Palomar
Gateway District in the teens and twenties as a result of prohibition and the popularization of the
automobile. Broadway (formerly known as National Boulevard) had long been an informal route
south to the border, and in the 1920s thousands drove their Model T’s across the border to
indulge in activities that were banned by the Volstead Act in the US. Bus routes running from
San Diego to Tijuana used Broadway as their primary route, and led to the commercialization of
the corridor, and eventually the area near the Palomar Gateway District10. Broadway’s more
auto-focused, large scale businesses soon dwarfed the older, agriculturally-based Third
Avenue. The Harborside neighborhood north of the Palomar Gateway District was subdivided
for housing in the early 1920s, while the area around Rancho La Punta within the bounds of the
Palomar Gateway District itself remained more ad hoc and agricultural.
Significant change came to the area in the 1950s with the construction of the I-5 Montgomery
Freeway connecting San Diego to the border. The construction of the I-5 led to the demolition of
the Rancho La Punta Adobe, which lay directly in the path of construction11. It also led to the
4 (Corona 2004)
5 (Committee 1986)
6 (Schoenherr 2011)
7 (EDAW (Gustafson, A. and Gregory C.) 2001)
8 (Committee 1986)
9 (Schoenherr 2011)
10 (Schoenherr 2011)
11 (Schoenherr 2011)
8
construction of the segment of Palomar Street between Broadway and the I-5 in the early
1960s. This segment became an important connector between interstate and Broadway,
expanding from a two lane road in the 1960s to a four lane road in 1970s, and eventually to its
current six lanes in the early 90s. In 1977 Metropolitan Transit opened the Blue Line Trolley on
the California Southern rail right of way. The trolley connection strengthened the importance of
the Palomar area as a “gateway” to the Broadway, and to the area that would become
Southwest Chula Vista after the Montgomery Annexation of 1986.
While the commercial strip on Palomar developed from the 1970s through the 1990s, the
Palomar Gateway district area itself remained primarily residential, retaining some of its earlier
agricultural flavor, with the large parcel at the intersection of Industrial and Palomar serving as a
seasonal Christmas tree lot and pumpkin patch. The area became increasingly congested,
partially as result of conflict between the trolley line and automobile traffic seeking to enter the I-
5, and partially due to the intense commercial uses on both sides of Palomar Street itself.
Street improvements completed in 2008 at the intersection of Palomar and Industrial Blvd.
improved the environment for pedestrians and transit riders, with the addition of street trees and
the City’s first traffic circle. Future improvements such as the grade separation of the blue line
trolley may eventually reduce congestion, and help preserve the mixed residential and
commercial character of this important gateway to Chula Vista.
2.3 Existing Land Uses
The district consists of a variety of existing land uses,
including residential, commercial and industrial uses.
Existing residential development in the area contains a
range in densities of approximately 5 to 20 dwelling
units per acre. North of Palomar Street is a mix of
industrial and multi-family housing. Across Industrial
Boulevard to the east is the major commercial nucleus
of Southwest Chula Vista - an area which attracts
shoppers and employees from points north and south.
2.4 Surrounding Land Uses
Interstate 5 frames the west side of the district with
businesses and housing west of I-5 in the West
Fairfield district; to the north between I-5 and Industrial Boulevard is a mobilehome park; east of
Industrial Boulevard is the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency building,
Harborside Elementary School and Harborside Park. Community commercial centers with large
anchor businesses such as Target, Costco and Walmart are east of the Harborside Park; and
commercial retail and employment uses are south of Palomar Street and east of Industrial
Boulevard. South of Anita Street is primarily industrially designated employment uses.
2.5 Detailed Existing Conditions of the Various Areas within the Palomar
Gateway District
9
Area North of Palomar Street
Walnut Street
Walnut Street area is characterized by a mixture of
uses, including residential, commercial, and
industrial. Current uses include retail stores, an Arco
gas station, auto towing and storage yard, the
Palomar Motel, office building, and residences north
of Palomar Street. Walnut Street is improved with
pavement, gutters, curbs, parkways, and sidewalks,
which are in need of replacement. Walnut Street is
very short (approximately 700 feet long) that dead-
ends at an irregular cul-de-sac, and lacks regular
street improvements at the end.
Trenton Avenue
Trenton Avenue is a short (approximately 440 feet long) street that contains mostly single-family
residences with several small multi-family buildings. The street contains street improvements,
which include pavement, gutters, curbs, parkways, and sidewalks. The street ends at a cul-de-
sac that provides auto access to the vehicle storage facility in the SDG&E Right of Way. This
cul-de-sac also provides access, via an easement over part of the SDG&E Right of Way, to
three homes that are located away from the street.
Area Northeast of Industrial Boulevard and Palomar Street
This is an area that has been developed with commercial/industrial uses. There is a mixture of
retail, warehousing, and wholesaling uses in large multi-tenant buildings. The lot and building
layout form an irregular configuration, which has resulted in land use inefficiencies and potential
traffic conflicts that limit maximum site utilization. On the western part of this area is the MTDB
property that provides pedestrian and vehicular access between Palomar Street and Oxford
Street. North of this area, across Oxford Street, is the San Diego County Health and Human
Services Agency and the new Harborside Park, as well as the Walmart/Costco center.
Area South of Palomar Street
Palomar Street
This east-west street serves as the entrance to the
District and City from I-5. The Palomar Inn Motel is
on the south side of Palomar Street across from the
Arco gas station that is on the north side of the
street; these two uses are conveniently located
adjacent to I-5. The properties located on the south
side of Palomar Street between Frontage Road and
Industrial Boulevard are currently vacant. The
Palomar Trolley Station parking lot is east of
Industrial Boulevard.
10
Recent street and safety improvements in this area
have been completed, consisting of landscaped
medians, enhanced paving at the intersection of
Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, and
sidewalks and tree-lined parkways, including bike
lanes along Palomar and Industrial Boulevard.
Traffic calming facilities such as a “roundabout” was
also installed further south along Industrial Boulevard
and Ada Street. These improvements were part of
the $2.1 million SANDAG Palomar Gateway
Enhancement project Smart Growth Improvement
Program (SGIP). These improvements contribute to
the development of an inviting Gateway and transit amenities for the District and the City, as
well as provide a foundation/catalyst for future development within the district.
Ada Street
This east-west street is fully improved with sidewalks,
curbs and gutters. Properties on both sides of the street
contain several new developments consisting of a mix of
multi- and single-family units. There are also vacant and
underutilized parcels, which have potential for additional
development. There has been significant new
development along Ada Street in the form of small (10 –
14 units) projects. Two of those developments (Trolley
Terrace Townhomes – 18 units and Trolley Trestle Apartments – 11 units) are located on Ada
Street and Industrial Boulevard and were developed by South Bay Community Services. Other
Townhome projects built by private developers are located along this street. Single-Family
Residential units are being replaced by Multi-Family Residential development and group
dwellings.
Dorothy Street
This east-west street is fully improved with sidewalks,
curbs, and gutters. There is a significant number of
large, deep lots that have potential for Single-Family
Residential or Multi-Family Residential development.
The only church in this area (Templo Ebeneezer) is
located on this street. Also, a San Diego County
Housing Authority residential complex (Dorothy Street
Manor – 22 units) is located on this street.
Anita Street
This east-west street serves as interface between residential
uses on the north and commercial/industrial uses on the south
side of the street. The north side is predominantly residential,
except for industrial development on the most westerly lot,
adjacent to I-5. There are no sidewalks, curbs, gutters on the
north side of the street. The eastern part of Anita Street is
11
fully built to capacity. The mid-area contains large lots (0.5 to 0.95 acres) that are mostly
underdeveloped.
The south side of Anita Street consists of primarily industrial parks. The easterly two-thirds is in
fair/good building conditions with full street improvements. The westerly one-third (last parcel)
is in poor building condition with no street improvements.
Industrial Boulevard
This north-south street bounds the Palomar Gateway
District on the east side. The segment of Industrial
Boulevard located to the south of Ada Street has no street
improvements (sidewalks, curbs, gutters) on either side,
which presents unsafe pedestrian conditions. On the west
side of the street are predominantly residential properties
with a small store between Anita and Belvia Street. The
distance from Anita Street and the Trolley Station is
approximately 1,500 feet. There are no traffic controls
between Palomar and Anita Street, except for the recently
built roundabout at Industrial and Ada Street. Industrial Boulevard provides direct access for
pedestrians to the Trolley Station, and limited access to vehicle traffic.
Frontage Road
This north-south street constitutes an extension of Anita Street
at the southerly end, as it extends along the western edge of
the district parallel to I-5, and connects to Palomar Street at
the northerly-end. It is a narrow street without street
improvements; an asphalt curb serves as edge between the
street and private property. There is no physical separation
between the street and the downward slope toward the
freeway. Frontage Road provides access to the industrial uses
at the corner of Anita Street, and residential properties that
front it. The street constitutes a loop road and connects
Palomar Street, Industrial Boulevard and Anita Street. At
approximately Ada Street, Frontage Road gently curves east
away from the freeway and separates the existing trailer park
(Georgeanna Trailer Park) in two parts. There have been
recent residential projects constructed within the Palomar Gateway District mainly located
along Ada and Dorothy Streets.
2.6 Existing Infrastructure
Sewer: The Palomar Gateway District is provided with a system of sewer lines of various
capacities, as shown on the maps below. The existing sewer infrastructure consists of a 15-inch
sewer line located along Oxford Street and Industrial Boulevard. Eight-inch sewer lines are
located along Walnut and Trenton Avenues (north-south), Palomar, Ada, Dorothy, and Anita
Streets (east-west).
12
Palomar Gateway District
Existing Water Infrastructure
Palomar Gateway District
Existing Sewer Infrastructure
Water: The Palomar Gateway District is also provided with a system of water distribution.
The existing water infrastructure consists of 6-inch water lines located along Frontage Road,
Walnut and Trenton Avenues and Ada Street; 8-inch water lines located along Dorothy Street
and the westerly portion of Anita Street; a 10-inch water line located along the easterly portion
of Anita Street and Palomar Street; and a 16-inch water line located along Industrial Boulevard.
13
Other Public Infrastructure: (streets and sidewalks)
Pedestrian and traffic improvements on Palomar Street
and Industrial Boulevard were completed in the fall of
2009. These improvements include construction of
missing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, traffic circle at
the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and Ada Street,
safety improvements at the intersection of Palomar
Street and Industrial Boulevard, and landscape
improvements along Palomar Street and Industrial
Boulevard.
2.7 General Plan Vision
The Chula Vista 2005 General Plan designates the Palomar Gateway District as one of five
“areas of change,” which are those areas where more intensive development, revitalization
and/or redevelopment are proposed to occur. The General Plan vision for Palomar Gateway
District includes a Mixed-Use Transit Focus Area (TFA) directly west and north of the Palomar
Trolley Station, higher residential intensity, a neighborhood park and retail to the south of the
TFA. The goal is to provide for additional housing and mixed-uses (residential and commercial)
that take advantage of a major transit station within walking distance. Future development of
the Palomar Gateway District must be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2005
General Plan. Shown below are tables listing the objectives and policies for the Southwest Area
and Palomar Gateway District.
14
Land Use and Economic Development Objectives and Policies
Land Use and Transportation Element Objectives and Policies
Southwest Area
15
Palomar Gateway District
16
17
The potential for the Palomar Gateway District to evolve from a low-density auto-focused
interchange into a higher density transit oriented community has been recognized both by
SANDAG’s Vision 2020 Plan, which designated the Palomar Gateway District as a
“Community Center” and by Chula Vista’s 2005 General Plan, which calls for the district to be
developed as a Transit Focus Area. Progress towards this vision is already underway, with the
$2.1 million pedestrian/traffic improvements on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard
provided by the 2005 Transnet SGIP grant, which were completed in the fall of 2009. In order to
fully realize the transformation of the district, however, it will be necessary to engage in a
Specific Planning process to update the outdated zoning code to reflect the smart growth vision
prescribed by the General Plan. An Environmental Impact Report will also be prepared in order
to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed Specific Plan.
2.8 General Plan Designations
There are four General Plan land use designations within the Palomar Gateway District, which
are described in Table I. The General Plan describes these land use designations as follows:
High Residential: The High Residential designation is intended for multi-family units, such as
apartment and condominium-type dwellings in multiple-story buildings, with densities ranging
from 18 to 27 dwelling units per gross acre. At an average of 2.5 persons per unit, population
density in this designation would range from 45 to 67 persons per acre.
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area: The Mixed Use Transit Focus Area (TFA) designation is
intended within approximately ¼ mile of the existing Palomar Trolley Station, and is intended for
the highest intensity mixed use residential environment. This designation allows a mix of
residential, office, and retail uses in an area that is pedestrian-friendly and has a strong linkage
to provision of mass transit. District-wide gross residential density within this designation is an
average of 40 dwelling units per acre. The commercial (retail and office) portion of the TFA
designation is intended to have an area-wide Floor Area Ration (FAR) of 1.0.
Retail Commercial: The Retail Commercial designation (a small area located along Industrial
Boulevard at Anita Street) is intended to allow a range of neighborhood and community retail
18
shopping and services. This category may include limited thoroughfare retail and automobile-
oriented services. The FAR for this category ranges from 0.25 to 0.75.
Parks and Recreation: The Parks and Recreation designation is intended for parks; sports
fields; playgrounds; golf courses; and other passive and active recreation uses. The designation
may also include community centers and urban parks.
Based on these adopted land use designations, projected build-out within the district could
realize up to 2,400 dwelling units. Existing residential units total approximately 400 dwelling
units within the district. Therefore, a net increase of up to 2,000 dwelling units and several
acres of commercial (retail and/or office) could be developed over the next 15-20 years. As
indicated above, the General Plan proposes to implement a Smart Growth vision for a higher
density residential, pedestrian and transit-oriented development with a mix of retail shops and
offices near the transit station.
2.9 Zoning Classifications:
Table 2 shows the numerous existing zoning classifications within the Palomar Gateway District,
which include single and multi-family residential, commercial, industrial and open space. These
zoning classifications have created a condition characterized by a lack of community cohesion,
which makes the area vulnerable to economic and physical deterioration. The existing zoning
designations will need to be updated to align with the General Plan Land Use designations. The
preparation of the Specific Plan for the Palomar Gateway District is intended to implement the
General Plan’s Smart Growth vision for Transit-Oriented mixed-use development in proximity to
a major regional transit center. The Specific Plan will provide design guidance and a regulatory
framework that maximize the full potential of multi-modal transit integration within the community
and will be implemented as individual projects are constructed in the Palomar Gateway District
over the next 15 to 20 years. Over time, the Palomar Gateway District will be transformed from
its underutilized/lower-density setting into a vibrant and cohesive higher-density, pedestrian and
transit-oriented community.
19
2.10 Completed or Programmed Improvements/Infrastructure
The City’s Capital Improvement Program contains a variety of planning and construction
projects that have recently been completed, are currently in progress or are planned to be
implemented in the next few years within the Palomar Gateway District. Table 3 provides a list
of these projects.
2.11 Constraints and Opportunities
The following is a summary of Constraints and Opportunities that have been identified for the
Palomar Gateway District:
a. Constraints
Pedestrian Safety: inadequate pedestrian
lighting; high traffic along Palomar with no
landscaping or buffer from automobiles;
poles and utilities blocking sidewalk; no
sidewalks along Frontage Road, Anita
Street, Industrial Boulevard;
Adjacency to I-5 might pose constraint
due to air quality issues.
Traffic is very heavy and conflictive along
Palomar Street between Bay Boulevard
and traffic signal east of Industrial
Boulevard.
20
Traffic conditions make it very difficult for
traffic to get in/out of Walnut Avenue and
Trenton Avenue.
Pedestrian connection between east and west
of I-5 is difficult and dangerous.
Palomar bridge over I-5 is narrow and lacks
features of “Complete Streets.”
Wide curb radius that allows cars to turn
quickly, creates conflicts with pedestrians
crossing street.
Heavy traffic along Palomar Street.
Need for neighborhood park.
Chain link along Industrial Boulevard is not aesthetically appealing.
Existing freeway noise along Frontage Road, and north of Palomar Street.
Overcrowding of schools (Harborside Elementary School).
b. Opportunities
Area along Frontage Road and Interstate 5
provides opportunity for view of San Diego
Bay.
Block between I-5 and Walnut Avenue poses
opportunity for high density residential mixed
use development because of its proximity to
the Palomar Trolley Station, Harborside Park
and Elementary school, and nearby
commercial. centers and industrial uses.
Five-acre vacant site on Palomar between
Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road
represents opportunity for mixed use, high
density development next to Trolley Station.
Undeveloped and underdeveloped lots along
Ada Street offer opportunities for additional
development.
Underdeveloped lots along north side of Anita
offer opportunities for additional development.
Trolley Station offers great opportunities for
the development of the surrounding area into
a Transit Oriented showcase.
Arroyo/creek traversing residential area
between Industrial Boulevard and Frontage
Road provides potential opportunities for
development of some form of open
space/park that links to the bay.
SDGE right of way on east side of Industrial
Boulevard offers opportunities for a
park/active recreation area that could
potentially connect to the Arroyo on the west
side of Industrial Boulevard.
Maintaining mixed-use along Palomar Trolley
transit corridor.
Develop a “Village concept”: Residential, commercial, retail, office, etc.;
21
Promote clean “Green” industry, utilize “Green” technology and LEED ideas
whenever possible.
Artist colony, public art, art walk, murals on utility boxes. Identify and develop
community mosaic, artwork and signage for
the district.
Install “bulb-outs” at busy street corners to
provide safety for pedestrians.
Entry Gateway design and nice directional
signage for the district.
Incorporate water features and sound makers
that could buffer freeway and trolley noise.
Utilize native plants, plant more Tipuana Tipu
trees – they have a nice canopy.
Median breaks along Industrial to allow
access to Trolley station.
2.12 Market Study
A Market Study was prepared for the Palomar Gateway Specific Plan by Gafcon, Inc., dated
July 2011. The purpose of the Market Study was to determine whether the General Plan vision
for the Palomar Gateway District is compatible with the area’s current and future market
demands in terms of housing, retail, and office development. The study also looked at strategies
to promote market investment into Transit-Oriented projects in the District. The Consultant
conducted the market analysis at the regional level, city level, and local (district and surrounding
area) level. The study included an analysis of the demand for residential, retail and office
development.
As part of the study the Consultant met with City staff,
reviewed existing studies, and conducted a site
reconnaissance. Existing market conditions were analyzed
to identify feasible market opportunities. Area stakeholders
were interviewed to identify opportunities and constraints.
The consultant forecasted near and long-term demand
potential for key land uses, and evaluated existing policy
and identified strategies to promote the development of key
land uses. The conclusions of the study are:
Residential Development: The General Plan vision is very
optimistic; in the future the district is likely to generate a
demand of up to 1,300 additional multiple-family residential
units in the next 20 years, compared to the 2,000 projected
by the General Plan vision.
Retail Development: The study looked at the demand
generated by three different factors: the primary market
within 1.5 miles of the transit station; the secondary market
located between 1.5 miles to 5 miles of the station; area
workers; and the cross border trade. In total these
categories generate a demand for approximately 100,000
additional square feet of retail space in the next 20 years.
This represents a figure that is well below the expectation of
the General Plan vision.
22
Office Development: Based on regional employment and office market trends, the Palomar
Gateway District has capacity to capture approximately 50,000 square feet of additional office
space by 2030.This equates to about 2,000 sq. ft. of annual demand. Palomar Gateway District
in not expected to become a notable center of office activity, as other areas such as the Urban
Core and Eastlake are expected to be the office hub. However, the Palomar Gateway District
may capture office demand to provide office services to the surrounding community. Overall the
General Plan land use designations generate far more capacity than the potential demand
identified by the study.
Other Study Recommendations:
• The Specific Plan should promote flexible zoning and zoning incentives in terms of
development standards
• Preparation of the Specific Plan should include a public outreach process to facilitate
public participation and project review
• City should enter into public/private partnerships to collaborate early-on in the process
• Provide missing area infrastructure
• Provide public amenities, such open spaces and streetscapes
• Expedite project review and approval
2.13 Projected Development
The results of the Market Study helped to refine the overall projected development buildout for
the Palomar Gateway District as follows:
TABLE 4
Palomar Gateway District
Existing and Projected(1,2) Development
20 -Year Horizon
Existing
Development
Projected
Additional
Development
Total
Estimated
Buildout
Estimated Buildout by Sub-District
MU-1
(3.5 ac.)
MU-2
(31.5 ac.)
PRV
(43.5 ac.)
PNRC
(1.5 ac.)
Residential
(Units)
400 1,300 1,700 150(3) 450(4) 700
Retail (Sq. Ft.)(5) 200,000 100,000 300,000 10,000 85,000 5,000
Office (Sq. Ft.)
(5)
50,000 50,000 5,000 40,000 5,000
Industrial
(Sq. Ft.)
30,000
1 Numbers are approximations.
2 Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on 2011 Market Study (GAFCON, Inc.)
3 Projected residential units for MU-1 Sub-District are based on the designated FAR with the
proportional commercial development indicated on note 5 below.
23
4 Sub-Districts MU-2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the Sub-District land area.
5 Retail/Office square footages are assumed 10%/90% split of projected buildout
between the MU-1/ MU-2 Sub-Districts, which is roughly proportional to the Sub-Districts land area.
It should be noted that that the exact extent, timing and sequence of infill development that may
occur over the 20 year planning horizon is difficult to ascertain due to a number of factors
unique to urban revitalization. These include, but are not limited to:
• viability associated with newer construction which will likely not recycle over the life of
the Specific Plan;
• longevity of other existing commercial uses and existing housing stock;
• project specific economics that result in less than maximum buildout on a parcel;
• increased development costs associated with acquisition, demolition and cleanup of
urbanized land.
The Specific Plan is not a static document and as such will be evaluated on an on-going basis
to evaluate progress towards buildout projections, priority rankings of important public
improvements and other issues that may arise. A series of checks and balances will be part of
that process and include, but may not be limited to, review under the City’s Growth
Management Ordinance, the bi-annual budgetary and CIP cycle, and five-year assessment of
the Specific Plan. Additional planning and environmental review would be required if the
buildout projections are approached and achieved prior to the planning horizon of 2030.
24
3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
3.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the appropriate distribution, mix, intensity, physical
form, and functional relationships of land uses within the Palomar Gateway District. These
regulations are intended to encourage and facilitate infill development, mixed uses, pedestrian
scale, urban amenities, transit use, creative design, and the general revitalization of the
Palomar Gateway District. The Specific Plan includes several land use categories within the
District. For the mixed use designations, the Specific Plan’s Land Use and Development
Regulations and associated design guidelines utilize more of a “form based” approach. This
approach places primary emphasis on the physical form of the built environment and focuses on
where and how the buildings are placed rather than the use occupying the building. This is
especially important to allow flexibility in uses in order to be responsive to market demands
while still ensuring a clear vision of what the built environment should look like. For areas
designated for multi-family residential development, the Specific Plan utilizes the City’s existing
R-3 zoning regulations, and for the small neighborhood serving commercial area located in the
southeast corner of the District, the Specific Plan uses the City’s existing C-N zoning
regulations.
3. 2 Applicability
Proposed land uses and development regulations within the Palomar Gateway District shall
comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter. This chapter replaces provisions of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 19.26; 19.30; 19.36; 19.40; and 19.44 and the provisions
of the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance Land Use Regulations C36 and S94. Where in
conflict with other sections of the Municipal Code, this chapter shall apply, and where this
chapter is silent, the Municipal Code shall apply. The definitions found in the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, section 19.04 apply to the Specific Plan, except where specific definitions are
provided within this Specific Plan.
Specific Plan
3.3 Subdistrict Map, Land Use Matrix, and Development Regulations
3.3.1 Subdistrict Map
The Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan area has been grouped into the following four Sub-
districts based on similar building and use types:
1. Palomar Transit Plaza (MU-1);
2. Palomar Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2);
3. Palomar Residential Village (PRV); and
4. Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster (PNRC)
These four Sub-districts have their own character for buildings and public spaces and specified
uses. The Specific Plan Sub-districts are shown in Figure 1, which identifies the Sub-district
boundaries.
25
Figure 1
26
Development projects, including but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas, landscaping,
streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways within the Palomar Gateway District,
shall be developed in accordance with the following provisions:
a. All projects for which discretionary or ministerial approval(s) have been granted prior to the
effective date of the Specific Plan shall not be subject to the standards of the Specific Plan.
However, if an action (i.e., appeal, modification of conditions, site plan amendment) alters a
previously approved site plan, the revised development proposal shall be designed in
compliance with Specific Plan standards.
b. All projects for which final discretionary approval(s) has not been obtained prior to the
effective date of the Specific Plan shall be subject to compliance with the Specific Plan
standards.
3.3.2 Land Use Matrix
The following Land Use Matrix specifies permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and
prohibited uses for each of the Specific Plan Sub-districts. Permitted uses indicate that the use
is allowed in the specified Sub-district. Conditionally permitted uses require the granting of a
Conditional Use Permit as provided in Municipal Code Section 2.55, 19.14, and/or 19.58. Uses
marked as prohibited (--) are not permitted in the specified Sub-district. Accessory uses means
a use or structure subordinate to the principal use of a building on the same lot, and serving a
purpose customarily incidental to the use of the principal building.
Uses not specifically listed in the Land Use Matrix may be considered by Zoning Administrator if
determined to be of the same general character of those uses listed in the matrix for the specific
Sub-district. This flexibility in use determination is especially important in this time of rapid
changes in technology, commodities, and goods and services as they relate to the art of doing
business.
27
PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT
Land Use Matrix
SUBDISTRICTS
P = Permitted
CUP = Requires Conditional Use Permit
--- = Prohibited
Palomar
Transit Plaza
- Mixed Use
Mixed
Use
Corridor
Palomar
Residential
Village
Palomar
Neighborhood
Retail Cluster
MU-1 MU-2 PRV PNRC
Residential
Dwellings - Garden Apartments --- P P ---
Dwellings – Townhomes P P P ---
Dwellings - Apartment Complexes P P P ---
Live/work units P P --- ---
Mixed Residential/Commercial Projects P P --- ---
Senior Housing Development CUP CUP CUP ---
Shopkeeper Unit P P --- ---
Nursing Homes CUP CUP CUP ---
Residential Care Facilities CUP CUP CUP ---
Public/Quasi-Public and Institutional
Ambulance services CUP CUP --- CUP
Civic facilities P P --- ---
Community service facilities P P --- ---
Court facilities P P --- ---
Court-supported facilities P P --- ---
Educational Facilities - Schools, professional,
business and technical (not requiring outdoor
facilities) CUP CUP --- ---
Fire stations P P --- ---
Health care facilities (including 24 hour facilities) CUP CUP --- ---
Libraries P P --- ---
Museums P P --- ---
Non-commercial recreation centers (indoor) P P --- ---
Non-commercial recreation centers (outdoor) CUP CUP --- ---
Parks (public and private), including urban parks
and plazas P P P P
Police stations P P --- ---
Post office P P --- ---
Public utility uses and structures CUP CUP CUP CUP
Religious facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP
Social and fraternal organization facilities P P --- ---
Telecommunications facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP
Radio and television broadcasting CUP CUP --- CUP
Youth center P P --- ---
28
MU-1 MU-2 PRV PNRC
Commercial Office
Administrative/Executive Offices P P --- P
Financial Offices P P --- P
Medical and Dental Offices/Clinics P P --- P
Medical/Dental Laboratory CUP CUP --- CUP
Professional Offices (e.g. architectural,
engineering, law) P P --- P
Real Estate Offices P P --- P
Research and Development Offices P P --- P
Veterinary Clinics/Animal Hospitals CUP CUP --- CUP
Any other commercial - office use which the Zoning
Administrator finds to be similar and of the same
general character as the uses listed above. Such
uses may be permitted as "P" or "CUP" as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Commercial - Service Oriented
Stores, shops and offices performing services for
residents of the City as a whole or the surrounding
community, including but not limited to the following
uses:
Athletic/health clubs P P --- ---
Auto Service Station --- CUP --- CUP
Bank P P --- P
Barbershop and beauty shop P P --- P
Bicycle repair P P --- P
Body art/tattoo/piercing salon CUP CUP --- ---
Carpentry shops CUP CUP --- CUP
Catering halls (with full-time, full-service restaurants,
operating after hours) CUP CUP --- ---
Catering Services CUP CUP --- ---
Check cashing establishments --- --- --- ---
Cobbler (shoe repair) P P --- P
Coin-operated laundry P P --- P
Day nursery (child care facility) CUP CUP --- CUP
Day spa P P --- P
Drycleaners CUP CUP --- ---
Financial services P P --- P
Jewelry and watch repair P P --- P
Locksmiths P P --- P
Manicure and pedicure shops P P --- P
Massage parlor --- --- --- ---
Pawn Shops --- --- --- ---
Pet grooming P P --- P
Photocopying and blueprinting services P P --- ---
Photography studios P P --- P
Postal stores P P --- P
Printing and publishing services P P --- ---
Service and Repair Shops, Minor (e.g. appliance,
plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling, except
auto-related) P P --- ---
29
Tailor shops P P --- P
Ticket/Travel agencies P P --- ---
Any other commercial - service use which the
Zoning Administrator finds to be similar and of the
same general character as the uses listed above.
Such uses may be permitted as "P" or "CUP" as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
MU-1 MU-2 PRV PNRC
Commercial - Retail
Stores, shops and offices providing commodities or
hospitality for residents of the City as a whole or the
surrounding community, including but not limited to the
following uses:
Adult-oriented entertainment --- --- --- ---
Amusement facilities CUP CUP --- CUP
Bait and tackle shops P P --- P
Bakery P P --- P
Bed and breakfast P P --- ---
Bona fide antique shops, but not including secondhand
or junk stores P P --- P
Bookstore P P --- P
Cocktail lounge (subject to the provisions of CVMC
19.58.075) CUP CUP --- ---
Coffeehouse/café P P --- P
Commercial recreation facilities (indoor) e.g. bowling
alleys, skating rinks, laser tag P P --- ---
Commercial recreation facilities (outdoor) e.g. miniature
golf CUP CUP --- ---
Convenience stores P P --- P
Delicatessen/sandwich shop P P --- P
Department stores P P --- ---
Farmer's market CUP CUP --- CUP
Florist P P --- P
Galleries (photography, art) P P --- P
Grocery, fruit, or vegetable sales P P --- P
Hardware stores (up to 5,000 sq. ft.) P P --- P
Hardware stores (over 5,000 sq. ft.) P P --- ---
Home furnishing stores P P --- ---
Handicraft shops P P --- P
Ice cream/yogurt shop P P --- P
Liquor stores (subject to the provisions of CVMC
19.58.430) CUP CUP --- ---
Live entertainment (excluding adult-oriented
entertainment) CUP CUP --- ---
Meat sales P P --- P
Newstands P P --- P
Pawn shops --- --- --- ---
Pet shops P P --- P
Pool and spa supplies (no outdoor storage) P P --- ---
Prescription pharmacy P P --- P
Produce stands P P --- P
Restaurants, fast food P P --- ---
Restaurants, full-service P P --- ---
Taverns (subject to the provisions of CVMC 19.58.075) CUP CUP --- ---
30
Theaters, live or movie (no adult theaters) CUP CUP --- ---
Any other commercial - retail use which the Zoning
Administrator finds to be similar and of the same
general character as the uses listed above. Such uses
may be permitted as "P" or "CUP" as determined by the
Zoning Administrator.
Accessory uses MU-1 MU-2 PRV PNRC
Accessory uses or buildings customarily appurtenant to
permitted or conditional uses subject to the
requirements of CVMC 19.58.020 P P P P
Home occupations subject to the provisions of CVMC
19.14.490 --- P P ---
Recycling Collection Centers pursuant to CVMC
19.58.345(A) and (B)
3.3.3 Development Regulations
Zoning regulations for each Sub-district are presented on the following individual Zoning Sheets
specific to that Sub-district. The Zoning Sheets contain the location of the Sub-districts, their
purpose and the specific development regulations. The purpose of the subdistrict zoning sheets
is to provide an easy to read reference of the land use and development standards for each
subdistrict. Proposed development in the Specific Plan area shall comply with the development
standards of the applicable zoning sheets.
In the event that the underlying City of Chula Vista Municipal Code is inconsistent with these
development standards or any other provisions herein, the standards of the Specific Plan shall
apply. Where the Specific Plan is silent, the Municipal Code shall apply. The definitions found in
the Municipal Code, Section 19.04 apply to the Specific Plan, except where specific definitions
are provided herein. The following are definitions for the development standards.
Floor Area Ratio
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measure of the bulk of
buildings on a lot or site. FAR is calculated by dividing
the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot or site by
the lot or site area. Gross floor area includes the total
enclosed area of all floors of a building measured from
the exterior walls including halls, stairways, elevator
shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical
equipment rooms, balconies, recreation rooms, and
attics having a height of more than seven feet but
excluding area used exclusively for vehicle parking or
loading. For example, a two-story building occupying
one-half of a site has an FAR of 1.0. Any floor area
below finish grade does not count towards FAR. If
floors are partially above and partially below grade,
then only the proportion of the floor above grade is
counted towards FAR. For example, if 5 feet of a 10-
foot high floor is below grade, then only 50% of the
floor area will count towards FAR.
31
Building Height
Building heights are measured from finish grade to top of roof, not including parapets or other
architectural features. Minimum building heights in some subdistricts ensure that the desired
building heights are achieved.
Building Stepback
In some districts, the upper portion of a
building must step back from the lower
portion of the building when located adjacent
to major streets. The stepback is a minimum
horizontal distance, as measured from the
street property line, and must occur below
the maximum building height, to provide
vertical relief of taller structures. At primary
gateways, as identified in this Specific Plan,
stepback requirements may be modified to
allow significant architecture or design
statements at these corner locations.
Street Wall Frontage
Street wall frontage is the percentage of
street front that must be built to, with the ground floor building facade at the minimum setback.
Setback (Build-To Line)
Setback is the distance between the property line and the building. Setback is measured
horizontally and perpendicular to the property line. Minimum setbacks in some Sub-districts
ensure appropriate distances between land uses and ensure that the desired building line is
maintained, e.g. along certain streets.
Build-to line is the given distance from a property line where the facade of the building within
that property must be located.
Open Space Requirement
For the purposes of the open space requirement, the term “open space” refers to any areas with
minimum dimensions of 60 square feet (6’x10’) and devoted to the following common, private,
or public uses: patio, porch, balcony, deck, garden, playground, plaza, swimming pool, sports
court/field, recreation room, gym, spa, community room, cultural arts, lawn/turf, pond, fountain,
atrium, sunroom, theater, amphitheater, band shell, gazebo, picnic area, shelter, roof, for similar
passive or active recreational/leisure use or facility that is not used for enclosed dwelling unit
floor area or commercial use space.
Parking Regulations
Development proposals within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the type, location, and
number of parking spaces established for residential and non-residential land uses as specified
herein. Bicycle parking is also required for commercial uses pursuant to CVMC 15.12, as may
32
be amended from time to time. For mixed use
projects, a shared parking agreement may be
requested and approved pursuant to CVMC
19.62.040, as may be amended from time to
time.
33
Palomar Transit Plaza – MU-1
Location
The Palomar Transit Plaza Sub-
district is located at the southeast
corner of Palomar Street and
Industrial Boulevard (Figure 2). It
occupies an area of approximately
3.3 acres and is located next to the
retail center that contains a
supermarket, Office Depot, and a
variety of retail and food
establishments. This Sub-district is
connected at its south-end to the
San Diego Gas & Electric Right of
Way.
Purpose
The purpose of the Palomar Transit Plaza Sub-district is to enhance and improve the functions
of the Transit Station and the land uses of the Palomar Gateway District. This Sub-district is
intended to serve as a focus area and create a cohesive and strong multi-use Palomar Gateway
District. The Sub-district land uses are intended to create a multi-use Transit Plaza that will
serve transit users, residents, as well as shoppers. In addition to the Transit Center the Sub-
district will contain a public open space in the form of a Plaza, Piazza or Courtyard that will
connect with an active/passive open space/park at the SDG&E Right of Way.
Architectural Emphasis at Gateways – The Specific Plan identifies two gateways to the Palomar
Gateway District, which are located at the intersections of Palomar and Walnut Street/Frontage
Road and at Palomar and
Industrial Boulevard (Figure
3). These locations may
qualify for increased height of
up to 15 feet in order to
achieve enhanced
architectural statements and
iconic design. The additional
height may be permitted as a
development exception to the
height regulations identified
in section 3 of the
development regulations
below.
Figure 2
Figure 3
34
Development Regulations
1. Permitted Land Uses:
• Transit Center (Trolley/Bus Station)
• Public Open Spaces
(Plaza/Piazza/Courtyard)
• Residential
• Retail
• Office
• Civic
2. Floor Area Ratio: 2.0
3. Building Height:
a) 45 ft. Max. for Single Use Projects;
b) 50 ft. Max. for Vertical Mixed Use
Projects;
c) Up to 60 ft. for Projects in specially
designated Gateway locations
4. Building Setback: 10 ft. along property lines
5. Building Stepback: 15 ft. for buildings
higher than 50 ft.
6. Open Space Requirements: 200 sq. ft per
dwelling unit
7. Parking Regulations
Parking Locations: Any, except fronting the
street or buildings
Residential Parking: 1 space per unit
Non-residential Parking: Min. 2 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. of commercial space
Bicycle parking per CVMC 15.12 (Green
Building Standards), as may be amended
from time to time.
35
Mixed Use Corridor – MU-2
Location
The Mixed Use Corridor includes
the properties generally along
Palomar Street and extends from
I-5 to a point mid-block between
Industrial Boulevard and
Broadway (Figure 4). The
corridor also includes properties
located on the west side of
Walnut Street and Frontage
Road; due to their location along
and highly visible from I-5, these
properties are more suitable to
be developed with commercial
uses (retail/office).
Purpose
The purpose of the Mixed Use Corridor is to encourage the development of the residential and
commercial (retail or office) elements, and the mixture of both, to create, in conjunction with the
Palomar Transit Plaza, the Transit-Oriented, Multi-Use District envisioned by the City’s General
Plan. The Sub-district regulations will afford the flexibility to allow the development of residential
and commercial projects in the combinations as the determined by market conditions.
While the market and property ownership decisions ultimately drive development and
redevelopment of individual parcels in this subdistrict, consideration should be given to develop
the vacant parcel south of Palomar Street, formerly known as the “Pumpkin Patch” site, with
educational office uses such as an educational annex of a local college or university, or other
private educational facilities, as allowed pursuant to the land use matrix (Section 3.3.2).
Architectural Emphasis at Gateways – The Specific Plan identifies two gateways (See Figure 3)
to the Palomar Gateway District, which are
located at the intersections of Palomar and
Walnut Street/Frontage Road and at
Palomar and Industrial Boulevard. These
locations may qualify for increased height of
up to 15 feet in order to achieve enhanced
architectural statements and iconic design.
The additional height may be permitted as a
development exception to the height
regulations identified in section 3 of the
development regulations below.
Development Regulations
1. Permitted Land Uses:
• Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use
(vertical or horizontal)
• Commercial Retail
• Commercial Office
Figure 4
36
2. Floor Area Ratio: 1.5
3. Building Height:
a) 45 ft. Max. for Single Use Projects;
b) 50 ft. Max. for Vertical Mixed Use
Projects;
c) Up to 60 ft. for Projects in specially
designated Gateway locations
4. Building Setback: 10 ft. along property
lines
5. Building Stepback: 15 ft. for buildings
higher than 50 ft.
6. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min.
7. Open Space Requirements: 200 sq. ft.
per dwelling unit
8. Parking Regulations
Parking Locations: Any, except fronting on the street or in front of building
Residential Parking: As required per CVMC 19.62, as may be amended from time to time.
a) 1.5 spaces per unit for studios and one bedroom units
b) 2 spaces per unit for units with two or more bedrooms
Non-residential Parking: Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bicycle parking per CVMC 15.12 (Green Building
Standards), as may be amended from time to time.
37
Palomar Residential Village – PRV
Location
The Residential Village Sub-district occupies all
of the properties bounded by Ada Street (north
and south side), Industrial Boulevard, Frontage
Road, and Anita Street (Figure 5), except the
properties located at the northwest corner of
Industrial Boulevard and Anita street which are
designated as commercial. The Residential
Village Sub-district is currently developed with
residential uses only, and is intended to
continue to be developed with residential uses
only at a higher density consistent with the
General Plan.
Purpose
The purpose of the Residential Village Sub-
district is to enhance the residential
characteristics of the Palomar Gateway District
and allow the intensification of the area in order
to provide additional housing opportunities, support regional transit and support the commercial
uses in the vicinity. The district regulations are designed to promote and encourage an
intensively developed residential environment, with appropriate environmental amenities such
as open areas, landscaping and off-street parking.
Zoning for the Residential Village is pursuant to CVMC 19.28 R-3; Apartment Residential Zone,
as may be amended from time to time. This Multi-family zone implements the Residential-High
(RH) designation of the General Plan. The following is a brief general summary of the R-3 zone
which includes provisions for permitted and conditional uses, and development standards for
height, lot width, setbacks; landscaping, parking, trash storage, and wall requirements. Please
see CVMC 19.28 for detailed zoning provisions, as may be amended from time to time.
Development Regulations
1. Permitted Land Uses:
• Apartment Complexes
• Townhome Complexes
• Garden Apartment Complexes
2. Building Height: 45 ft. maximum
3. Building Setback: Front and Rear 15 ft.;
Side yard 10 ft. (with both interior); Corner
lots 10 ft exterior yard and 5 ft interior yard
4. Open Space Requirements: 400 sq. ft. min.
per dwelling unit
Figure 5
38
5. Parking Regulations
Parking Locations: Any, except fronting on
the street or building front
Residential Parking: As required per
CVMC 19.62, as may be amended from
time to time.
• 1.5 spaces per unit for studios and
one bedroom units
• 2 spaces per unit for units with two
or more bedrooms
39
Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster – PNRC
Location
The Neighborhood Retail Cluster includes the
properties located along the west side of Industrial
Boulevard between a point north of Belvia Lane and
Anita Street (Figure 6). These properties comprise
an area of about 1.5 acres of land.
Purpose
The purpose of this Sub-district is to provide a
commercial retail center for convenience shopping
for the residential neighborhood. Zoning for the
Neighborhood Retail Cluster is pursuant to CVMC
19.34 Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zone, as may
be amended from time to time. The CN zone
implements the Commercial Retail (CR) designation
of the General Plan. It is the intent of the regulations
to ensure that the character of the Neighborhood
Retail Cluster will be compatible with and will
complement the surrounding residential area.
The following is a brief general summary of the CN
zone which includes provisions for permitted and
conditional uses, and development standards for
height, lot width, setbacks; landscaping, parking,
trash storage, and wall requirements. Please see
CVMC 19.34, as may be amended from time to time,
for detailed zoning provisions.
Development Regulations
1. Permitted Land Uses:
• Commercial retail
• Commercial office
2. Building Height: 35 ft. maximum
3. Building Setback: 15 ft.
4. Parking Regulations
Parking Locations: Any, except fronting on street
and in front of building.
• Retail: Generally, 1 space per 200 sq. ft.
• Office: Generally, 1 space 300 sq. ft.
For other specific uses, see CVMC 19.62.050, as
Figure 6
40
may be amended from time to time.
Bicycle parking per CVMC 15.12 (Green Building Standards), as may be amended from time to
time.
41
3.4 Other Land Use Regulations
3.4.1 Large-Scale Commercial
Parking lots shall not dominate street frontages. Large-scale commercial development, in
excess of 50,000 square feet, shall be lined with pedestrian-scale/pedestrian-oriented retail
frontages along Palomar Street or Industrial Boulevard. “Liner” buildings shall comply with
setback and build-to regulations, in accordance with the applicable zoning for the subdistrict.
Liner buildings shall have a minimum depth of 30 feet.
Any portion of the building fronting onto a transit station, a transit street or a major pedestrian
access way (pass-through, sidewalks, plazas, etc.) shall follow building design guidelines as set
out in the City’s Design Manual and Chapter 4 of this Specific Plan.
3.4.2 Street and Sidewalk Regulations
Minimum Widths
Sidewalks within the Specific Plan shall
have a minimum of 8 feet width with a
minimum of 4 feet of unobstructed
width clear of any obstruction (light
poles, parking meters, other street
furniture, landscaping or fences) for
circulation, with the exception of local
residential streets where the width may
be reduced to 6 feet.
Private Use of Sidewalks
Exterior storage on sidewalks is prohibited. Outdoor seating
for eating and drinking establishments and pedestrian-oriented
accessory uses (e.g. sales/display for flowers, small shops,
food, or drink stands) are exempt from this requirement
subject to obtaining an encroachment permit where within the
public right-of-way. Outdoor service of alcoholic beverages
shall be clearly demarcated from public spaces. In all cases, a
minimum 5-foot unobstructed pedestrian circulation path shall
be maintained along the sidewalk.
3.4.3 Sign Regulations
New signage within the Specific Plan shall conform to the
standards stated herein and CVMC 19.60, as may be
amended from time to time, except for signs painted or directly
mounted to the building surface.
Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building surface shall
comply with the following:
1. Sign area: One (1) square foot (maximum) signage per lineal foot of building frontage not to
exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet for each business.
42
2. Sign copy size: Sign copy shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in height for building fronts
thirty (30) feet in height or less; and eighteen (18) inches in height for building fronts thirty
(30) feet to sixty (60) feet in height.
3. Sign placement: No closer than one-half (1/2) the vertical height of the letters (sign copy)
employed to a building corner (vertical edge) or to a roofline.
4. Signage shall not reduce unobstructed sidewalk width to less than 8 feet. Opaque signage
shall not reduce visual permeability of street fronting windows.
3.4.4 Parking and Loading Regulations
Automobile Parking Requirements per Floor Area or Unit Size and Land Use Type
New development within the MU-2, PRV, and PNRC subdistricts shall be subject to compliance
with CVMC 19.62.050, as may be amended from time to time. Parking reductions may be
considered on a case by case basis for residential projects within ¼ mile of the Palomar Transit
station. Projects requesting a parking reduction must demonstrate clear path of travel for
residents to the transit station. For mixed use projects, a reduction in parking may be permitted
through a shared parking agreement pursuant to CVMC 19.62.40, as may be amended from
time to time.
New development in the MU-1 subdistrict shall be as noted on the zoning sheet. The maximum
number of spaces allowed shall not exceed 125 percent of the city requirement.
Tandem Parking
Tandem or stacked parking is only permitted to satisfy parking requirements for residential uses
when the tandem spaces serve the same unit.
Bicycle Parking
Convenient bicycle facilities should also be provided within
the Specific Plan. Bicycle parking shall be provided pursuant
to CVMC 15.12, as may be amended from time to time.
Off-Street Parking Location for Non-Residential and Multi-
family Development
Off-street parking location for new development within the
Specific Plan shall conform to the following requirements:
1. Off-street parking shall be located to the rear and/or
interior of a lot such that its visibility from a street shall be
minimized. At-grade, above-, or below-ground parking
structures shall be permitted.
2. Surface parking lots shall be placed between the structure and a side or rear lot line. Where
a lot fronts onto two or more streets, parking shall be located as follows:
along the street with the least amount of commercial activity
43
along the street with the least amount of pedestrian activity if the lot is located along two
or more commercial streets with equal amounts of commercial activity
3. A maximum 6-foot high wall or fence shall separate parking lots from abutting residential
uses with a minimum 5-foot landscaped buffer.
4. At least fifty (50) percent of all parking structures’ street frontage, excluding entrances and
exits which abut a transit station, a transit street, or a major pedestrian accessway, shall
have non-parking use at ground level and shall comply with building frontage, facade, and
building entry design requirements. Wherever possible, the narrow side of the parking
structure shall abut the transit station, transit street, or major pedestrian accessway.
3.4.5 Vehicular Access
Vehicle access from pedestrian-oriented streets shall be prohibited unless no other reasonable
access is available. Where improved alleys are present, loading and service areas shall be
accessed from the alley. Lots with more than one street frontage and no alley shall locate
vehicular access along the street with the least amount of pedestrian activity unless it is a local
street. All loading and service drives shall be of a depth that prevents loading and service
vehicles from obstructing the sidewalk and roadway.
Entrances to loading and service areas shall be screened from view in accordance with CVMC
19.62.080, as may be amended from time to time.
3.4.6 Loading, Service, and Refuse Area Screening
Loading, service, and refuse areas shall not be
located along street frontages. They shall be
screened from view with walls, trellises,
planting, mounds or by integrating them into
the design of the building. Screen walls shall
not exceed 6 feet in height. Solid walls shall be
landscaped to soften their appearance and
shall be made of finished materials to match
the primary building. Decorative elements,
variation in materials, and articulation shall be
used. Refuse areas shall be designed
consistent with the City’s Recycling and Solid
Waste Planning Manual.
Loading areas shall be physically separated
from public parking via curbs, bollards, low or
high walls, raised planters, landscaping,
distance, and/or elevation changes. When using walls to separate loading areas from
pedestrian areas, landscape elements (e.g. planting, trellises, arbors, etc.) shall be used to
soften their appearance.
44
4. Design Guidelines
4.1 Purpose
The purpose of this section is to present design guidelines for new development and the
rehabilitation of older structures in the Palomar Gateway District, as well as for the improvement
of the streetscape. The Palomar Gateway District has excellent transportation access and
vacant and underutilized properties, but physical barriers and the need for better traffic flow
along Palomar Street make establishing a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood center with high-
traffic retail uses a bit of a challenge. The guidelines will encourage a district that is
economically stronger, more recognizable, and rich in sense of place and identity.
The Specific Plan envisions locating the majority
of mixed-use projects, which would include
residences, offices, and local-serving retail
business, along Palomar Street in the Palomar
Transit Plaza and Palomar Mixed Use Corridor
Subdistricts. There are two basic types of mixed-
use projects. The first type is vertical mixed use,
which is typified by residential use over
commercial uses in the same building. The
second, called horizontal mixed use, combines
residential and commercial uses on the same
site, but in separate buildings. The primary
design issue related to mixed use projects is the
need to successfully balance the requirements
of residential uses, such as the need for privacy
and security, with the needs of commercial uses
for access, visibility, parking, loading, and
possibly extended hours of operation.
The City’s Design Manual provides design
guidelines for mixed use and single use projects
that may be developed in the Palomar Gateway District. The Design Manual includes guidance
on the following elements of project design:
Neighborhood Context
Compatibility
Access/Linkage
Public Views
Site Design/Siting &
Orientation
Orientation to the Street
Setbacks
Site Access
Vehicle Access
Pedestrian & Bicycle
Access
Links to Transit
Building Mass
Corner Sites
Plazas and Open Space
Commercial Open Space
Residential Open Space
Outdoor Seating
Walls and Fences
Refuse, Storage, and
Equipment Area
Loading and Delivery
Outdoor Storage
Building Design
Building Rhythm
Multiple-Tenant Spaces
Mass and Proportion
Building Entries
Building Facades
Residential Facades
Windows
Colors & Materials
Lighting
Parking
Surface Parking
Parking Garages
Shared Parking
Conservation
Energy Conservation and
Landscaping
Environmental Influences
Landscape Design
Heat Island Effect
Resource Conservation
Adaptive Reuse
Water Conservation
45
Urban designers, architects, and reviewers of projects should refer to the City’s Design Manual
in particular the Mixed Use; Commercial; Multi-Family Residential; and Conservation Guidelines
for general design guidance.
The following are specific design guidelines that need to be considered for gateway corners,
major arterials, and residential neighborhoods:
4.2 Northwest Corner of Palomar and Industrial
a. Primary vehicular access should be from Industrial Boulevard.
b. Projects should provide a strong connection with the transit center for office workers and
residents.
c. As a main entry point into the Palomar
Gateway District, buildings lining Palomar
Street should maintain strong architectural
design standards, use high-quality building
materials, and emphasize corner building
design elements.
d. Buildings that front Palomar Street and/or
Industrial Boulevard should orient windows
and their business to these streets.
Residential entrances should be setback with
stoops and porches, yet maintain “eyes on the street”.
e. Urban design amenities should strive to activate the streetscape with outdoor dining areas
and plazas or other open spaces.
f. Buildings at the corner of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard may be considered for
additional height up to a maximum of 60 feet to provide strong architectural elements at this
gateway corner.
4.3 Northeast Corner of Palomar and Industrial
a. Primary vehicular access should be from Palomar Street or Oxford Street.
b. Projects should provide a strong connection with the transit center and Harborside Park.
c. Buildings should orient windows and their
businesses to Palomar Street. Residential
entrances should be set back with stoops and
porches, yet maintain “eyes on the street”.
d. New development should take advantage of the
larger lot sizes in this area of the subdistrict,
and should incorporate active plazas or other
open space elements to be enjoyed by both
customers and employees of commercial uses
and new residents.
46
e. As a main entry point into the Palomar Gateway District, buildings lining Palomar Street
should maintain strong architectural design standards, use high-quality building materials,
and emphasize corner building design elements.
f. Buildings at the corner of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard may be considered for
additional height up to a maximum of 60 feet to provide strong architectural elements at this
gateway corner.
4.4 Southeast Corner of Palomar and Industrial
a. As a main entry point into the Palomar Gateway
District and the center of transit, emphasize
iconic corner building design elements. Buildings
lining Palomar Street should maintain strong
architectural design standards and use high-
quality building materials.
b. A public plaza or piazza should be designed as a
focal point and gathering place for redevelopment
in this subdistrict.
c. Projects should provide a strong connection with the transit center, new commercial uses,
and public spaces and parks.
d. Buildings should orient windows and their
business to Palomar Street. Residential
entrances should be setback with stoops and
porches, yet maintain “eyes on the street”.
e. Primary vehicular access should be from Palomar
Street only.
f. Buildings at the corner of Palomar Street and
Industrial Boulevard may be considered for
additional height up to a maximum of 60 feet to
provide strong architectural elements at this
gateway corner.
4.5 Southwest Corner of Palomar and Industrial
a. Primary vehicular access should be from
Industrial Boulevard (right-in/right out circulation
only).
b. If feasible, projects should incorporate a paseo
connecting Palomar Street to the residential
neighborhood to the south, preferably at an
approximate midway point. Site design should
also allow for connections with existing streets.
c. Principal access roads into new development areas should harmonize with the scale and
47
pedestrian amenities of streets in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
d. As a main entry point into the Palomar Gateway District, buildings lining Palomar Street
should maintain strong architectural design standards, use high-quality building materials,
and emphasize corner building design elements.
e. Retail building(s) should orient storefronts and entrances to Palomar Street and Industrial
Boulevard. Any residential uses along Palomar Street should set back entrances with stoops
and porches, yet maintain “eyes on the
street”.
f. Plazas, outdoor dining, kiosks, benches,
and other street furniture are encouraged,
particularly near the transit center, to
enhance street activity and interest.
g. Buildings at the corner of Palomar Street
and Industrial Boulevard may be
considered for additional height up to a
maximum of 60 feet to provide strong
architectural elements at this gateway
corner.
4.6 Southwest and Southeast Corner of Palomar and Frontage
a. Primary vehicular access should be from Frontage Road.
b. Site design should also allow for vehicular and pedestrian connections with existing streets.
c. Principal access roads into new development areas off Frontage Road should harmonize
with the scale and pedestrian amenities of streets in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
d. As a main entry point into the Palomar Gateway District, buildings lining Palomar Street
should maintain strong architectural design standards, use high-quality building materials,
and emphasize corner building design elements.
e. Retail building(s) should orient storefronts and
entrances to Palomar Street and Frontage
Road. Any residential uses along Palomar
Street should set back entrances with stoops
and porches, yet maintain “eyes on the street”.
f. Buildings at the corner of Palomar Street and
Frontage Road may be considered for
additional height up to a maximum of 60 feet to
provide strong architectural elements at these
gateway corners.
4.7 Northwest and Northeast Corner of Palomar and Walnut Avenue
a. Primary vehicular access should be from Walnut Avenue.
48
b. Site design should allow for connections
with existing streets, and where possible
improve the street layout to provide a
better circulation between Walnut and
Trenton Avenue.
c. Principal access roads into new
development areas off Walnut Avenue
should harmonize with the scale and
pedestrian amenities of streets in
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
d. As a main entry point into the Palomar
Gateway District, buildings lining Palomar Street should maintain strong architectural design
standards, use high-quality building materials, and emphasize corner building design
elements.
e. Retail building(s) should orient storefronts and entrances to Palomar Street and Walnut
Avenue. Any residential uses along Palomar Street should set back entrances with stoops
and porches to maintain “eyes on the street”.
f. Buildings at the corner of Palomar Street and Walnut Avenue may be considered for
additional height up to a maximum of 60 feet to provide strong architectural elements at
these gateway corners.
4.8 Palomar Residential Village
a. New multi-family residential uses should provide a strong
connection to the Palomar Transit Plaza and other
commercial uses along Palomar Street.
b. Principal access roads into new development areas off
Ada Street, Dorothy Street and Anita Street should
harmonize with the scale and pedestrian amenities of
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
c. Orient new residential uses to the street with landscaped
set backs. Entrances should incorporate stoops and
porches, to maintain “eyes on the street”.
d. Place parking in the rear.
e. New development should use strong architectural design standards and high-quality building
materials, and provide varied interest in building design
elements.
f. Site design for new development between Ada and
Dorothy Streets adjacent to the existing drainage should
preserve and enhance the drainage area as a passive
open space element, to the extent feasible.
g. Where new multi-story development is adjacent to existing
49
single family residential uses, consideration should be given to maintain privacy through the
use of design measure such as stepbacks, landscaping and window orientation.
4.9 Northwest Corner of Anita Street and Industrial Boulevard
a. Neighborhood-serving uses are strongly
encouraged.
b. Primary businesses should be oriented to corner
of Industrial Boulevard and Anita Street.
c. Neighborhood transition elements, such as
landscaping, wall treatments, setbacks and
shielded lighting should be incorporated into
project design to minimize spillover onto the
adjacent residential village.
4.10 Site Design Considerations Adjacent to Interstate 5
The smart growth principles of the Specific Plan have focused a majority of potential new
housing and mixed-use areas within a ¼ mile of the Palomar trolley station. While this location
provides significant benefits by reducing long commute trips to other residential areas of the
City, it also results in housing adjacent to Interstate 5, a heavily traveled freeway. Significant
mobile source emission reductions mandated by the federal and state government are expected
to occur over the next 5 to 15 years. However, due to the concern over health impacts to
residents from highly traveled roads, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued the Air
Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) which provides guidance to land use decision-making
bodies relative to siting new uses near various air pollution sources, such as freeways.
The Handbook recommends a 500 foot separation between freeways and “sensitive receptors”
such as homes and schools. This recommendation is based on scientific studies, which found
that the highest emissions were in the area within approximately 350 feet of a freeway and that
the emissions had dispersed to background level by about 1000 feet. However, the Handbook
also acknowledges that land use authorities need to balance this recommendation with a myriad
of other issues such as provision of housing, transportation needs, economic development
priorities, and other quality of life issues.
The following site design measures must be considered in conjunction with the advisory
recommendations in the Handbook and implemented where possible.
• Siting of new or expansion of existing schools or day care centers within 500 feet is not
allowed in accordance with existing State law.
• Siting of new residential uses within 350 feet of the centerline of the freeway should be
avoided to the extent possible.
• In mixed-use areas, where possible “non-sensitive uses” (e.g., commercial, retail, and
office) should be sited closest to Interstate 5. Residential uses should be located on the
upper stories and tiered back from Interstate 5 and should preferably be outside the area
within 350 feet of the centerline of the freeway.
50
• For proposed residential uses in the area between 350 feet and 500 feet from the
centerline of the freeway, every effort should be made to consolidate parcels to create
more flexibility in site design with a goal of minimizing residential uses within this area.
• In the event that such design cannot be achieved or parcel size does not allow flexibility
in site design (e.g. biophilic design), mechanical and structural measures, such as air
conditioning with special filters, etc., should be incorporated into building design and
construction techniques.
4.11 Streetscape Improvements
The Design Guidelines for Streetscape Improvement for the Palomar Gateway District focus on
improvements to public rights-of-way, sidewalks, public open space, and key intersections. The
intent of the following Guidelines is to provide guidance in creating a unified and visually
attractive environment that supports the specific plan goals for beautification of the Palomar
Gateway District. As the District adds new residents and businesses, the provision of amenities
is needed to achieve the vision for a well-balanced urban environment. Improving the
Streetscape with “urban amenities” is designed to create a sense of place, encouraging people
to gather and stay awhile. The condition of the Streetscape is important for creating the desired
image and identity of the District and to provide a unified backdrop for the design of various
building styles and types. Streetscape improvements serve to improve an area’s visual quality
and act as an investment catalyst, encouraging private property upgrades and new
development. The improvements will be implemented over the term of the Specific Plan and
may occur as comprehensive street improvements or may be improved in phases as part of
private redevelopment. Where no immediate private development is likely to occur, the city may
undertake improvements and seek reimbursement from future development.
4.11.1 Urban Design Treatment
The urban design treatment applied within the Palomar Gateway District area is an important
factor in reinforcing the desired future urban environment as expressed in the plan’s vision. The
urban design treatment is intended to strengthen the District’s role as the southern entrance into
the City. The District’s Streetscape conceptual design represents the international, culturally
diverse composition of the area and the significance of the District as an entry point into the
City.
4.11.2 Streetscape Palette
The goal of the streetscape palette is to provide a distinct, “international” image for the Palomar
Gateway District. The Streetscape Palette identifies and coordinates streetscape design
elements such as street trees, street furniture, and lighting. Proposed improvements are
shown in the exhibits presented in the following pages of this section of the Specific Plan.
The following photos in this section provide an outline of proposed streetscape improvements
that have either been implemented as part of the Palomar Gateway Enhancement Project
completed in 2009, or are recommended to further enhance the surrounding streetscape.
Existing and proposed improvements along Palomar Street include the following: A Gateway
signage at the southeast corner of Palomar and Frontage Road would provide an
identification/gateway monument for the district, six-foot bikeways, pedestrian lighting,
parkways between the sidewalk and travel lanes, and landscaped medians ranging from six to
fourteen feet in width . .
51
Existing and proposed improvements for
Industrial Boulevard include landscaped median,
sidewalk, parkway, and bike lane improvements.
Other elements include: a new drop-off lane for
transit riders; bike locker storage, landscaping,
and lighting at the transit station; pedestrian-
friendly plazas at the southwest and southeast
corners of Palomar and Industrial; and a
roundabout at the intersection of Industrial and
Ada Street, with another roundabout proposed to
be built along Industrial Boulevard at a future
intersection with Oxford Street. The roundabouts
are intended to calm traffic and increase safety
for vehicles and pedestrians.
52
4.11.3 Street Trees
Street trees are a key element to create unified street scenes and soften otherwise discordant
arterials. Street trees help improve air quality and add scale, texture, foliage color and a
pleasant environment contributing to the Palomar Gateway District’s unique identity. Following
are general guidelines for street tree planting and placement:
• For each block on a street, no more than three species are
recommended. Mixed species result in better long-term
management because they are less prone to diseases and insects
than use of a single species; not all the trees will be lost if a
catastrophic disease or infestation should occur. Contrarily, too
many species create a lack of visual unity along the street.
• Landscaped medians and parkways along Palomar Street consist of
flowering trees, such as, Crape Myrtle Hybrid (Lagerstroemia
‘Tuscarora’), Palms such as, Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta),
and Italian Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens). Landscaped medians
and parkways along Industrial Boulevard consist of flowering trees, such
as, Crape Myrtle Hybrid (Lagerstroemia ‘Tuscarora’) and Jacaranda
(Jacaranda mimosifolia), and evergreen trees, such as, Brisbane Box
(Tristania conferta). The roundabouts have flowering trees, such as, Tipu
Tree (Tipuana tipu). This tree palette would be consistent with the
existing street theme established through the improvements provided by
the SANDAG Grant.
• Wherever feasible, structural soil systems in planting areas and under
pavement should be used to direct new root growth downward below
hardscape areas. This helps to postpone root damage caused to the
surrounding hardscape and structures. Where use of structural soil is not
possible, root barriers should be used as appropriate.
• Tree grates with a minimum width of six feet are required within sidewalks and
plaza spaces as the grates allow for improved accessibility, increased sidewalk
usability area, and are consistent with the desired urban character. The
ultimate size of the tree trunk should be considered when choosing grates; the
grate opening should be appropriately sized to accommodate a mature tree.
• Street tree placement should be carefully considered to avoid conflicts with functions of
adjacent businesses. Based on mature growth of each species, avoid conflicting with
overhead power lines, utility lines, and structures. The trees should align with property
lines and not block views of storefronts business or signs to the greatest extent possible.
Street trees should be spaced approximately 30 feet to 50 feet on center depending on
the specific requirements of each individual species.
• Landscape Improvements should comply with the City Landscape Manual and the Water
Conservation Ordinance.
53
4.11.4 Sidewalks Design
Sidewalks are the key component of the Palomar Gateway District’s pedestrian circulation
network. Sidewalks should be continuous to provide pedestrian access to virtually every activity,
and provide critical connections between other modes of travel, including the automobile, public
transit, and bicycles. The pedestrian experience plays a very important part in the functionality
and the economic health of an urban environment. Wide sidewalks, street trees and
landscaping, and consistent street furnishings all contribute to a desirable pedestrian street
scene. Following are general guidelines for sidewalk and pedestrian treatments:
• Design features, such as, enhanced paving on walkways, trellises or other decorative
structures, landscaping, and low level decorative lighting should be used to distinguish
the pedestrian route from the vehicular route.
• On-street parallel or diagonal parking, raised planters, and landscaped parkways should
be used to define the sidewalk edge and provide a buffer between pedestrians and
moving vehicles.
• Newspaper racks should be clustered in groups of dispensers to minimize a cluttered
sidewalk appearance. Permanent decorative newspaper enclosures to house these
racks will also help minimize a cluttered appearance.
• Sidewalks should have a “through pedestrian
zone” that is kept clear of any fixtures and/or
obstructions. A minimum of four feet, although
preferably eight feet, should be reserved to
allow for two people to walk comfortably side
by side in accordance with the American
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
• Sidewalk surface should be stable, firm,
smooth, and slip-resistant.
• Planting areas, bike racks, street lighting,
transit furnishings, newspaper racks, and other
street furniture should be contained in the
furnishings zone located between the sidewalks and street to keep the “through
pedestrian zone” free for walking.
• Where appropriate, seating and outdoor dining opportunities can be accommodated in
street setback areas in the area between the through pedestrian zone and the face of
adjacent retail buildings, i.e. browsing zone.
4.11.5 Lighting Design
Good quality and placement of lighting can enhance an environment, as well as
increase comfort and safety. Lighting within the Palomar Gateway District shall
be an integral part of the planning and design of a project and shall be designed
as part of an overall lighting plan rather than a single stand-alone element. The
following guidelines shall be followed when designing a lighting plan:
54
• Lighting shall be designed to satisfy both functional and decorative
needs.
• Lighting shall be designed for specific tasks, such as illuminate common
areas, streets, paths, entryways, landscaping, parking, public art and
architectural elements.
• Fixtures and posts shall be consistent throughout the project
• Lighting shall be mounted on architecturally
designed posts, as shown in this illustration as
examples of fixtures currently existing on
Palomar Street and Industrial Blvd.
• Fixtures shall incorporate cutoffs to screen the
view of light sources from residences.
• In commercial areas with nighttime pedestrian
activity, streetlights and pedestrian-level lights
should be combined to enhance the ambiance of the area as well as provide safety for
pedestrians.
• Continuous streetlights should be spaced to provide a relatively uniform level of lighting,
and should be placed along both sides of the street.
4.11.6 Public Art
Display of public art is an important way of expressing the personality and character of a
community. An arts program to engage local artists in representing various aspects of the City
greatly personalizes community. The public arts program should provide various methods to
incorporate art either as stand alone individual pieces or incorporated into the design of other
urban improvements, such as, gateways and entry monuments, paving, benches, and street
lights. Incorporation of public art is an intriguing way to enhance the pedestrian environment of
sidewalks, plazas, paseos, or other pedestrian spaces.
Public art, such as the examples listed below, can be incorporated in a variety of locations/
• Interpretive sculptures and functional art.
• Interactive media, such as, video projections or climbing structures.
• Way-finding feature to attract pedestrians to key locations like a plaza or paseo or
developed as murals representing the areas unique history and culture.
• Decorative tiles integrated into paving, on benches, walls, stairs, and entries.
• Seating areas and signs are also opportunities for public art.
• Fountains or water elements, including randomly timed water features.
55
4.12 Parks, Plazas, and Open Spaces
Perhaps one of the most important improvements that can be made to the Palomar Gateway
District is the addition of urban “green” spaces in the form of parks, plazas, paseos and informal
pedestrian spaces. As the District adds new residents and businesses, opportunity for
convenient urban recreation in various forms must be provided. These public gathering spaces
should serve to establish a sense of place and identity and provide space for outdoor dining,
events, and street side entertainment. Figure 7 shows potential locations that may be improved
with Parks, Plazas, and Open Spaces. These potential features are briefly described below.
4.12.1 Neighborhood Park and Urban Park
The 4.5-acre site located within the SDG&E Right-O-Way south of the Palomar Trolley Station
provide an opportunity for the construction of a Neighborhood Park similar to the future park
next to the South Chula Vista Library. The park at this location would serve to fulfill the General
Plan vision for a park in the vicinity of the Palomar Gateway District. The potential park may
contain elements that provide passive and active recreation areas for relaxation, picnics, field
space, and areas for family gatherings with ample low trees and landscaping. The design of a
neighborhood park at this location would be subject to the criteria for such parks as established
in the updated Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
Another site that is suitable for an Urban Park is the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) site
located between Palomar Street and Oxford Street, just east of the railroad tracks. This 1.3-
acre site currently serves as a drainage detention basin for the Family Resource Center Facility
on Oxford Street. The east side of the site contains a sidewalk and a private driveway that
provides access between Palomar Street and Oxford Street for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
The MTS site could be improved as an urban open space that incorporates features of an urban
park to serve the users of the surrounding commercial and institutional uses, as well as, the
nearby residential community, while continuing
to provide access for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic. Design of this open space would be
based on the guidelines for urban parks
contained in the Parks & Recreation Master
Plan.
4.12.2 Plazas
The Palomar Gateway District provides
opportunities to provide plazas within private
properties. Plazas of a variety of sizes should
be incorporated to accommodate different types
of activities. These public gathering spaces
should serve to establish a sense of place and
identity and provide space for outdoor dining,
events, and street side entertainment. Some of
the sites that offer opportunities for plazas are
the Palomar Trolley Station and the site formerly
known as the “Pumpkin Patch”, as well as, the
large private parcels located between Palomar
Street and Oxford Street, east of Industrial
Boulevard. Figure 7
56
Plazas within these properties should be developed at the time of and in conjunction with a
private development project for said sites. Plaza spaces should be designed with flexibility for
physical use and be designed to accommodate a range of desired activities, such as, outdoor
seating, entertainment (bandstands), and festivals. These spaces should contribute to real and
perceived public safety. The plaza spaces should be a minimum of 5,000 square feet in size
and may be as large as one acre in size. Plaza space within these sites should be designed
with the following features in mind: Appropriate lighting, building edges, trees comfort of space
for users, open access for pedestrians, pedestrian amenities, art features, landscaping,
hardscaping, and other architectural features.
4.12.3. Private Greenway
One of the visually outstanding physical features of the Palomar Gateway District is an existing
drainage, that runs east-west from Industrial Boulevard to Frontage Road along the rear of
private properties located south of Ada Street and north of Dorothy Street. The drainage
extends for approximately 1,430 linear feet, and has a width that ranges from approximately 30
feet to 100 feet at different points through its longitude. The drainage represents a potentially
valuable “greenway” that should be preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of the
contiguous property owners. As properties located along the drainage propose to redevelop,
the development of each of the sites will be required to consider the following elements:
• A biological study must be conducted to determine the extent and type of biological
resources in that part of the property;
• Projects will be required to incorporate recommendations for preservation and/or
enhancement of any identified significant biological resources; and
• Portions of the drainage that are not considered sensitive shall be enhanced and
maintained. Both of these areas may be considered as part of the development project’s
open space requirement.
57
5 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the infrastructure and public facilities applicable to the
Specific Plan, including water supply, sewer, drainage, solid waste disposal, law enforcement
and emergency services, schools, parks and recreation facilities, energy and
telecommunications, and other public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and street
furnishings. As part of its overall facilities planning and maintenance activities, the infrastructure
related to the Specific Plan area has been studied during the City’s General Plan effort. Since
the Specific Plan implements the General Plan, these studies provide the basis of utilities and
services needed for the Palomar Gateway District. Information from these studies and the
corresponding city-wide implementation strategies are relied upon in large part for this chapter
and have been brought forward into the Specific Plan for reference.
The Public Facilities and Services Element of the City’s General Plan establishes a
comprehensive strategy to provide and maintain infrastructure and public services for future
growth without diminishing services to existing development. Public facilities collectively refer to
utilities such as water, sewer, drainage, power and telecommunications services. Public
services collectively refer to schools, library, law enforcement and fire protection. The City of
Chula Vista includes public facilities and services in the General Plan that support and enrich
the community including parks and recreation centers, art and cultural facilities and programs,
childcare opportunities and health and human services. This chapter of the Specific Plan
focuses on the General Plan proposals and criteria that have particular relevance to the
Palomar Gateway District.
5.2 Growth Forecasts
Based on the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, the City’s population is projected to reach
approximately 300,000 by the year 2030. Based on the 2010 Census, the current population for
Chula Vista is 243,916 people. The General Plan (2005) includes intensification of retail, office
and residential uses with relatively lower emphasis on industrial uses in western Chula Vista, as
compared to the previous version. The General Plan also proposes the replacement of a
significant amount of existing lower density commercial and residential development in western
Chula Vista with mixed use and higher density residential types.
Within the Specific Plan area, the implementation of the General Plan will result in a net
increase of approximately 2,000 dwelling units, an increase of approximately 100,00 square feet
of additional commercial retail development, and an increase of commercial office development
of 25,000 square feet. The net increase in dwelling units would result in a population increase
for the plan area of 6,420 (using a factor of 3.21 persons per household based on the 2010
Census information). This assessment is based on the land use designations and densities
established in the 2005 General Plan Update. However, a recent market study of the area
determined that the Palomar Gateway District may capture between 650 to 1,300 dwelling units
within the next 20 years (see Market Study for the Palomar Gateway District attached as
Appendix C). Based on the Market Study, the net increase in the maximum number of dwelling
units would result in a population increase of approximately 3,354 people (using a factor of 2.58
persons per household based on the General Plan’s Multi-Family residential land uses
permitted by the Specific Plan).
The foregoing calculation of population relies largely on historic family size information. The
changing form of western Chula Vista may alter these forecasts significantly. The population
58
projection will be affected by any change in national and regional demographics brought about
by rates of immigration, aging in the population and alterations in birth rates. Moreover, the kind
and intensity of development proposed for the focus areas of the Specific Plan and the pace of
development within the Specific Plan area may result in changes to the historically observed
family size and makeup.
Historically, smaller attached dwellings in multi-family developments have had lower family sizes
than single family housing. Recent infill and urban neighborhood developments in the San
Diego region reflect even lower household populations and fewer minors per dwelling, with
many developments predominantly occupied by childless couples of all ages. Calculating and
tracking trends in the occupancy of the planned multi-family dwellings of the Palomar Gateway
District will be critically important to correctly plan and program for facilities such as parks and
schools.
5.3 Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste
5.3.1 Water Demand and Supply
Chula Vista has historically received the majority of its water supply from the San Diego County
Water Authority (CWA). The CWA generally imports from 75 to 95 percent of this water from the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California. The Sweetwater Authority provides
water service to western Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area.
As part of the preparation of the PGD Specific Plan, the City of Chula Vista requested, pursuant
to SB 610, that the Sweetwater Authority prepare a Water Supply Assessment to determine
whether Sweetwater’s total projected water supplies, available during normal, single dry, and
multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, would meet the projected water demand
associated with the PGDSP’s new growth for the next 20 years. The city also requested the
Authority to confirm if the existing water delivery facilities are adequate to serve the future water
needs of the area and the required fire flow of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Sweetwater
Authority prepared and submitted a Water Assessment for the Palomar Gateway District
Specific Plan. Said study was adopted by the Sweetwater Authority Governing board on
February 22, 2012 and is included as part of this Specific Plan as Appendix C. Below is a
summary of the study’s conclusions.
In accordance with Water Code Section 10912(c), Sweetwater Authority (Sweetwater) is the
“public water system” for the area in which the City’s PGDSP is proposed. Sweetwater’s water
system provides water service to approximately 177,288 consumers within the City of Chula
Vista, a portion of the city of San Diego, and the South Bay Irrigation District, which consists of a
portion of the city of Chula Vista and the unincorporated portion of the County of San Diego,
known as Bonita. The Sweetwater service area covers 32 square miles and contains
approximately 32,567 service connections.
Water Demand
Population and housing growth data for Sweetwater was obtained from the SANDAG 2050
Regional Growth Forecast for years 2010 through 2050. These estimates, however, do not
include the increase in population due to the growth projected for the PGDSP through 2035.
The City of Chula Vista, at the time of request of the Water Supply Assessment, provided
Sweetwater with the number of residential units and commercial square footage projected to be
developed within the PGDSP area within the next 20 years. The projected number of residential
units is approximately 1,300, with a resulting population growth of 3,354 persons (1,300 x 2.58
59
population coefficient), while the number of commercial acres to be developed is 3.44. Based
on these figures, the Water Supply Assessment determined that additional water demand
resulting from the projected additional growth in the PGDSP is approximately 0.29 Million
Gallons per Day, which is equal to approximately 319 acre feet per year.
Water Supply
Water used in Sweetwater's service area comes from various sources. These sources include
local groundwater, a brackish groundwater desalination facility, surface water, and imported
water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. The imported water is delivered by
CWA, either purchased from, or wheeled by Metropolitan, and is then purchased by
Sweetwater. Since 1955, local sources have met 45 percent of the water needs within
Sweetwater’s service area, while the 55 percent balance has been met with imported water. The
percentage of local to imported water varies greatly with time due to local rainfall amounts.
Sweetwater is committed to developing local resources within and outside its service area to
offset the region’s need for imported water from CWA. Within its service area, Sweetwater is in
the process of expanding its Reynolds Desalination Facility, which reclaims brackish
groundwater from the underlying San Diego
Formation. Sweetwater supports the development
of ocean desalination by supporting the Poseidon
Resources Desalination Project in Carlsbad.
Sweetwater has studied the development of
recycled water in its service area, and concluded
that it is prohibitively expensive at this time.
However, Sweetwater continues to support other
agencies that are developing this very important
local resource.
Sweetwater, as with other agencies in the region,
continues to rely on imported water from CWA
and Metropolitan to bridge the gap between its
available local supply and current and future
demands within its service area. Metropolitan’s
2010 Regional UWMP utilized SANDAG’s most
recent 2050 Regional Growth Forecast in
calculating regional water demands for CWA’s
service area. Their 2010 Regional UWMP also
identifies implementation plans to develop a
reliable resource mix that enables the region to
meet its water supply needs.
The total demands associated with the PGDSP have not been included in any of Sweetwater’s
2010 UWMP. In addition, the PGDSP demand has not been included in CWA’s 2010 UWMP. In
its recently adopted 2010 Regional UWMP, Metropolitan utilized SANDAG’s 2050 Regional
Growth Forecast, and are therefore now included in Metropolitan’s long range demand and
supply forecast. It is intended that the additional demand associated with the PGDSP be met
through purchase of imported water from Metropolitan.
Figure 8
60
Water Supply Assessment Conclusions
Sweetwater’s Water Supply Assessment concludes that the forecasted water demands is equal
to its projected supplies within Sweetwater’s service area. This demonstrates that with
implementation of the projects and strategies discussed in MWD and CWA’s planning
documents and implementation of new strategies being developed, there will be adequate water
supplies to serve the proposed Project along with existing and future uses.
This WSA Report demonstrates and verifies that with development of the resources identified,
there will be sufficient water supplies, over a 20-year planning horizon, to meet the projected
demands of the proposed Project, and the existing and planned development projects within
Sweetwater’s service area.
Finally, the Water Supply Assessment indicates that the future water demands of the PGDSP
can be met by the Authority’s existing water delivery system (Figure 8) with a pressure in
excess of 70 pounds per square inch.
5.3.2. Sewer
Sewer services are essential for public health, safety and welfare. The City maintains and
operates sewer facilities in the form of wastewater/sewer pipelines (Figure 9). These facilities
feed into the larger regional system for treatment and disposal. The City is already engaged in
planning and upgrading improvement projects and will continue to do so in a phased manner
under an adopted wastewater master plan. Capacity
fees and maintenance/transportation fees are the
primary funding source for capital improvement costs.
The City of Chula Vista purchases wastewater
treatment capacity from the City of San Diego’s
Metropolitan Wastewater System (METRO). This
allows the City to treat and dispose of wastewater
flows at METRO facilities. The City’s future wastewater
flows will exceed the current treatment capacity
necessitating the need to purchase additional capacity
(in a phased manner). The City of Chula Vista has
purchased 19.8 million gallons per day (MGD) of
capacity rights in the METRO Sewage System. Based
on existing conditions in 2010, the City discharges
approximately 16.5 MGD into the METRO Interceptor.
Based on flow analyses, it is estimated that by the year
2030, the City will generate approximately 6.3 MGD of
additional sewage. The General Plan (2005) projects
an additional treatment capacity need of 1.57 MGD at
buildout in western Chula Vista, which includes the
projected demand of approximately 0.27 MGD for the
Specific Plan area. If sewage system improvements
are needed, they will be phased in as required by each
development project.
It is important to note that these are broad and preliminary estimates and are based largely on
the wastewater generation rates stated in the Wastewater Master Plan, which will be subject to
Figure 9
61
periodic update and review throughout the life of the Specific Plan. The City currently operates
and maintains approximately 500 miles of sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 6 inches to 48
inches in diameter, as well as an extensive network of manholes, metering stations, pump lifts
and lift stations.
The system is the subject of ongoing review and wastewater master plans which are updated
about every 5 years. An update is currently underway and is expected to be completed by 2013.
In addition to maintaining the existing systems and replacing outdated components, the City
must also address system upgrades and expansions to accommodate new sewer connections,
especially in the eastern portion of the City. The costs of system upgrades, capacity and
infrastructure management and planning is reflected in connection fees and sewer rates.
5.3.3. Drainage Infrastructure
Drainage facilities are public improvements to control storm water runoff so that peak runoff
does not threaten public health or safety in the form of flooding and erosion. The City maintains
strict requirements for sediment and pollution control from water runoff and water quality, which
are reviewed and applied to new development on a project-by-project basis. These
requirements are found in various programs and policies, including the City of Chula Vista
Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Manual, Development Storm Water Manual, and Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) for construction sites.
The condition of the overall drainage system is the subject of a Drainage Report, which is
undertaken and continually monitored for any major deficiencies or problems. (See Figure 8.)
Within already urbanized areas such as the Palomar Gateway District, most needed drainage
facilities are already in place, and since runoff is largely not changed by the redevelopment of
one land use into another, the system of facilities for storm water runoff is equally largely in
place. With the monitoring and review of construction and water quality practices conducted for
each development project, the City, working through its Drainage Master Plan, has a program in
place to control runoff and meet applicable water quality standards.
Chula Vista is part of the San Diego watershed area. The San Diego watershed area’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires that all runoff be treated so
that pollutant levels at the storm water outfalls are minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Drainage infrastructure will need to be constructed or modified to insure that “first
flush” pollutants are captured through the Chula Vista Storm Water Management Unit. Typically,
NPDES on-site detention/desiltation facilities will be required on development projects. The City
will maintain its ability to enforce adequate maintenance of these facilities. The Environmental
Element of the General Plan (2005) also addresses drainage issues throughout the City as they
relate to water quality.
5.3.4. Solid Waste Infrastructure and Operations
The City of Chula Vista has established an exclusive franchise collection agreement with Allied
Waste Services for the removal, conveyance, and disposal of any non-recyclable waste. The
agreement is in effect through June 2028 with extension clauses for both City and Pacific Waste
Services. The agreement includes a number of programs and incentives for the franchise and
the public to maximize recycling and other forms of landfill diversion. Allied owns and operates
both the Otay Landfill in eastern Chula Vista and the Sycamore Canyon Landfill located further
north in San Diego County. Most of the solid waste generated in the City is disposed at the Otay
Landfill. The Otay Landfill is estimated to reach capacity in the year 2028. In south San Diego
County, an area in East Otay Mesa was previously identified by the County as a tentative site.
62
However, the County is no longer pursuing landfill siting at this location and there are no private
siting efforts currently proposed. Once the Otay Landfill is closed, it is anticipated that a portion
of the site could be used for a trash transfer facility and/or a Material Recovery Facility (MRF)
where recyclables are prepared for secondary markets. The City has also acquired rights to
approximately 30 acres of space at the Otay Landfill for a composting facility when the landfill
closes. Therefore, continued efforts to expand recycling and to accommodate compostable
materials will reduce future waste transfer costs
.
The City has the ability to control waste production within its general plan area, including the
Palomar Gateway District. Current solid waste management strategies include source reduction,
recycling and composting to decrease the waste stream impacting landfills.
5.3.5. Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing water, sewer and drainage facilities are arranged around
specific topics or issues. The following pages describe an issue or topic and how the City has
planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan through the General Plan policies. Supporting
objectives and policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Maintenance Needs (Water,
Sewer, Drainage) (PFS 1)
The City and its servicing districts strive to maintain existing water, sewer and drainage facilities
to meet current and future demand and to comply with federal, state, and local requirements.
The challenge posed by density increases in older parts of the City system is to repair existing
deficiencies and maintain and possibly upsize older infrastructure. Over time, as the City
continues to expand and additional water, sewer and drainage facilities are added, the demand
for maintenance, along with associated fiscal impacts, will also grow.
Recent assessments have been completed to address water supply, wastewater and drainage
facilities. The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Sweetwater Authority and approved
by the Governing Board on February 22, 2012 evaluates existing water demand and supply
conditions within Sweetwater’s general service area. Based on the projected growth (residential
and commercial) estimates provided by the City, Sweetwater estimated the future water needs
for the Specific Plan. The Assessment determined that average water demand for the Specific
Plan area is approximately 0.29 million gallons per day or 319 acre-feet per year at 2035
buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and San
Diego County Water Authority are implementing plans that include projects and programs to
help ensure that the existing and planned water users within Sweetwater Authority’s service
area have an adequate supply. By using a variety of water supply sources, including
importation, the Sweetwater Reservoir, National City Wells, and Reynolds Desalination, and by
implementing conservation programs, sufficient water supply will be available for anticipated
development under the Specific Plan.
The Wastewater Master Plan, prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula Vista and dated May
2005, provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the City’s wastewater collection,
conveyance, and treatment capacity requirements under existing and ultimate buildout
conditions. Specific recommendations are made for the repair, upgrading, and buildout of
wastewater collection and pumping facilities. The City currently has capacity rights in the
METRO system (comprised of conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities) equal to 20.864
MGD. At General Plan buildout, the City will require approximately 26 MGD. The gap between
the current flow and buildout will be met through a combination of conservation methods and
63
acquiring additional capacity in such a way as to keep ahead of development. There is currently
no wastewater facility improvements recommended for the Specific Plan area.
The Wastewater Master Plan also provides sewer system design standards and capital
improvements program recommendations, as well as a capacity fee update and facilities
financing plan for both METRO facilities and Chula Vista pipelines, to ensure adequate
wastewater facilities are provided for the Specific Plan area.
The 2004 Drainage Report prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula Vista consists of a city-wide
hydrologic analysis and an updated version of the City’s storm water conveyance system GIS
database. The hydraulic analyses were prepared for the 50-year and, where required, 100-year
storm events for existing and projected conditions.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) “For new development, require on-site detention of storm water flows such that, where
practical, existing downstream structures will not be overloaded. Slow runoff and maximize on-
site infiltration of runoff.” (PFS 1.4)
Development within the Palomar Gateway District will be reviewed within the context of the
Drainage Report and water quality rules applicable to the development, on a project-by-project
basis.
2) “To avoid recently improved streets from being torn up repeatedly, maintain a comprehensive
facility phasing and capital improvement program. The program should be based on anticipated
land development and be conducted in coordination with all utilities.” (PFS 1.6)
The City has a comprehensive facility phasing and capital improvement program for sewer and
drainage to minimize disruption of public streets.
3) “Identify ways to obtain timely funding for public facility and service needs. Upon request by
community representatives, facilitate the possible formation of assessment districts to finance
public infrastructure, upgrades and maintenance.” (PFS 1.7)
The criteria for formation of an assessment district are largely applicable to eastern territories,
where master planned communities can facilitate the implementation of such districts. The
above-described Water Supply Assessment, Wastewater Master Plan and Drainage Master
Plan analyze the existing and future facilities needs for Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan
area. With implementation of recommended improvements and programs, adequate facilities
will be provided to serve the Palomar Gateway District as it relates to water, wastewater and
storm water drainage.
b. General Plan Discussion: Meeting Demand Through Alternative Technologies (PFS 2)
Growth will generate increased demand for water delivery and for sewer and drainage systems
throughout the City. Water will continue to be a limited resource in semi-arid southern California.
The ability to treat wastewater will be affected by the limitations of the San Diego Metro system.
Drainage facilities will need to handle increased storm water runoff and potential pollutants in
the face of increased growth and diminishing supplies of land. Building more infrastructure and
acquiring more capacity can and should be offset by using alternative technologies and/or
conservation methods to handle demand both in the older established parts of the City and in
64
the newly developing areas. The following objective and policies address meeting resource and
service demands through use of alternative technologies.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District
1) “As part of project construction and design, assure that drainage facilities in new
development incorporate storm water runoff and sediment control, including state-of-the-art
technologies where appropriate.” (PFS 2.2)
The City conducts and maintains a Storm Water Master Plan. It also reviews new development
in a manner consistent with the applicable water quality standards.
c. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Water Supplies (PFS 3)
The California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare urban
water management plan(s) and update them every five years, in years ending in five or zero.
The plans are to identify supply and demand, infrastructure and funding. In accordance with the
Act, the Sweetwater Authority adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in 2010. The 2010
Plan, however, did not include the projected growth resulting from PGDSP. Thus, a Water
Supply Assessment was prepared by the Sweetwater Authority and adopted by the Governing
Board on February 22, 2012. The 2012 Water Supply Assessment forecasts total projected
water demand for the entire area served by the Sweetwater Authority, including the PGDSP
area, as 27,237 acre-feet of water in the year 2035. This figure includes residential,
commercial, municipal, industrial and agricultural demand and is adjusted for conservation
savings. The report estimates total projected local water supplies in the year 2035 as 27,237
acre-feet. This supply of water will come from both imported water and local sources. Local
water supplies include surface water, groundwater and seawater desalination. Through a
shortage contingency analysis, the report also concludes that the CWA and its member
agencies, through Emergency Response Plans (ERP) and Emergency Storage Projects (ESP),
are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle a catastrophic interruption of water
supplies.
The Authority also adheres to development of additional local resources such as groundwater
pumping and groundwater desalination but also continually pursues water conservation as a
way to reduce demand. As the City grows, the need to identify the long-term supply of water
continues. Sweetwater Authority recognizes water conservation and demand management as a
priority in its water use planning. The long-term goal of Sweetwater Authority’s water
conservation program is to achieve and maintain water use efficiency goals for various use
categories that are reasonable for that category. Specific objectives of Sweetwater Authority’s
conservation program are to:
• Eliminate wasteful practices in water use;
• Continue to develop information on both current and potential water conservation
practices;
• Ongoing, timely implementation of conservation practices; and
• Public information and education activities to spread knowledge of efficient water use
techniques and devices.
65
The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and San Diego
County Water Authority are implementing plans that include projects and programs to help
ensure that the existing and planned water users within Sweetwater Authority’s service area
have an adequate supply. By using a variety of water supply sources, including importation, the
Sweetwater Reservoir, National City Wells, and Reynolds Desalination, and by implementing
conservation programs, sufficient water supply will be available for anticipated development
under the Specific Plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) Assist the water agencies (Sweetwater Authority) in preparing and maintaining Urban Water
Management Plans that identify water demand anticipated by existing and new
development. (PFS 3.1)
This activity will largely occur through city-wide development monitoring and reporting.
d. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Sewer Capacities (PFS 4)
The City maintains and regularly updates a Wastewater Management Plan to evaluate the
adequacy of the existing wastewater collection system to sustain the long-term growth of the
City. The Wastewater Management Plan helps the City budget for Capital Improvement Projects
(CIP), allocate resources for the acquisition of additional sewage capacity, and determine the
short- and long-term sewer capacity needs of the City. On an annual basis, the City prepares a
wastewater report to the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC), which is
approved by the GMOC, Planning Commission and City Council.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) “Continually monitor wastewater flows and anticipate future wastewater increases that may
result from changes in adopted land use patterns.” (PFS 4.1)
As cited above, the City’s Wastewater Master Plan is undertaken to identify needed expansions,
which are paid for by connection and service fees.
e. General Plan Discussion: Providing for Solid Waste Disposal (PFS 24)
The following objective and policies address the efficient handling of solid waste throughout the
City. The important and related topics of reducing overall solid waste and of handling hazardous
wastes are addressed in the Environment Element, Chapter 9 of the City of Chula Vista’s
General Plan. The Otay Landfill is estimated to reach capacity within the next 17 years,
requiring closure of the facility. Meeting future needs of the planning area may require the
creation of a regional transfer station, where solid waste collected from individual collection
routes is transferred into large trucks for disposal. The transportation of solid waste to an
alternate site must occur in an efficient manner that restricts adverse circulation, visual, and
noise impacts.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) “Plan for adequate systems and facilities to manage the City’s solid waste generation,
treatment and disposal.” (PFS 24.1)
66
Solid waste programs and recycling are addressed through city-wide programs. Design
Guidelines are provided in the Specific Plan for future development which reflects the ability to
service for trash and recycling collection.
5.4 Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services
5.4.1 Facilities and Services
In the City of Chula Vista, fire protection
and emergency medical services are
provided by the Chula Vista Fire
Department. Law enforcement services
are provided by the Chula Vista Police
Department. Fire stations are dispersed
throughout the City, while police facilities
are centered in headquarters located in
downtown Chula Vista. The current Fire
Station Master Plan calls for nine fire
stations, eight of which have been
constructed. The Master Plan is being
updated to reflect changes to General
Plan and to respond to a revised set of
performance criteria as proposed in the
Fire Department Strategic Plan. Therefore,
the number and location of future fire stations, along with how the stations are equipped, is
subject to change.
To maintain the high level of dependable,
competent fire protection and emergency medical
services the City enjoys, several strategies will
continue to be employed. The City will continue to
use a growth-related service standard, through its
Growth Management Ordinance and program, to
help determine if public safety is adequately
protected. Fire Department staffing and
equipment will continue to be expanded as
needed to meet the service standard and to
minimize hazards to the firefighters and public, in
conformance with changes to the updated Fire
Department Master Plan. The Fire Department
will continue to enhance its capabilities and
staffing through mutual aid agreements with fire
departments in the surrounding communities.
Similar strategies also facilitate the provision of
law enforcement services that meet the City’s
needs. The Department will continue to monitor
calls for service, analyze crime statistics and
resident survey data, and make changes in
staffing and patrols to reflect the growing
community’s needs.
67
Effective fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services require two-way
relationships with the community. The unique needs and conditions in the community must be
understood and the community must lend support to the various programs and efforts of the
Police Department and Fire Department. The City encourages active participation by the Fire
and Police Departments in all facets of community life, including involvement in area business,
senior, and youth activities.
5.4.2 Disaster and Emergency Response Program
State regulations establish the Standardized Emergency Management System, or SEMS. The
system includes requirements for incident command systems, multi-agency coordination
systems, mutual aid agreements and the “operational area” concept. As an agency
(municipality) with emergency response capability within the state, Chula Vista is required to
use the SEMS system.
Chula Vista provides for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons
and property within the City in the event of an emergency (Municipal Code, Chapter 2.1.4
Emergency Organization Department). The Code requires coordination of the emergency
functions of the City with other public agencies, corporations, and organizations.
There may be occasions when a limited scale evacuation is the appropriate response to an
emergency situation. Under these circumstances, people should be evacuated to neighborhood
and community schools, hospitals and public facilities, where they could receive adequate care
and treatment. In the event of a major disaster, where a large part of the City may require
evacuation, the circulation routes serving the Specific Plan area are:
• Interstate 5
• Palomar Street
• Industrial Boulevard
• Broadway
• Main Street
The Disaster Management Act of 2000 requires that, in order to remain eligible for post-disaster
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding after November 2004, every
jurisdiction in the United States must have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan (HAZMIT Plan)
to address the management of and response to emergency situations. In addition, to be eligible
for pre-disaster FEMA funding for use in hazard mitigation, each jurisdiction’s approved HAZMIT
Plan must include the planned uses of these funds. The City of Chula Vista adopted a HAZMIT
Plan in May 2004 to help mitigate impact to the City in the event of a natural or man-made
disaster. The City’s HAZMIT Plan was included in the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional
HAZMIT Plan submitted to FEMA for approval in compliance with Federal Law.
5.4.3 Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing law enforcement, fire protection and emergency responses are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe an issue or topic and
how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan through the General Plan.
Supporting objectives and policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Police, Fire Protection & Emergency
Medical Service) (PFS 5)
68
The City of Chula Vista has experienced significant residential growth over the last decade. The
majority of new growth has occurred in the east, where continued growth is expected in the
coming years, along with density increases in the west. Fire protection, emergency medical
service and police services will need to expand to match the demand brought on by this
anticipated growth. While fire stations are located throughout the City, the Police Department
had centralized and maintained one police headquarters, located in the western portion of the
City. However, a new satellite office was opened in July 2011 in eastern Chula Vista in the Otay
Ranch Mall. The police headquarters is sufficient to accommodate the growth projected in the
Specific Plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) “Continue to adequately equip and staff the Fire Department to ensure that established
service standards for emergency calls are met.” (PFS 5.1)
2) “Upgrade fire and emergency medical equipment as required to protect the public from
hazards and to ensure the safety of the fire fighters.” (PFS 5.2)
b. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response and Development (PFS 6)
General Plan policies and Growth Management standards tie new development and
redevelopment to the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including police and
fire protection. Some design characteristics, such as narrow street widths, aim to create
walkable communities, serve to establish an overall neighborly atmosphere, and tend to reduce
traffic speeds. In mixed use neighborhoods, density increases may result in taller buildings. The
evolving urban form and the cumulative increase in development will affect emergency service
response times as well as the equipment, facilities and personnel needed for fire and police
services.
“Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) is a method of incorporating
design techniques into projects to help reduce the potential for crime. CPTED is used in the
development of parks, residential and commercial projects, schools, transit stations and parking
lots to reduce the number of calls for service. The reduced call volume may favorably impact
response times.
CPTED includes the use of four primary strategies:
• Providing natural access control into areas,
• Improving natural surveillance (i.e., increasing “eyes on the street”),
• Maintaining and managing a property to reduce crime and disorder,
• Using territorial reinforcement to distinguish private space from public space.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) “Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to demonstrate adequate
access for fire and police vehicles.” (PFS 6.1)
2) “Require new development and redevelopment projects to demonstrate adequate water
pressure to new buildings.” (PFS 6.2)
3) “Encourage Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques in new
development and redevelopment projects.” (PFS 6.3)
69
Project review within the Specific Plan shall include the above listed criteria. Design guidelines
found in Chapter 4 - Design Guidelines and the City’s Design Manual will result in projects that
incorporate CPTED principles.
c. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response Program (PFS 7)
A city-wide emergency response program provides the framework for responding to any type of
emergency or disaster that might occur in Chula Vista. Accomplishing efficient emergency
response involves coordination with other agencies regarding disaster preparedness,
preparation and regular update of the emergency response plan, education of residents and
businesses about the plan and about evacuation routes, and periodic training of City staff and
other emergency response staff to effectively implement the plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
All General Plan policies within this criterion are implemented city-wide.
d. General Plan Discussion: Post Emergency Response (PFS 8)
In the event of disasters and emergencies, a swift and efficient response minimizes injuries,
casualties and property damage. Planning post-disaster operations ensures the safety, health
and welfare of our residents by allowing critical operations to continue as expeditiously and
efficiently as possible following a catastrophic event. Post-disaster analysis will help the City
improve safety plans and responses.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
All General Plan policies within this criterion are implemented city-wide.
5.5 Schools
5.5.1 School Facilities
Excellent schools are assets to any community. Two school districts serve the City. Chula Vista
Elementary School District (CVESD) operates kindergarten through sixth grade; Sweetwater
Union High School District (SUHSD) operates junior and senior high schools and ancillary
programs. Higher education is available
through Southwestern Community College.
As of 2004, the CVESD operates 42
schools and the SUHSD operates 26
schools, both within and outside the
boundaries of the City of Chula Vista. Both
districts actively plan for modernization and
expansion of campuses to accommodate
anticipated increases in enrollments. The
districts have completed improvements
through modernization programs and bond
issues or prepared modernization plans in
preparation for construction.
70
5.5.2 Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies impacting schools are arranged around specific topics or issues. The
following pages describe an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service
for the Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Technology (School Facilities)
(PFS 9)
Population growth in western Chula Vista may impact existing, older school facilities.
Modernization of school campuses is expected to continue as the school districts plan for facility
improvements. Technology continues to change the work place and the social and cultural
environments of our community. The school system, which helps shape our children and our
future, must keep pace with development. While siting of schools falls under the jurisdiction of
the local school districts, not the City, it is the City’s intent to facilitate the district’s efforts to
provide school services.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) Continue coordinating with local school districts during review of land use issues requiring
discretionary approval to provide adequate school facilities, to meet needs generated by
development, and to avoid overcrowding in accordance with guidelines of Government Code
65996(b). (PFS 9.1)
2) Encourage the consideration of new approaches to accommodate student enrollments,
including alternative campus locations and education programs. (PFS 9.2)
3) Assist school districts in identifying and acquiring school sites for new construction in needed
time frames. (PFS 9.3)
4) Assist school districts in identifying sources of funding for the expansion of facilities in
western Chula Vista as needed based on growth. (PFS 9.4)
5) Work closely with the school districts to identify needs for public education facilities and
programs, including developing and expanding extracurricular recreation and educational
programs for primary, secondary, and adult education, and providing state-of-the-art information
services. (PFS 9.5)
The foregoing policies reflect the need to plan and implement schools over the relatively long
period of development implementing the Specific Plan. Cooperation in projecting growth and
monitoring new development and the resulting demographics will assure that existing schools
are expanded or new schools are built at the time of need.
b. General Plan Discussion: Site Location and Design (School Facilities) (PFS 10)
School districts control site selection and school design. In all instances, safe pickup and drop-
off of students is a primary concern. Schools are generally designed with the intent of adding
modular units to accommodate temporary spikes in student enrollment. While both Chula Vista
school districts use this strategy, drawbacks include the fact that the units displace parking,
open space and recreation areas. Some schools in western Chula Vista are already running out
71
of limited buildable space and have no room to expand the campuses horizontally in the current
land locked locations.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District
1) “Continue to coordinate and make recommendations to the school districts and property
owners and developers on the location, size and design of school facilities relative to the
location in the community. Encourage school districts to consider joint use and alternative
structural design such as multi-story buildings where appropriate.” (PFS 10.1)
Alternative structural designs will be especially important within the Palomar Gateway District
due to land availability.
2) “Encourage the central location of new schools within the neighborhoods or areas they serve
so as to further community development and enhance the quality of life.” (PFS 10.4)
3) “Coordinate with the school districts on the design of school grounds and fields to provide for
use of these facilities by the City’s Youth Sports Council leagues.” (PFS 10.5)
Joint use of facilities by the City and the School District can maximize the public use of school
and park sites.
5.6 Parks and Recreation
5.6.1 Facilities and Programs
Parks and recreation facilities and programming are
essential to the health and welfare of the individuals
living and working in the City of Chula Vista. Parks
can provide a relief from the stress of daily life and
can contribute to neighborhood engagement,
economic development and community
revitalization. The different types of parks and
recreation facilities found in Chula Vista are
described below.
Community parks,
designed to serve more
than one neighborhood, are ideally 30 or more acres and provide a
wide variety of facilities, including swimming pools, playing fields,
recreation centers, cultural centers and picnic areas. Neighborhood
parks are intended to serve local residents; range in size from 5 to 15
acres; and include open play space, playing fields, play equipment
and picnic areas. Mini parks consist of both public and private
facilities, are typically less than four acres in size, serve a small
number of homes, and contain very limited facilities such as a tot lot or
play structure and some grass play area. Public mini parks are
typically located in the older western portion of the City. Urban parks
are generally located in urban downtown areas and may contain
facilities such as public plazas, tot lots, play structures, public art
features, sports courts (such as basketball or tennis), walking/jogging
trails, dog walk areas, picnic or seating areas, some grass play area,
72
and trees. Urban parks, which will occur where infill and redevelopment activity is likely to occur,
may be considered for public park credit as a necessary component of an overall park service
solution where available and affordable land is scarce. Similar to mini parks, urban parks may
serve a smaller number of homes than neighborhood parks, depending on the ultimate housing
density within the service areas. Urban parks will typically be less than four acres in size.
Recreation facilities are generally located within community parks and include community
centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, youth centers, and senior centers.
Several related documents address the development of parks and recreation facilities in the
City. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2011) contains an inventory of
existing and future parks and recreations facilities, a needs assessment, and policies to
implement the General Plan. The Master Plan envisions the City’s park and recreation facilities
as an integrated system of amenities, programs and services interwoven throughout over 960
acres of parkland to meet the expressed needs of the community.
The Greenbelt Master Plan identifies segments of an overall backbone system of 28 linear miles
of open space and parks that encircle the City. It discusses unique opportunities for a
continuous trail system to link City parks and other resources outside of the City boundary.
5.6.2 Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing parks and recreation facilities and programs are arranged
around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe an issue or topic and how the
City has planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan through the General Plan.
Supporting objectives and policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Parks and Recreation) (PFS 14)
The City strives to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities, to offer recreational
programs to meet current demand, and to plan and construct new parks and facilities and
develop new programs to meet future demand due to growth. The majority of residential growth
in the last decade has occurred in eastern Chula Vista; however, it is anticipated that significant
growth will occur in both the east and the west in the future.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides direction on the size and location of parks and
recreation facilities, based on population. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
program and the Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee Program provide necessary
funding for the delivery of recreation and park facilities. Timely development and the provision of
facilities, staffing, and equipment that is responsive to growth and community demands and
expectations are important.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District
1) “Maximize the use of existing parks and recreation facilities through upgrades and
additions/changes to programs to meet the needs of the community (Figure 10). “ (PFS 14.1)
2) “Construct new parks and recreation facilities that reflect the interests and needs of the
community.” (PFS 14.2)
3) “Continue to maintain and update the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the
Greenbelt Master Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance and the recreation component of the
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee, as needed.” (PFS 14.3)
73
4) “Use park dedication, location, site design and
acceptance standards as provided in the Chula
Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Park
Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation DIF, as
may be amended from time to time.” (PFS 14.4)
5) “Work with proponents of new development
projects and redevelopment projects at the earliest
stages to ensure that parks, recreation, trails and
open space facilities are designed to meet City
standards and are built in a timely manner to meet
the needs of residents they will serve.” (PFS 14.5)
6) “Design recreation programs to reflect the
interests and recreation needs of the children,
teens, adults, and seniors living in our ethnically
diverse city.” (PFS 14.6)
7) “Explore opportunities for collaborations and
partnerships with local organizations, expand use
of volunteers, and develop commercial recreational
facilities that meet public demand and need.” (PFS 14.7)
8) “Continue to provide adequate park maintenance, park ranger service recreation services,
staffing, and equipment to ensure safe, well maintained facilities.” (PFS 14.8)
The foregoing policies will apply to recreation and park facilities within the Palomar Gateway
District. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and development impact fee programs will be
monitored during the life of the Specific Plan and updated to meet service and demographic
needs of the community.
b. General Plan Discussion: Meeting Park Demand (PFS 15)
Historic park development in western Chula Vista has been impacted by several factors: pre-
existing park development standards that differ from current City standards, the Quimby Act -
state legislation limiting park dedication requirements for new development, and Proposition 13 -
state legislation limiting property tax revenues. Increased residential densities and intensity of
development will create a corresponding increase in demand for recreation facilities and
programs. The current city-wide standard for new development provides for either the
dedication or development of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents or the payment of in-
lieu fees.
The City’s Recreation Development Impact Fee provides a funding mechanism for development
of new recreation facility requirements. City-wide parkland and recreation development policies
to guide future ordinances and master planning are identified below. Scarce land tends to make
parkland acquisition costs (in terms of cost of land and displacement) in western Chula Vista
significantly higher compared to the City’s eastern territories. While future growth will result in
the need and requirement for additional parklands and recreational facilities, there will be
increased difficulty in securing appropriate park and recreation sites in western Chula Vista
where land is largely built out. Lack of vacant and underutilized land, and/or competing
demands and uses for land in the west provide challenges to increasing the park and recreation
facility inventory. Maximizing the utility of existing parks and recreation facilities through
Figure 10
74
renovation and expansion and consideration of non-active recreational uses within existing
recreation needs is important in the western portion of the City; while this strategy will not
provide additional park acreage, it will partially meet the needs of future residents.
Implementation of General Plan defined future park sites along with integration of urban parks in
infill areas of west Chula Vista will provide for future park and recreation demands resulting from
new residential development.
In addition to parkland acquisition efforts, potential solutions for new park sites include
coordinating with SDG&E to utilize energy transmission corridors to create park and open space
areas, and the joint-use of school classrooms, playing fields and sports courts by the public via
joint-use agreements. The provision of a community center within urban development areas
should be considered, possibly within a new mixed-use environment.
An overall combination of park and recreation facilities that will serve all Chula Vista residents is
planned. While a majority of the future demand for facilities may be met within planned public
park sites, there will continue to be a need to rely on quasi-public park sites and joint-use
facilities to increase the recreation facility inventory in the City. Details and strategies for
meeting park demand have been addressed through the comprehensive update to the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan (Draft 2011).
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) Continue to pursue a city-wide standard for the provision of developed parkland for new
development projects on a basis equivalent to three acres per estimated one thousand new
residents. (PFS 15.1)
2) Consider a combination of land dedication, improvements, and/or in lieu fees for park
development improvements in the Northwest and Southwest Planning Areas to better serve the
public park and recreation needs of future residents. (PFS 15.2)
3) Consider a broad mix of park types and facilities toward meeting park requirements in the
Northwest and Southwest planning areas in response to existing development conditions and
lack of land availability. Such facilities could include urban parks, plazas, neighborhood parks
and community parks to meet the parkland dedication requirements of new development in the
west. (PFS 15.3)
4) Promote the inclusion of park and recreation facilities in or near redevelopment areas to both
serve the new development and to contribute to meeting existing park and recreation needs.
(PFS 15.4) C
5) Use park dedication, location and site design and acceptance of dedication standards as
provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance
and the Recreation Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, as may be amended from time to
time. (PFS 15.5)
6) Amend the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to add a new “urban park” definition for parks
that may be developed within western Chula Vista, subject to specific siting, design and park
dedication and credit criteria. (PFS 15.8)
7) Consider the design of non-traditional, uniquely themed parks such as the Otay River Valley
Park and the Bayfront that are “stand-alone” attractions or destinations, having unique character
and features. (PFS 15.11)
75
The foregoing polices will guide implementation of parks and facilities within the Palomar
Gateway District. The Specific Plan area is expected to have a system of public parks, plazas,
and open spaces that will contribute to the parks and recreation facilities that currently exist in
the City. The following parks and open spaces exist or are expected to be constructed in and
adjacent to the Specific Plan area.
Existing:
• National Wildlife Refuge – Salt Ponds (Lower Bayfront)
• Otay Valley Regional Park – Chula Vista Greenbelt
• Harborside Park
Proposed:
• Future Neighborhood Park adjacent to South Branch Library Park
• Future Neighborhood Park (Palomar Gateway District)
• Future Urban Park/Plaza MU-1
• Future Urban Park/Plaza MU-2
• Future Private Greenway – enhanced drainage through Palomar Residential Village
c. General Plan Discussion: Joint Use of Park and School Facilities (PFS 18)
Increased intensity of development in western Chula Vista and lack of vacant and underutilized
land for park facilities will result in an increased demand on parks and schools for recreational
facilities. Joint use of facilities provides an opportunity for the school children and the general
public to mutually benefit. Public demand for field space for youth leagues exceeds the City’s
supply of sports fields in City parks, due to competing demands with adult athletic leagues and
the sheer number of youth sports teams to accommodate. The City currently relies on individual
elementary, middle, and high schools to allow use of the schools’ fields by Youth Sports Council
leagues.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
1) Promote the City Council and the Boards of the two School Districts entering into long-term
master agreements to allow allocation of school fields to the City’s Youth Sports Council
leagues via a process administered by the City, and to allow after-school use of classrooms at
different schools for recreation classes. (PFS 18.1)
2) Coordinate with the School Districts on the design of school grounds and fields to provide for
use of these facilities by the City’s Youth Sports council leagues. (PFS 18.2)
3) Consider siting elementary schools adjacent to neighborhood parks, where feasible, to allow
for expanded use of the school grounds and classrooms by the general public and the park area
by the school children. (PFS 18.3)
The foregoing polices will guide the City in discussions with the School Districts on possible joint
use of facilities within the Palomar Gateway District.
5.7 Energy and Telecommunications
5.7.1 Energy
76
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) owns, operates and maintains the pipes, wires and
appurtenances needed to transport natural gas and transmit and distribute electricity to Chula
Vista residential, commercial, industrial and institutional facilities. These two forms of energy are
essential to everyday life in Chula Vista. SDG&E estimates that additional infrastructure may be
needed to deliver energy, serve a growing population, maintain local and regional reliability, and
move energy through the western regional U.S. system. SDG&E projects that infrastructure may
include new electricity distribution substations in the western part of the City. The following
objective and policies relate to the provision of energy to the City. A discussion and related
policies addressing energy conservation are contained in the Environmental Element, Chapter 9
of the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan.
5.7.2 Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Chula Vista include telephone, cable and wireless
communication services and are provided by several companies. Future communication
technologies may expand into other fields. Infrastructure upgrades are being made by private
providers to facilitate high-speed data transmission and interactive video capabilities. The City
encourages constructing new office and industrial buildings with state-of-the-art
telecommunication circuits to utilize these upgrades.
5.7.3 Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing the generation and delivery of energy are arranged around
specific topics or issues. The following describes an issue or topic and how the City has planned
for adequate service for the Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and
policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Powering Chula Vista (PFS 22)
Population growth in Chula Vista will increase local demand for energy. In response to these
energy needs, the City has embarked on a mission to reduce community-wide energy use and
to transition to renewable energy sources. This “sustainable energy” mission was first identified
in the Chula Vista Energy Strategy & Action Plan (Energy Strategy) adopted by the City Council
in 2001. The Energy Strategy researched and analyzed a suite of City energy management
options including district and distributed generation, municipal and community energy
conservation projects, and seasonal energy saving policies for municipal facilities. Additional
sustainable energy initiatives were identified and incorporated into the City’s Climate Action
Plan, which was first adopted in 2001 and revised in 2008 and 2011. The Climate Action Plan,
which was developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to lower future risks from
climate change impacts, identifies specific energy-related measures including a citywide green
building standard, a home energy retrofit program, and energy evaluations as part of the
business licensing process.
General Plan Policies Related to the Palomar Gateway District.
All policies regarding energy and telecommunications are implemented on a city-wide basis.
The Specific Plan does provide for the review of buildings and infrastructure for enhanced
energy efficiency, renewable energy integration, and broader sustainability standards in Chapter
4 of the Specific Plan, the City’s Design Manual (Conservation Guidelines), and the Green
Building Standards of the City’s Building Code.
5.8 Mobility Improvements
77
Palomar Gateway District Mobility Study
The Mobility Study was developed to analyze mobility
conditions (motorized and non-motorized) to
accommodate expected growth and the City’s vision
of a vibrant, multi-use PGD. The Mobility Study
reviews the current and future transportation system
across all modes of travel (i.e. pedestrians, bikes,
autos and transit) and user abilities (children, elderly
and disabled). The study departs from the traditional
traffic impact studies and address mobility with a
focus on moving people, not just cars.
The Mobility study’s objective is to analyze existing
and future mobility conditions in PGD and provide
recommendations to revitalize the District through
mixed-use density, Smart Growth design, and Transit
Oriented Development (TOD). The intent of the study is to present a Mobility Plan
containing strategies, regulations and design parameters, to be implemented as
individual projects are constructed in the District. Over time, the District will be
transformed from its underutilized/lower-density setting into a vibrant and cohesive
higher-density, multi-modal transit-oriented community.
The review of mobility across all modes of transportation can be challenging due to
existing constraints, competing interests of travel modes, and the complexity of planning
for a 80-acre site. To achieve the above objectives, the following key principles were
developed:
Principle A: Balance all modes of transportation giving equal importance to
motorized (autos) travel and non-motorized travel (pedestrians,
bicycles and transit). Promote Complete Streets concepts in
accordance with the Assembly Bill (AB) 1358.
Principle B: Explore efficient, flexible, creative and context sensitive solutions.
Principle C: Ensure safety for all users without compromise.
Principle D: Recognize that the best overall mobility solution may decrease
operations for a particular mode of travel.
Principle E: Prioritize transportation recommendations for both motorized and non-
motorized travel based on a tiered system.
Based on these principles, the Mobility Study addresses Non-Motorized Travel
Conditions (Bicycles, pedestrians and Transit) and Motorized Travel Conditions
(automobiles). The study details the existing conditions and the challenges faced by
pedestrian, bicycle and transit users, and it provides a description of planned and
78
projected improvements for the area that are contained in the City’s Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plans to address each of the mobility modes. The study also addresses
existing conditions and planned improvements for local transit service administered by
the Metropolitan Transit Service and the Trolley Blue Line. Recommendations are
described in Table 11 and Figure 10 of the Study, which are also included below.
In the Motorized section, the study describes the roadway system within the Palomar
Gateway District, which includes roadway classification, physical characteristics and
adjacent land uses. The study analyzes traffic volumes and trip generation within the
district under current conditions, Year 2020 and Year 2030 scenarios. Additionally, the
study also looks at a scenario that includes the existing conditions plus the build-out
conditions in year 2020 and Year 2030.
The Motorized section of the study discusses the recommended transportation
improvements that met the study objectives and guiding principles of the project, which
can be succinctly expressed as improving overall mobility. Improvements prove
especially challenging balancing both motorized and non-motorized travel. Analysis of
the study area motorized facilities under baseline and future conditions revealed
transportation deficiencies resulting in facilities operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or
F. The recommendations presented improve deficient facilities to achieve an acceptable
LOS (LOS D or better) wherever possible. The recommended improvements include
street improvements at various street intersection and segments. The most important
improvement recommended by the study is the grade-separation of the Trolley Line as
well as the opening of additional local streets within the district, particularly in the area
north of Palomar Street.
Multi-Modal Recommendations
The Mobility Plan reviews the constraints and opportunities of each travel mode.
Recommendations are prioritized based on a defined tiered system, as described
below.
TIER I:
• Addresses high-volume high-accident locations.
• Improves Mobility substantially for all modes. Moves people, not cars.
• Essential component of activating the community, applying Smart Growth principles
and achieving the objectives of the PGD vision.
TIER II:
• Improves Mobility and has little to no impact on other travel modes.
• Creates a better balance between motorized and non-motorized travel.
• Enhances mobility by introducing missing links and ensures continuation of capacity.
• Ease of implementation from a constructability, political and financial standpoint.
• Promotes ADA compliance.
79
TIER III:
• Creates places of human scale that promotes active lifestyles and enhances the
user’s experience.
• Involves the beautification of the District.
• Improves mobility to lesser extent and may impact other modes of travel.
• Feasibility unclear with potential concerns of constructability, political and financial
support.
Table 5 and Figure 11 present the Palomar Gateway District Concept Mobility Plan.
It is important to note that the improvements suggested in the following Mobility Plan are
conceptual and provide a long-range vision for the community and the Palomar
Gateway District. These recommended improvements were developed to achieve the
PGD’s spirit and intent to develop a Smart Growth Transit Oriented Development
integrated with the Palomar Transit Center. The proposed improvements are intended
to foster multi-modal choices for the residents of Chula Vista while maintaining
appropriate levels of service. The motorized improvements outlined in the Mobility Plan
below are CEQA mitigations to achieve an acceptable LOS and non-motorized
improvements are considered project features to improve overall mobility. A detailed
engineering study is recommended to identify the feasibility, constructability and funding
of these improvements when appropriate.
Conceptual Mobility Plan
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 11
Recreational Multi-Use Path
Recessed
Trolley Station
Shared Lane Markings
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
High-Visibility Crosswalk
and Curb Ramps
Existing Bike Lanes
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
Widen Intersection to match width of
Anita Street east of Industrial Boulevard
Extend Curb
New Roadway
Remove Free Right Turn /
“Square Up” Intersection
New Bike Lanes
Existing
Bike Lanes
Add All-Way Stop
Add All-Way Stop
Narrow Apron-Style
Driveway
New Bike Lanes
New Bike Lanes
New Bike Lanes
ADA STREET
PALOMAR ST
R
E
E
T
OXFOR
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
DOROTHY STREET
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
ANITA STREET
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
ORANGE AV
E
N
U
E
PALOM
A
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
BA
Y
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BELVIA LANE
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
Landscaped Median
New Roadway
Multi-Use Bridge over
Freeway
Shared Lane Markings
Future Bayshore Bikeway
Class 1 Bike Path Existing Roundabout
New Roundabout
Modified Driveway
Grade Separation for Trolley
at Oxford St and Palomar St
Pocket Park
Monument Feature
New Bike Lanes
Signal Priority for
Transit
Grade Separation for Trolley
at Ada St
Enhanced Sidewalks
New Bike Lanes
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Signal Priority for
Transit
Landscaped Median
Existing Bike Lanes
W
A
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
Park
Park
New Alley or
Roadway
New Alley or
Roadway
Modified Driveway
Right Turn Only
Right Turn Only
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
ÆaÆa
ÆaÆa
Æa
Æa
LEGEND:
Enhanced Sidewalk (Non-Contiguous Sidewalk)
New Roadway with Sidewalk
Missing Link Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Shared-Lane Marking
Mutli-Use Path
Existing Light Rail
Traffic Control
Signal Priority for Transit
Landscaped Median
Modified Driveway
Æa Existing Bus Stop
Right Turn Only Intersection Approach
T
R
E
N
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
82
5.9 Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms and Funding Sources
The following is a list of commonly used mechanisms to fund public facilities. The City of
Chula Vista may currently be utilizing some of these mechanisms, but there may be
opportunities for better leveraging of funding or for pursuing new funding sources.
5.9.1 Development Impact Fees - Property tax limitations imposed by Proposition 13,
resulting in the decline in property taxes available for public projects, has led local
governments to adopt alternative revenue sources to accommodate public facility and
infrastructure demands resulting from growth. Development Impact Fees is one of those
sources. AB 1600 (Cortese), which became effective on January 1, 1989, regulates the
way that impact fees are imposed on development projects. Impact fees are one-time
charges applied to offset the additional public facility provision costs from new
development. This may include provision of additional services, such as water and
sewer systems, roads, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities. Impact fees
cannot be used for operation, maintenance, alteration, or replacement of existing capital
facilities and cannot be channeled to the local government’s discretionary general
funds. Impact fees cannot be an arbitrary amount and must be explicitly linked to the
added cost of providing the facility towards which it is collected.
The City of Chula Vista already has a range of impact fees that are updated periodically
(See City of Chula Vista Master Fee Schedule Bulletin 16-100). It is important, however,
to realize that there are two primary aspects of capital costs (based on which impacts
fees are collected) – land costs and building costs. Though the latter can be estimated
at a citywide level and adjusted periodically using appropriate inflation factors, land cost
estimation is more complicated, especially when one considers significant variations in
land values within the city and the necessity to provide land intensive public facilities,
such as parks. As a result the land acquisition component of a standardized impact fee
may not be consistent with the true costs involved.
5.9.2 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) - CDBG are a Federal grant
program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
CDBG are administered on a formula basis to entitled cities, urban counties and states
to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living
environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate income individuals. The Palomar Gateway District includes areas within the
required low and moderate census tracts. Eligible activities that may be proposed for
funding include, but are not limited to, housing, economic development, and public
facilities and improvements.
5.9.3 Business Improvement Districts (BID) or Property and Business Improvement
Districts (PBID) – BIDs/PBIDs mechanisms for assessing and collecting fees that can
be used to fund various improvements and programs within the district. There are
several legal forms of BIDs authorized by California law. The most common types are
districts formed under the Parking and Business Improvement Act of 1989. Business
Improvement Areas (BIAs) formed under the 1989 law imposes a fee on the business
licenses of the businesses operating in the area, rather than the property owners. The
83
collected funds are used to pay for the improvements and activities specified in the
formation documents.
A similar assessment procedure was authorized by the Property and Business
Improvement District (PBID) Law of 1994. The distinction is that the PBID makes the
assessment on the real property and not on the business. A PBID is currently in
operation in the Third Avenue Village area of the City of Chula Vista. The range of
activities that can potentially be funded through BIDs and PBIDs is broad, and includes
parking improvements, sidewalk cleaning, streetscape maintenance, streetscape
improvements (i.e., furniture, lighting, planting, etc.), promotional events, marketing and
advertising, security patrols, public art, trash collection, landscaping and other functions.
Generally speaking, the BID format works well for marketing and other programmatic
activities that serve to directly benefit area businesses (i.e., tenants), whereas a PBID
may be more appropriate for permanent physical improvements that stand to improve
property values in the area.
5.9.4 TransNet - In 1987, voters approved the TransNet program − a half-cent sales tax
to fund a variety of important transportation projects throughout the San Diego region.
This 20-year, $3.3 billion transportation improvement program was due to expire in
2008. In November 2004, 67 percent of the region’s voters supported Proposition A,
which extends TransNet to 2048, thereby generating an additional $14 billion to be
distributed among highway, transit, and local road projects in approximately equal
thirds. In addition, it will support a robust public transportation system, including new
Bus Rapid Transit services, light rail trolley system and station improvements, and
carpool/managed lanes along many of the major freeways. Two percent of the available
funds will be earmarked annually for bicycle paths and facilities, pedestrian
improvements, and neighborhood safety projects. The San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) sets the priorities and allocates TransNet funds.
5.9.5 Grant Funding - A variety of funding options are available though Federal, state
and local grant programs. Many of the grant programs target urban revitalization efforts,
smart growth enhancements, and transportation planning and are provided on a
competitive basis. Current grant programs, such as the Smart Growth Incentive
Program administered through SANDAG, can provide significant funding towards
projects that result in furthering smart growth approaches, such as the gateway
elements constructed along Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard in 2009.
5.9.6 General Fund - The City receives revenue from a variety of sources, such as
property taxes, sales taxes, fees for recreation classes and plan checking. Revenue can
be generally classified into three broad categories: program revenue, general revenue
and restricted revenue. Depending on the revenue source, the General Fund may be
used for a variety of purposes, such as capital improvement projects or streets, sewers,
stormdrains and other infrastructure maintenance improvements.
5.9.7 Other Funding Sources - Examples of other funding sources that may be
considered to assist in the implementation of the community benefits outlined in this
chapter include Ad Valorem Property Taxes, the Sales and Use Tax, the Business
License Tax and the Transient Occupancy Tax.
84
6. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINSTRATION
6.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the authority of a Specific Plan, the process which will be used
to consider development applications and the administrative procedures required for
amendments and/or modifications to the Plan. A Specific Plan is a regulatory tool that
local governments use to implement their General Plan and to guide development in a
localized area. While to the general plan is the primary guide for growth and
development throughout a community, a Specific Plan is able to focus on the unique
characteristics of a specialized area by customizing the vision, land uses and
development standards for that area. This specific plan has been prepared and adopted
pursuant to Section 65450 et seq of the California Government Code.
6.2 Specific Plan Adoption
This Specific Plan has been adopted by City Council Ordinance. Upon adoption, the
Specific Plan implements the adopted General Plan by establishing the land uses,
development standards and design guidelines for the Specific Plan Subdistricts.
6.3 Specific Plan Administration
Development projects within the Specific Plan Subdistricts will be subject to a design
review process to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan, except as provided below.
The Design Review Process is outlined on the Development Services Department’s
website at:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Development_Services/Planning_Building/D
evelopment_Services_Center/Process_Guides/Design_Review.asp
All developments within the Specific Plan Subdistricts require submittal and approval of
a Design Review Permit. To be approved, a development project must:
• Comply with the permitted uses and development criteria contained in Chapter
3 - Land Use and Development Regulations of this Specific Plan, and other
applicable regulations contained in the CVMC; and,
• Be found to be consistent with the design requirements and recommendations
contained in Chapter 4 - Design Guidelines of this Specific Plan;
• For projects in designated gateways that propose increased building height,
the building design must reflect\ a unique, signature architecture and creates a
positive Chula Vista landmark.
The design review permit will include all conditions of approval ranging from design,
environmental mitigation measures, public improvements, and others as may be
determined upon review of the specific development project. The design review process
85
will ensure an enhanced level of review for major projects, while minimizing processing
for minor projects, as defined by CVMC Section 19.14.582(g), as may be amended from
time to time.
In addition, proposed developments would also be required to adhere to existing CVMC
regulations and processes for other discretionary review, such as those for conditional
use permits, variances, and subdivisions, as may be applicable. (See 2.55, 19.14, and
19.54, as may be amended from time to time). The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
relative to other discretionary permits or actions (e.g. Tentative Map, Conditional Use
Permits) shall be applied as required based on individual development projects.
Permitted land uses within the Specific Plan Focus Areas are identified in the Land Use
Matrix in Chapter 3. The Development Services Director or his/her designee may
determine in writing that a proposed use is similar and compatible to a listed use and
may be allowed upon making one or more of the following findings:
• The characteristics of and activities associated with the proposed use is similar to
one or more of the allowed uses and will not involve substantially greater
intensity than the uses listed for that Subdistrict;
• The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and vision of the applicable
Subdistrict;
• The proposed use will be otherwise consistent with the intent of the Specific
Plan;
• The proposed use will be compatible with the other uses listed for the applicable
Subdistrict. The Development Services Director or his/her designee may refer the
question of whether a proposed use is allowable directly to the Planning
Commission for a determination at a public hearing. A determination of the
Development Services Director or his/her designee, or Planning Commission
may be appealed in compliance with the procedure set forth in the CVMC.
6.4 Previously Conforming Uses
Existing uses that are not listed in the allowable land uses table or determined to be
permitted pursuant to the findings and procedure above are declared previously
conforming uses. Refer to CVMC Chapter 19.64 – Previously Conforming Uses, as may
be amended from time to time, for definitions and policies managing previously
conforming uses:
• Continuances (continuing operation of previously conforming uses)
• Changing uses
• Terminations of previously conforming uses
A one time extension of up to six months, according to the provisions of CVMC Chapter
19.64.070A, as may be amended from time to time, may be granted by the
Development Services Director, as applicable, where undue economic hardship is
86
demonstrated. Standards contained within the Specific Plan are mandatory
requirements that must be satisfied for all new projects and building renovations except
where CVMC previously conforming regulations (Chapter 19.64, as may be amended
from time to time) provide exemptions or allowances.
6.5 Exemptions
Exemptions to Specific Plan requirements include minor modifications to existing
structures such as painting, maintenance or repair, re-roof, modifications that increase
the total building area by 200 square feet or less (within a 2-year period) as well as
other exceptions and modifications described in CVMC 19.16, as may be amended from
time to time.
6.6 Site Specific Variance
Standards contained within the Specific Plan are mandatory requirements that must be
satisfied for all new projects and building renovations except where the CVMC Variance
regulations (Chapter 19.14.140 -- 19.14.270, as may be amended from time to time)
provide for a variation from the strict application of the regulations of a particular
subdistrict.
6.7 Development Exceptions
The land use and development regulations encourage the siting of a variety of land
uses in an urban environment that is both pedestrian and environmentally sensitive. To
further achieve this goal and promote innovative design, it may be necessary to be
flexible in the application of certain development standards. As such, development
exceptions may be authorized by the decision making body for the project if all of the
following findings are made:
1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of
the Specific Plan and General Plan.
2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific
Plan.
3. The exception or exceptions are appropriate for this location and will result in a
better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through strict
conformance with the Specific Plan development regulations.
Consideration of a development standard exception shall be concurrent with the review
of the Design Review or other permit, as may be required pursuant to Section 6.3 of this
Chapter.
6.8 Specific Plan Amendment
Over time, various sections of the Specific Plan may need to be revised, as economic
conditions or City needs dictate. The policies presented in the Specific Plan contain
87
some degree of flexibility, but any Specific Plan amendments must be judged by
relatively fixed criteria. The California Government Code (§ 65453) clearly states that a
Specific Plan “may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.”
Amendments to this Plan may be initiated by a developer, any individual property
owner, or by the City, in accordance with any terms and conditions imposed during the
original approval or in accordance with any terms and conditions pertaining to Chula
Vista Municipal Code.
The Development Services Director or his/her designee is responsible for making the
determination of whether an amendment to the Specific Plan text or maps is needed.
Amendment procedures are described below.
• Proposals to amend the Specific Plan must be accompanied by detailed
information to document the change required. This information should include
revised Specific Plan text (or excerpt thereof) and revised land use diagram or
map amendment, where relevant, depicting the amendment requested.
• The City has conducted a comprehensive analysis and invested a significant
amount of time and money in the preparation of the Specific Plan; therefore, any
proposals to amend the Specific Plan must document the need for such changes.
The City and/or applicant should indicate the economic, social, or technical
issues that generate the need to amend the Specific Plan. Costs incurred for the
amendments shall be the responsibility of the party requesting the amendment.
• The City and/or applicant must provide an analysis of the amendment’s impacts
relative to the adopted Environmental Impact Report. Depending on the nature of
the amendment, supplemental environmental analysis may be necessary. The
need for such additional analysis shall be determined by the City of Chula Vista
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines §
15162).
Major and Minor Amendments - The Development Services Director or his /her
designee shall within 10 days of any submittal of a request to amend this Plan,
determine whether the amendment is “minor” (administrative) or “major”. Major
amendments (described below) require an advisory recommendation by the Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council. If the amendment is determined to be
minor, the Development Services Director, or his/her designee, may approve or deny
the application. Minor amendments must be determined by the Development Services
Director to be in substantial conformance with the provisions of the Specific Plan and do
not include any changes described below for major amendments. Any decision of the
Development Services Director, or his/her designee, may be appealed to the City
Council, provided said appeal is initiated within 10 working days of receipt by the
applicant of written notice of the decision of the Development Services Director, or
his/her designee. Examples of “major” amendments include:
• The introduction of a new land use designation not contemplated in the Specific
Plan, as may be amended from time to time.
88
• Changes in the designation of land uses affecting two acres or more from that
shown in the Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to time.
• Changes to the circulation system or other community facility which would
materially affect a planning concept detailed in the Specific Plan, as may be
amended from time to time.
• Changes or additions to the design guidelines which materially alter the stated
intent of the Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to time.
• Any change which would result in new significant, direct adverse environmental
impacts not previously considered in the EIR.
Necessary Findings - The Development Services Director, or his/her designee will
review the request for Specific Plan Amendment and all submitted supporting material
and develop a recommendation on the Specific Plan Amendment for consideration by
the Planning Commission and City Council. The Development Services Director or his
/her designee may also request further clarification and submittal of additional
supporting information, if necessary. The consideration of any proposed amendment to
the Specific Plan shall require that the following findings be made:
• Changes have occurred in the community since the approval of the original
Specific Plan which warrants approving the proposed amendment; and
• The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan for the City of
Chula Vista; and
• The proposed amendment will result in a benefit to the area within the Specific
Plan; and
• The proposed amendment will not result in significant unmitigated impacts to
adjacent properties; and
• The proposed amendment will enable the delivery of services and public facilities
to the population within the Specific Plan area.
6.9 Five Year Review
Conducting periodic reviews of the Specific Plan is important to ensure proper
functioning and implementation over time. A five-year review will offer an opportunity to
make sure the Specific Plan is on track, check in on the implementation process to
ensure that the goals and objectives are being achieved and make changes in case
they are not. Over the life of the Specific Plan, the changing landscape of the area may
impact the effectiveness of implementing actions. Thus, a five-year review cycle allows
for adjustments to the plan to be made as necessary. Items of particular importance to
consider are:
• Review the total amount of development against the thresholds established in
89
this Specific Plan.
• Evaluate the need for planned improvements based on development patterns
and programs in the CIP.
A Five-Year Progress Report will be prepared and may be included as part of Budget
Cycle or Strategic Plan Updates.
90
GLOSSARY - definition of terms
These definitions shall apply to the Palomar Gateway District:
accessway - a formalized path, walkway, or other physical connection that allows
pedestrians to directly reach destinations.
allee - a row of vertical elements, such as flags, trees or architectural elements, that
creates a visual corridor.
arcade - a covered walkway attached to a building and supported on the sides but not
attached to the building by columns.
articulation - the visible expression of architectural or landscape elements through
form, structure, or materials that “break up” the scale of buildings and spaces to achieve
a “human scale.”
awning - a fixed cover, typically comprised of cloth over a metal frame that is placed
over windows or building openings as protection from the sun and rain.
awning sign - a sign painted on, printed on, or attached flat against the surface of an
awning.
balcony - an exterior platform that projects from or into the facade of a building and is
surrounded by a railing, handrail, or parapet.
bay window - a large window or grouping of windows projecting from the outer facade
of a building and forming an alcove in the interior of the building.
bulk retail use or bulk sales - a retail or wholesale facility that serves the general
public, selling primarily institutional sized or multi-pack products in bulk quantities.
clear window - the amount of glass surface of a window that allows 100% visual
permeability.
commercial parking facility - a parking structure or a surface parking lot operated for
profit that has parking spaces that are not accessory to a primary use.
compact development - the planning concept of using site design and urban design
techniques to decrease the amount of land needed to develop a specific land use.
courtyard - a yard wholly or partly surrounded by walls or buildings.
density - the number of dwelling units divided by the net site area.
drive-through facility - facilities only allowing transactions for goods or services
without leaving a motor vehicle. This type of facility does not provide for any walk-in
service.
91
externally illuminated sign - a sign whose light source is located outside of the sign.
facade - the exterior face of a building, which is the architectural front, sometimes
distinguished from other faces by elaboration of architectural or ornamental details.
fast food establishment - a food service business that offers relatively immediate
service of semi-prepared or prepared foods for take-out or in-house consumption in
disposable containers and serving walk-in and/or drive- through customers.
finished floor - the ultimate grade at which a structural floor will be constructed
including added decorative and finished surfaces.
freestanding monument sign - a permanent sign where the entire bottom of the sign
is affixed to the ground, not to a building.
frontage - the linear edge of a property adjacent to the property line abutting a street, or
public right-of-way.
gateway - the entry, focal, point into a specific area, city or region.
greenway - one or a series of vegetative, linear corridors, natural or man-made, that
may contain active or passive recreational uses or may prohibit human activity
altogether to preserve sensitive areas. These corridors are usually associated with
riparian systems, but may also include transportation corridors.
infill - a newly constructed building within a developed area.
internally illuminated sign - a sign whose light source is located in the interior of the
sign so that rays shine through the face of the sign, or a light source that is attached to
the face of the sign and is perceived as a design element of the sign.
landscaping - an area devoted to or developed and maintained with native or exotic
planting, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials,
decorative outdoor landscape elements, pools, fountains, water feature, paved or
decorated surfaces of rock, stone, brick, block, or similar material (excluding driveways,
parking, loading, or storage areas), and sculpture elements. Plants on rooftops, porches
or in boxes attached to buildings are not considered landscaping.
large-scale retail commercial - commercial development with primary buildings
greater than 50,000 square feet gross business area in a single freestanding use or in
conjunction with other uses on a lot(s) or parcel(s).
light rail transit (LRT) - a fixed guideway transit system.
liner retail - a retail building adjacent to a street and serving pedestrian traffic. Located
at the front of a larger retail site that may also contain large format or large-scale retail
uses.
92
live-work - a residential unit that is also used for commercial purposes for a time, with
minimum of 25% of the total building area given to the commercial use within the same
structure as the residential component.
loggia - a roofed, but open arcade along the front or side of a building on an upper
story.
loop road - a vehicular and pedestrian accessway with a common starting point and
terminus; or a roadway that connects two points along the length of a street or arterial;
or a roadway that links two roadways in proximity to their intersection.
masonry - wall construction of such material as stone, brick and adobe.
mass - a description of three-dimensional forms, the simplest of which are cubes, boxes
(or “rectangular solids”), cylinders, pyramids and cones. Buildings are rarely one of
these simple forms, but generally are composites of varying types of assets. This
composition is generally described as the “massing” of forms in a building.
mixed-use - development contained within a single-parcel (horizontally or vertically) or
adjacent parcels that contains different uses that are complementary to each other and
provide activity throughout the day.
overhang - the architectural elements of a building that extend horizontally beyond the
wall.
parking structure - a parking garage located above ground or underground consisting
of one or more levels.
park & ride lot - a parking structure or surface parking lot intended primarily for use by
persons riding transit or carpooling, owned or operated either by a transit agency or by
another entity with the concurrence of the transit agency.
parking, off-street - marked or unmarked parking located within a parcel and outside a
private or public right-of-way.
parking, on-street - marked or unmarked parking located within a private or public
right-of-way and outside of a parcel.
pedestrian-oriented design - the design of communities, neighborhoods,
streetscapes, sites, and buildings that emphasizes pedestrian access, comfort, and
visual interest. Transit-oriented design is a particular type of pedestrian-oriented design
that includes design and intensity of land use to support transit in addition to
pedestrians.
pedestrian-oriented street - a street lined with uses, designed to generate and
encourage foot traffic.
93
pedestrian scale - the size and proportion of a physical element that closely relates to
the human body e.g., a 16-foot lamp post vs. a 30-foot lamp post, a facade with
vertically oriented framed windows vs. a facade with a continuous and unarticulated
window wall.
pedestrian way - a linear space or an area where the primary users are pedestrians
and that may also accommodate bicyclists.
pergola - an arbor or passageway with a roof or trelliswork on which climbing plants
can be trained to grow.
permanent sign - a sign constructed of durable materials and intended to exist for the
duration of time that the use or occupant is located on the premises.
portico - a porch or walkway with a roof supported by columns, often leading to the
entrance of a building.
porch - an open building used solely for ingress and egress and not occupancy, at least
two sides of which shall be at least 50% open.
primary front facade - the facade of a building fronting onto a public or private street or
pedestrian accessway.
project - any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alteration, or
enlargement of any structure.
projecting sign - a sign that protrudes.
public right-of-way - a strip of land that has been established by reservation,
dedication, prescription, condemnation, or other means and that is occupied by a road,
walkway, railroad, utility distribution or transmission facility, or other similar use.
roundabout – a traffic circle.
San Diego Trolley - the first new light rail line in the United States has lines extending
from downtown San Diego to Mission Valley, Santee, Chula Vista, and San
Ysidro/International Border.
screening - a method of visually shielding or obscuring a structure, or portion of, by a
fence, wall, berm, or similar structure.
shared parking - parking that is utilized by two or more uses taking into account the
variable peak demand times of each use; the uses can be located on more than one
parcel.
siding - the finish covering on the exterior of a frame building (with the exception of
masonry). The term cladding is often used to describe any exterior wall covering,
including masonry.
94
sign - an object, device display or structure, or part thereof, situated outdoors or
indoors, which is used to identify, display, or direct or attract attention to an object,
person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event, or location by any
means, including words, letters, figures, design symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, or
projected image.
street-facing facade - the building facade that is adjacent to a public or private right-of-
way.
stucco - an exterior finish, usually textured, composed of portland cement, lime and
sand, which are mixed with water.
temporary sign - any sign intended to be displayed for a limited period of time and
capable of being viewed from any public right-of-way, parking area, or neighboring
property.
texture - variations in the exterior facade and may be described in terms of roughness
of the surface material, the patterns inherent in the material or the patterns in which the
material is placed. Texture and lack of texture influence the mass, scale, and rhythm of
a building. Texture also can add intimate scale to large buildings by the use of small
detailed patterns, such as brick masonry.
tower - any floor above the defined street wall height used for framing the street.
transit-oriented development (TOD) - a development pattern characterized by a mix
of uses surrounding a transit platform where streets have a high level of connectivity,
blocks are small, and streetscape, buildings, and uses cater to the pedestrian.
transit platform - a designated transit loading and waiting area as assigned by the
public transit agency.
transit station - the area including the platform which supports transit usage and that is
owned by the transit authority.
transit street - a street that contains a transit line.
trellis - a lattice on which vines are often trained.
visual permeability - the ability of vertical surfaces to allow viewers to see through to
the other side e.g., windows and open fencing.
walking radius - the distance beyond a central point from which a person is willing to
walk. This distance varies depending on existing barriers, the walking environment, and
the availability of destinations.
wall sign - a sign that is attached to or painted on the exterior wall of a structure with
the display surface of the sign approximately parallel to the building wall.
95
window sign - a sign posted, painted, placed, or affixed in or on a window exposed to
public view. An interior sign that faces a window exposed to public view that is located
within three feet of the window is considered a window sign for the purpose of
calculating the total area of all window signs.
96
Works Cited
Committee, Chula Vista Diamond Anniversary. Chula Vista Heritage 1911-1986. Chula
Vista: City of Chula Vista, 1986.
Corona, Antonio Padilla. "Rancho Tia Juana." Journal of San Diego History, 2004: 30-
41.
Cuero, Delfina. Delfina Cuero: Her Autobiography: An Account of Her Last Years and
Her Ethnobotanic Contributions. Menlo Park: Ballena Press, 1991.
EDAW (Gustafson, A. and Gregory C.). HIstoric Resource Evaluation Report for
Western Salt Company Salt Works. Historic Resource Evaluation, San Diego: Caltrans
and Tierra Environmental Services, 2001.
Pourade, Richard F. The Silver Dons. San Diego: Copley Press, 1963.
Schoenherr, Steven. Chula Vista Centennial: 1911-2011. Chula Vista: Chula Vista,
2011.
97
APPENDIX A
URBAN DESIGN WORKSHOP SUMMARY BOOKLET
98
APPENDIX B
MARKET STUDY
99
APPENDIX C
WATER SUPPLY ASSESMENT
100
APPENDIX D
MOBILITY STUDY
Summary
Palomar Gate way &
West Fairfield Districts
July 11, 2009
Urban Design Workshop
One of the most important elements of any planning process is public participation. The Southwest Urban
Design Workshops were conducted to obtain early public input related to the conditions of the five
planning districts located in the Southwest area of the city, and the opportunities for their improvement.
Over eighteen members of the public participated in the Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield
Workshops, and represent a good cross section of the population of the city, such as residents, business
owners, property owners, community organizations and other stakeholder of the area. The City of Chula
Vista thanks them all for taking the time to participate in the workshop and provide valuable input for the
improvement of our community.
Acknowledgements
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
1
Summar y
Workshop Participants
Juan Antonio Ramirez
Manuel Durazo
Joe Casillas
David Krogh
Rafael Courtney
Rosa M. Gibson
Earl Jentz
Bill Pack
Theresa Acerro
Barbara Lugo
Sarah Withers
Rudy Gonzalez
Rosa Vazquez
Ed Herrera
Lisa Cohen
Ruth Yaconelli
Elizabeth Pastrana
Anthony Mendiola
City Staff
Gary Halbert
Mary Ladiana
Edgar Batchelder
Miguel Tapia
Stan Donn
Carla Blackamar
Frank Rivera
Giselle Valdivieso
Gabriel Innocenzi
Dai Hoang
Consultants
Mariana Lopez, Interpreter
“American democracy is rooted in the concept of representation. Actively
encouraging citizens to participate in decision making assures their views will
be heard. Thus participation is important for a healthy representative democracy.”
Quoted from Partnerships and Participation in Planning in: www.uap.vt.edu/cdrom
“The contemporary practice of Urban Design focuses on making the most of urban
areas to create pleasant places in which to linger, to partake of public life, and to
help build strong, tolerant, progressive civil society.”
Quoted from What Is Urban Design? in: www.mcgill.ca/urbandesign/what
Acknowledgements 1
Table of Contents 2
Chapter 1.0 Introduction 3
1.1 Purpose of the Urban Design Workshop 3
1.2 District Location and Description 3
1.3 Context - General Plan 4
Chapter 2.0 Summary of Workshop 5
2.1 Walking Tour 5
2.2 Group Breakout sessions 6
2.3 Group Presentations 6
Chapter 3.0 Next Steps 6
Exhibits
Exhibit A - 2005 General Plan Update Land Use and Transportation,
Economic Development objectives and policies 8
Exhibit B - 2005 General Plan Update Southwest Area 8.4.2 Palomar Gateway District 9
Exhibit C - 2005 General Plan Update Southwest Area 8.4.4 West Fairfield District 11
Exhibit D - Workshop Participants Comments (Group 1)13
Exhibit E - Workshop Participants Comments (Group 2)14
Exhibit F - Workshop Participants Comments (Group 3)16
Exhibit G - General Notes 18
Exhibit H - Comments made by residents who had to leave early 19
Exhibit I - Conceptual Map from Group #2 20
Exhibit J - Conceptual Map from Group #3 21
Table of Contents
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
2
Summar y
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Urban Design Workshop
On July 11, 2009 the Development Services Department sponsored an urban design workshop held at
the San Diego County Health and Human Services Building to gather early public input related to the
specific planning process and issues related to future land uses, transportation, and urban design for
the Palomar Gateway District (PGD) and West Fairfield District of southwest Chula Vista. The preparation
of specific plans or other implementing zoning and development regulations is mandated by the 2005
General Plan for each of the five Southwest planning districts in order to provide the tools necessary to
implement the objectives and policies of the 2005 General Plan.
Over eighteen members of the community attended the Saturday session which was the first of three
workshops held over the summer. The Urban Design Workshop was intended to foster and bring forth
the community's diverse viewpoints, as an initial step in the planning process. The intent of the
workshop was to quickly develop rough Concepts Diagrams with local residents and property owners,
and community organizations who are both familiar with the conditions of the district and have an
interest in the ultimate recommendations of the Plan. This booklet portrays the results of the workshop. It
identifies challenges and opportunities facing long term viability of the area and ideas suggested by
Workshop participants.
1.2 Districts Location and Description
Palomar Gateway District - Existing Conditions
The PGD is located in southwestern Chula Vista. Located at the interchange of Palomar Street and the
Interstate 5 freeway, the PGD is the major southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista for visitors
entering both from the freeway and from the blue line San Diego Trolley. The bulk of the district lies
between Interstate 5, Palomar Street, Industrial Boulevard, and Anita Street. The district also includes
areas north of Palomar Street between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard, the northeast corner of
Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, and the Palomar Street Trolley Station.
The district is fully urbanized and radiates from the Palomar Transit
Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard,
and contains a mix of light industrial, commercial and multi-family
housing extending north and south of Palomar Street. Residential
densities in the area are currently fairly low, approximately 4.1 dwelling
units per acre. Across Industrial Boulevard to the east is the major
commercial nucleus of Southwest Chula Vista - an area which attracts
shoppers and employees from points north and south. The potential for
the PGD to evolve from a low-density auto-focused interchange into a
higher density transit oriented community has been recognized both
by SANDAG's Vision 2020 Plan, which designated the PGD as a
Planned/Existing Smart Growth Community Center, and the City's 2005
General Plan, which calls for the district to be developed as a Transit
Focus Area.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
3
Summar y
Palomar Gateway District
Progress towards this vision is already underway, with pedestrian/transit improvements on Palomar
Street and Industrial Boulevard provided by the 2005 Transnet SGIP grant expected to be completed in
the fall of 2009. In order to fully realize the transformation of the district, however, it will be necessary to
engage in a Specific Planning process to update the City’s zoning code to reflect the smart growth
vision prescribed by the General Plan.
West Fairfield District - Existing Conditions
The West Fairfield District, originally part of the Fairfield neighborhood
that was divided by the construction of Interstate 5, is located on the
west side of Interstate 5, between Palomar Street and Main Street, and
is flanked by San Diego Bay on the west. The West Fairfield District
occupies approximately 68 acres of land and has a mix of light
industrial and office uses interspersed with older, single-family homes
and vacant lots. This mix of uses developed without the benefit of city
planning policies and/or zoning regulations. West Fairfield is somewhat
isolated from the rest of Chula Vista, due to Interstate 5 forming its
eastern edge. Pedestrian routes across the freeway are limited and
heavily traveled by cars and trucks. Freeway on-and off-ramps at
Palomar Street provide convenient freeway access into the District for
vehicles.
1.3 Context - General Plan
The Chula Vista 2005 General Plan designates the Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield districts as two
of the five “focused areas of change” which are those areas where more intensive development,
revitalization and/or redevelopment are proposed to occur. The General Plan vision for Palomar
Gateway includes a Mixed-Use Transit Focus Area (TFA) directly west of the Palomar Trolley Station,
higher residential intensity, a neighborhood park and retail to the south of the TFA. The goal is to
provide for additional housing and mixed-uses that take advantage of a major transit station within
walking distance.
The General Plan vision for the West Fairfield district includes a major employment center, with regional
retail and other employment uses. The higher intensity residential and employment uses between the
Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield districts located east and west of Interstate 5, respectively, are
synergistic uses that exemplify “Smart Growth” principles (i.e. jobs, housing, and neighborhood-serving
commercial services within walking distance of transit).
Future development of the Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield districts must be consistent with the
goals and policies of the 2005 General Plan. Exhibits A, B and C identify objectives and policies, from
the Land Use and Transportation Element, the Economic Development Element, as well as the
Southwest Area Plan of the General Plan, which apply to the Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield
districts.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
4
Summar y
West Fairfield District
2.0 Summary of Workshop
The workshop was a one-day activity, intended to provide opportunities for
the public to engage in a “hands on” planning exercise. The process was an
inclusive public participation outreach to gain input from residents, business
and property owners, and community organizations regarding their
perspective and vision for the area. The outreach for the workshop
included distribution of meeting flyers to many individuals and
organizations involved in previous Southwest community planning
efforts, posting flyers at local businesses and public buildings,
highlighting the workshops on the City's website, press releases to
local newspapers, e-mail blasts through Nixile messaging, and
coordination with various
community groups to encourage
the community's participation.
The all day workshop included a
morning presentation by city staff
regarding the general plan and
specific plans, and a healthy
dialogue with the participants; a two
hour walking tour of the district;
followed by afternoon brainstorming sessions by small groups in
response to opportunities and challenges observed on the walking
tour. The small groups depicted their written comments on an aerial map
and concluded the day by presenting their findings to the
entire group.
2.1 Walking Tour
The Workshop's afternoon session included a walking tour of
the district area. The Urban Design Workshop covered in
this booklet was for the Palomar Gateway District and the
West Fairfield District. However, due to time limitations and
the large territory that could not be walked in one session,
the walking tour included only the Palomar Gateway
District. Aerial views of the West Fairfield district were
provided, and insights were shared from one of the major property owners
who attended the workshop. The purpose of the walking tour of Palomar
Gateway was to explore the district on foot and see and experience the
territory first hand. The tour was used to identify and point out
problems/issues that need to be addressed as part of the specific planning
process. The tour also served to identify opportunities and constraints and
categorize problems/issues related to land use, infrastructure, and urban
design.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
5
Summar y
Flyer distributed
throughout the
community and
e-mail
Star News Display Ad
Participants discuss their impressions of
the area after the walking tour.
Mr. Gary Halbert, Director of the Development
Services Department, provides opening remarks
at the workshop
The group of stakeholders that participated in the walking tour was divided into 3
groups. Each group was kept small in order to facilitate the observation of the
area and the discussion. Each group was led by one or two city staff members.
While each group went in a different direction, all groups covered the same
territory and saw the same area.
2.2 Group Breakout Sessions
At the completion of the tour, all groups went back to the
meeting place to debrief on their observations. Each group
was asked to discuss what they saw and develop a list of
problems/issues, opportunities/constraints, and suggest ways to improve the
area. Exhibits D, E, F, G and H are a compilation of the input provided by the
walking tour participants.
2.3 Group Presentations
The participants were also given large (2' x
3') aerial maps of the area and were
asked to put their comments/suggestions
on the maps and develop a
conceptual map of the district.
Exhibits I and J show the images of
the maps prepared by the groups.
The last exercise of the afternoon
was for each group to report out and present their conceptual map
to the entire group.
3.0 Next Steps
The Urban Design Workshop for the Palomar Gateway and West Fairfield districts was the first step in the
specific planning process for the southwest area of Chula Vista. As indicated previously, the southwest
area contains five districts that have been designated by the 2005
General Plan Update as areas for further study and preparation of a
specific plan or other regulatory plans/documents. The Palomar
Gateway and West Fairfield districts will both be the subject of a
specific plan preparation. Because the West Fairfield area is within
the coastal zone, the specific plan for this area will be part of a Local
Coastal Plan that would potentially be prepared in conjunction with
the development of a large portion of the area under the ownership
of the Charles Company.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
6
Summar y
Each of the groups presents its Conceptual
Map to the rest of the participants
Participants mark their comments
on a Conceptual Map
Participants provide comments about the
area and prepare Conceptual Map.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
7
Summar y
In July 2009, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) awarded a grant to the City of
Chula Vista to fund the preparation of the specific plan for the Palomar Gateway Disctrict. Following
the administrative procedures for the award and acceptance of the grant, City staff estimates that the
specific planning tasks will commence in November 2009. The Urban Design Workshop and the
resulting lists of comments and Conceptual Maps will be utilized in various ways throughout the specific
planning process.
The participation of the residents, property/business owners and other stakeholders will be an important
element of this process. It is anticipated that a Working Group of stakeholders will be formed, and
members of the public will be invited to participate in community meetings to provide input throughout
the process.
Conceptual Maps prepared by
participants groups
An art rendering from one of the groups.
Summar y
Exhibit A8
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Exhibit A
2005 General Plan Update
Land Use and Transportation and Economic Development Elements
Objectives and Policies
Land Use and Transportation
Economic Developent
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
2005 General Plan Update
SOUTHWEST AREA
8.4.2 Palomar Gateway District
Summar y
Exhibit B 9
Exhibit B
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit B - Continued10
Exhibit B - Continued
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
2005 General Plan Update
SOUTHWEST AREA
8.4.4 West Fairfield District
Summar y
11 Exhibit C
Exhibit C
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit C - Continued12
Exhibit C - Continued
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit D 13
Workshop Participants Comments - July 11, 2009
GROUP #1 (Focused on West Fairfield District)
Features that we liked in the area:
! That we allowed new construction in area which increased the value of properties and
creates/demands more necessities
! There is a bay view
! Bike path, restaurants
Challenges:
! Abandoned lots
! Having industrial mixed in here and there with
residential
! Providing services for a larger area that is growing
in population
! City needs to be conscious of keeping the right
balance between property owners/developers
rights and the provision of public services
(Library/education)
! Lack of INFRASTRUCTURE!
! Lack of Sidewalks, sewer lines
! How to preserve habitat while urbanizing area -
Environment and urbanization of area
Opportunities:
! Depths of lots
! Designated nature area
! Mixed use along transit corridor
! Multi-family development
! Views, transportation hub
! Access on Palomar and Main Street
! Area owned by one company, which can get
things going
What we would like to see:
! Green Spaces
!Entertainment centers
!Village Concept: residential, commercial, retail, office, etc
! All government agencies working together
! Mixed use commercial/residential in area with entertainment facilities
! Property owners approached/be more inclusive
! Rehabilitation/aesthetics program
! Educational facility (maybe art) to connect with environment, don't lose
Natural beauty
! LEED ideas whenever possible
! Promoting “clean” green industry
Exhibit D
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Challenges:
! No pedestrian zone on some sidewalks -
obstructions in different places - there are poles and
utilities blocking sidewalk
! Inadequate pedestrian lighting
! Make sure new development pays for infrastructure
! Wide curb ratios encourage cars to turn right very
fast, creates conflicts with pedestrians while crossing
intersections
! Big arterials (Palomar and Industrial) sidewalk is next
to street, pedestrians exposed to traffic
! Ugly chain link fence: Fence next to sidewalk on
Industrial south of Palomar does not look nice.
Replacement should be aesthetically pleasing fence
! Need safer pedestrian crossings
! Need for park - potentially accross multiple
owners/and current new owner
! Noncontiguous sidewalk (like in eastern corner) -
Solution: new and retrofit corners should not have big
ratios, install bulbouts
! Entering adequate public facilities with new growth
(Harborside Elementary @ capacity)
Opportunities:
! Good from grant funding perspective
! Multiple story residential Frontage. Fabulous view
of the bay
Workshop Participants Comments - July 11, 2009
GROUP #2 (Focused on Palomar Gateway District)
14 Exhibit E
Exhibit E
What we would like to see:
! Place a planting strip to create protection buffer for pedestrian and create a nicer place to walk (the only
Nice place to walk is Palomar St, west of industrial
! Make sure new development pays for infrastructure
! Trenton Ave- provide public access to industrial
! Create safer crosswalks. Industrial will need safe crosswalks close to trolley station
! Remove objects on sidewalk to allow people on wheel-chair or people with strollers to continue walking.
Continue sidewalks from PG projects
! I-5/Palomar Study represents opportunity to address needs
! Loop road through Walnut and Trenton
! Put pedestrian activated signals
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
15 Exhibit E - Continued
! Coordinate signals along Palomar
! Look for opportunities within TFA + RH for parks (alongside Ada and creek area)
! Balboa Park
! Ped/Bike bridge to connect and bring community back together
! Bayshore bikeway
! Construct greenway linking SDG&E greeen space east of Industrial west to bayfront
What we would like to see:
1.Improve access in the surrounding blocks of Walnut and Trenton streets
2.Remove unused infrastructure on the Northwest corner of Palomar and Industrial
3.Complete street improvements on Industrial Boulevard
4.Construct greenway linking I-5 to the “floating” park; we would like to see a bayfront in the
West Fairfield District
5.Palomar Street's signals to be synched by October 2009 (per Frank)
6.Higher rise views along Frontage Rd.
7.Maintain secondary access path to trolley that runs between Food 4 Less shopping center
and the station
Exhibit E - Continued
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit F16
Workshop Participants Comments - July 11, 2009
GROUP #3
Information needed for future planning:
! Density maps
! Traffic Studies
! Job/ housing ratios
! Deadline/Timeline for process so that we know something will get done
Constrains:
! No sidewalk
! Parking on street
! Too much red tape
! West Fairfield:” does anyone use this name?
! Trucks parked along Industrial are unsightly and are a traffic hazard
Suggestions (on sticky-notes) on map:
1.Wildlife refuge focus
2.Preserve historic building: (reuse as) Children's Museum/ Nature Center
3.Continue park to bay
4.Maintain lower density housing adjacent to Industrial
5.Water features to buffer noise from freeway and trolley
6.Shade trees/No palms!
7.No high density close to freeway
8.Reconsider high density rightly, (because of) noise from freight train operation, overcrowding at schools!
What we would like to see:
! Creekside park
! Move trees
! Sound wall for I-5
! Signage along Dorothy Street
! Artist theme (refer to drawings)
! Street vendors near trolley for convenient access to food, beverage, flowers
! Community Bulletin board near trolley
! Public art/music
! Public art such as: sound makers, reminder of agricultural past, kinetic sculpture
! Art Walk
! Water features
! Native plants
! Entry gateway
! Push carts to encourage walking
! Pushcart paddock
! Coffee shops, education center, liquor stores, mini plazas
! Bike lockers
! Children's museum
! Interaction with NWR throughout district
Exhibit F
9.Artists' colony
10.Shopping cart collection areas-paddocks
11.Art walk, colorful buildings, unique architecture
12.Lofts for artists, to establish business
13.Plaza paseo gas station and Car wash at Industrial and Palomar, restaurants, schools
14.Get people out of cars
15.Identify and develop community mosaic, artwork, signage
16.Solar lights, maximize solar
17.Directional and monument signage for trolley, pedestrian signs, etc
18.Plant more Tipuana Tipu trees- they have a nice canopy
19.Art on utility boxes
20.Install directional signage for the District
21.Develop pedestrian plan with connection to West Palomar
22.Median breaks along Industrial allow pedestrian access to trolley
23.Park should incorporate creek- potential skate park; Tony Hawk Foundation
24.Criss-cross pedestrian crossing on Palomar and Industrial
25.Drainage area adjacent to trolley tracks should be planted or landscaped- Riparian
28.Below or above/ grade, crossing
29.Street Vendors-mini plaza @ trolley, farmers market, community activity
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit F - Continued17
Exhibit F - Continued
Palomar Gateway Districts & West Fairfield Districts
General Notes - July 11, 2009
Community Questions/Comments:
1.When did area become known as Palomar Gateway?
2.Why is the East side of Industrial not included in the “Gateway?”
3. There is a 3.5-acre lot for sale on the corner of Ada, why isn't the City putting in an offer?
4.What is the existing density? It seems like everything is being done in a vacuum. Need data before,
not after, or else there will be problems in the area, such as traffic.
5.There doesn't seem to be a focus on residential aspect. There currently is a 0.6 imbalance between
residential and jobs available. The Southwest was balanced until the City came in and destroyed it.
6.From the time of the Montgomery annexation, we (community) were told it was in our best interest to
annex to the City because the County of San Diego was not taking care of us, however, zero has
been done since.
7.Previous issues were to be corrected, but they were left on the backburner. Or just waiting for people
to die out.
8.There are existing infrastructure deficits today, we need to deal with those issues.
9.Convince us with action.
10.How are our concerns going to be addressed in report?
11.Concern and frustration needs to be articulated/documented in order to move forward.
12.Let community know that we have gotten back to them in implementation of plan.
13.The way to go forward is to deal with the past.
14.This (graphic with LUTs) is only an excerpt of the General Plan. I know there is a section related to
commitment in this document. Specific deficits are identified. I think an addendum should be added
to this so it's not so narrow.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit G18
Exhibit G
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit H19
Exhibit H
Things we like:
1.Convenient major regional transportation
facilities (eg. Freeway, trolley) make area a high
potential area for any and all higher future uses,
be they residential, commercial, or industrial.
2.Historic rail line offers intriguing possibilities.
3.Area has high scenic and historic natural features
such as the bay, even ocean views, historic salt
works and nature conservation potential both
now and even more in the future.
4.Proximity of potential improved/increased
residential to mass transit (trolley).
5.Work/home balance potential from placing
employing usages close to transportation
facilities.
Challenges:
1.Municipal boundary bisects the area (Chula
Vista/San Diego).
2.Lack of coherence between existing uses and
existing zoning and future plans.
3.Noise from freeway.
4.Proximity of existing, possibly incompatible uses
(eg. Residential/industrial).
5.Traffic congestion exacerbated by trolley line
without “grade separation.”
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
July 11, 2009
Comments made by residents who had to leave early, but left their sheets
Improve:
1.A major property owner/developer present at the workshop appeared to be actively seeking input
on how to develop the area in manner more acceptable and compatible with community.
2.Why should CV bayfront development be focused solely on the NW CV bayfront? Consider the SW
CV bayfront also.
3.Identify potential signature uses that will capture the imagination to spur positive development,
identify significant potential constraints and develop plans to overcome them.
4.Begin long-term exploration/planning for possible trolley spur West of I-5 stretching from NWCV
bayfront along SWCV bayfront extending over to Imperial Beach.
5.Explore LAFCO or other potential avenues of concentrating municipal governance to single most
closely related jurisdiction (eg. CV) in order to facilitate optimization and success of future
development efforts.
Other Comments:
1.Re: 3A: who knows if something like Gaylord or stadium project will ever occur, but power plant will
come down someday, some kind of projects will occur and trolley spur could provide a significant fill
up to development and revitalization of all areas such as NW CV bay, SW CV bay, IB, etc.
2.Historic level-grade rail right of way is truly unparalleled asset. A bikeway may be along it but could
be readily moved slightly and/or relocated in order to reactivate rail for potential trolley usage. Since
its ownership is still relatively “in the public domain” it could be reactivated at relatively low cost,
much as the original trolley South Line was when the San Diego trolley system first started and to this
Day has relatively low capital and operational cosT.
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit I 20
Exhibit I
Exhibit I - Conceptual Map from Group #2
Urban Design Workshop
Palomar Gateway & West Fairfield Districts
Summar y
Exhibit J 21
Exhibit J
Exhibit J - Conceptual Map from Group #3
MARKET STUDY
Palomar Gateway District
Chula Vista, CA
Prepared by:
Gafcon, Inc.
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
September 9, 2011
MARKET STUDY
Palomar Gateway District
Chula Vista, CA
ii
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
II. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................... 2
III. OVERVIEW OF PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT ......................................................................... 3
IV. EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 4
U.S. Market ........................................................................................................................................... 4
California Market ................................................................................................................................... 5
San Diego Market .................................................................................................................................. 5
Chula Vista Market ................................................................................................................................ 5
V. RESIDENTIAL MARKET ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 7
New Home Market ................................................................................................................................ 7
Rental Market ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Housing Demand ................................................................................................................................. 19
Housing Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 24
VI. RETAIL MARKET ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 27
Retail Market ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Demographic Overview ........................................................................................................................ 28
Retail Demand ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Retail Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 41
VII. OFFICE MARKET ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 46
Office Market ....................................................................................................................................... 46
Office Demand .................................................................................................................................... 48
Office Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 53
VIII. LAND USE DEMAND SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 55
IX. DESIGNATED LAND USES ............................................................................................................. 56
X. LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ............................................................................. 60
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 1
I. INTRODUCTION
Gafcon, Inc. (Gafcon) was selected by the City of Chula Vista to prepare a Market Study
that will assist in the preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan for the area in Southwest
Chula Vista known as the Palomar Gateway District. The primary goal of the Palomar
Gateway District Specific Plan is to implement the General Plan Smart Growth vision for a
higher-density residential, pedestrian and transit-oriented development with a mix of shops
and office near a transit station. The Specific Plan is intended to enable development to
occur in a cohesive manner with appropriate scale, density, urban design, infrastructure, and
reflect the community’s vision as a unique place. The potential for the Palomar Gateway
District to evolve from a relatively low-density auto-focused interchange into a higher
density (20 – 40 dwelling units per acre) transit oriented community has been recognized
both by SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map, which designated the Palomar Gateway
District as a “Community Center”, and by Chula Vista’s 2005 General Plan, which calls for
the district to be developed as a Transit Focus Area.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the vision to be adopted in the Specific
Plan is compatible with the area’s current and future market demands. This study also
identifies strategies to promote market investment into transit-oriented land uses within the
Palomar Gateway District. To evaluate these
opportunities, the following approach was taken as
part of this study:
• Meet with City staff, review existing studies,
and conduct site reconnaissance.
• Analyze existing market conditions to
identify feasible market opportunities.
• Interview area stakeholders to identify area’s
opportunities and constraints.
• Forecast near and long-term demand
potential for key land uses.
• Evaluate existing policy and identify
strategies to promote the development of key land uses.
2
1. Location:
The approximate 100-gross acres Palomar Gateway District (PGD) is located
at the interchange of Palomar Street and the Interstate 5 freeway. The PGD
is considered the major southern
gateway to the City of Chula Vista for
visitors entering both from the freeway
and from the San Diego Trolley Blue
Line. The Palomar Street/I-5 Freeway
interchange is considered one of the
busiest traffic interchanges in the City.
The district radiates from the Palomar
Transit Station at the intersection of
Palomar Street and Industrial
Boulevard. The PGD includes the
properties north of Palomar Street
around Walnut Street, Trenton Street
and Industrial Boulevard. Further east,
the district also extends north from
Palomar to Oxford Street to include
several warehouse buildings that
contain a variety of commercial and
industrial uses. South of Palomar
Street, the PGD extends along
Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road to Anita Street, and contains a
variety of single-family and multi-family residential uses, as well as a few
commercial and industrial uses. Below is a detailed description of each of
these areas.
2. Existing Land Uses:
The district consists of a variety of existing
land uses, including residential,
commercial and industrial uses. Existing
residential development in the area
contains a range in densities of
approximately 5 to 20 dwelling units per
acre. North of Palomar Street is a mix of
industrial and multi-family housing. Across
Industrial Boulevard to the east is the
major commercial nucleus of Southwest
Chula Vista - an area which attracts
Palomar Gateway District - Existing Conditions:
Land Use and Infrastructure
Existing Condition Summary Report
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 2
II. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
As part of this study, Gafcon conducted interviews with San Diego and local area real estate
professionals to help provide a deepened understanding of the Palomar Gateway District’s
opportunities and strengths. Industry experts interviewed included: Area Brokers;
Developers/Property Owners; Investors; Real Estate Debt Placement Professionals; and
Planners/Designers.
Qualitative interviews were conducted based on an informal conversational interview
approach and were conducted by phone and in person. Interviewees were generally asked
questions related to the feasibility of implementing the vision of the Palomar Gateway
District as a Transit Focus Area. In order to help illicit honest responses, interviewees were
informed prior to the interview that their responses would be kept confidential and were
intended to only help provide depth to the analysis conducted as part of this study.
Interviews conducted as part of this study were limited and informal and are not intended to
generate measurable data and findings generally provided in a comprehensive market survey
with a deep survey population.
The following list summarizes general thoughts shared by interviewees as part of the study’s
interviews:
• Streets in District area provide high traffic counts for retail.
• Chula Vista’s office market is struggling.
• Mixed-use around Trolley Station ties in with rail line access and growing TOD trends.
• Chula Vista Bayfront represents an exciting opportunity for the City. Bayfront
represents a more attractive area for office and residential.
• Some mixed-use projects in the City have struggled from a retail perspective.
• Sufficient parking must be provided as part of any mixed-use retail. Parking allowances
probably shouldn’t be provided because of TOD/mixed-use land use. Most retail
business will be driven from auto trips.
• Most major retailers have parking requirements that mandate traditional parking ratios.
• District will remain auto focused due to area’s big box retailers and traffic.
• The City is difficult to work with for developers.
• Retail/office space as part of mixed-use development shouldn’t be required.
• Negative/low price perception of District from residential market perspective.
• Development costs for mixed-use project/parking may be too high for area pricing.
• Second floor office space above retail as part of a mixed-use project doesn’t work.
• TOD improvements should not inhibit access to existing retailers.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 3
III. OVERVIEW OF PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT
The Palomar Gateway District is located at the interchange of Palomar Street and the
Interstate 5 freeway. The Palomar Gateway District consists of an area of approximately
100-acres that is considered the major southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista for
visitors entering both from the freeway and from the blue line trolley. The district radiates
from the Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial
Boulevard, with a mix of light industrial, retail and single/multi-family housing extending
north and south of Palomar St. and Industrial Blvd.
Existing residential development in the
area generally contains densities ranging
from about 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre
with the residential area largely
concentrated south of Palomar St. Several
residential lots in this area are large,
roughly 1.0-acre, with varying intensities
of development. Several lots have been
redeveloped over time to provide multiple
single-family homes or multi-family
projects. This area south of Palomar St.
also contains a small amount of
commercial and industrial use at the south
end of the District.
The northwest corner of the District,
north of Palomar St., contains a mix of
residential, industrial, commercial, and a
Motel. The northeast corner of Industrial Blvd. and Palomar St. contains a commercial
property that contains several warehouse buildings that provide commercial and light
industrial uses. The District also contains a recently completed park at the north end of the
District, north of Oxford St.
Directly adjacent to the Palomar Gateway District to the east is a major concentration of
retailers that provide a significant draw to the Palomar Gateway District area. The retailers
are primarily concentrated in the Palomar St./Broadway intersection area. Major big box
retailers in this area include: Costco; Target; and Wal-Mart.
2
1. Location: The approximate 100-gross acres Palomar Gateway District (PGD) is located at the interchange of Palomar Street and the Interstate 5 freeway. The PGD is considered the major southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista for visitors entering both from the freeway and from the San Diego Trolley Blue Line. The Palomar Street/I-5 Freeway interchange is considered one of the busiest traffic interchanges in the City. The district radiates from the Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. The PGD includes the properties north of Palomar Street around Walnut Street, Trenton Street
and Industrial Boulevard. Further east,
the district also extends north from
Palomar to Oxford Street to include
several warehouse buildings that
contain a variety of commercial and
industrial uses. South of Palomar
Street, the PGD extends along
Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road to Anita Street, and contains a
variety of single-family and multi-family residential uses, as well as a few
commercial and industrial uses. Below is a detailed description of each of
these areas.
2. Existing Land Uses:
The district consists of a variety of existing
land uses, including residential,
commercial and industrial uses. Existing
residential development in the area
contains a range in densities of
approximately 5 to 20 dwelling units per
acre. North of Palomar Street is a mix of
industrial and multi-family housing. Across
Industrial Boulevard to the east is the
major commercial nucleus of Southwest
Chula Vista - an area which attracts
Palomar Gateway District - Existing Conditions: Land Use and Infrastructure
Existing Condition Summary Report
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 4
IV. EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS
U.S. Market
After enduring a severe recession and financial crisis in 2008 and early 2009, the U.S.
economy appears to be showing signs of regained strength. 2010 should mark the year
where frozen credit markets began to thaw, consumers shopped again, job losses slowed,
and the overall economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) transitioned to
positive growth.
Although signs of improvement have emerged, one can still easily point to clouds of
concern that hang over our economy. One of the biggest areas of concern is anemic job
growth. Damaged by a deep recession in 2008 and early 2009, the U.S. economy lost about
8.4 million jobs through the end of 2009, leaving one in ten workers unemployed and
looking for new work. Although it appears job losses peaked in 2009 and reversed the trend
in 2010, unemployment levels are still currently close to 10 percent and we have still not
seen broad based hiring on a significant level. Nonetheless, employers are expected to take
on more employees as the economy continues a mild recovery in 2011.
Today’s housing sector represents both a threat and opportunity for our economy. To add
some perspective on how quickly and dramatically the housing landscape changed, we can
look to housing starts. In 2005, new housing starts peaked in the U.S. at 2.1 million units,
the highest level since 1972. However, with the recent housing crash came a decline in
housing starts to 554,000 units in 2009, the lowest level seen since 1959, when this recorded
data began. In part due to low interest rates and homebuyers incentives, housing starts have
reversed the recent trend of decline toward a trend of moderate growth. This trend is
expected to continue in tandem with a slowly improving U.S. economy; however, mortgage
defaults, available credit, reduced homebuyer incentives, and limited job growth will
continue to be weights for a housing sector pushing up from its bottom.
With an improved job front, pent up consumer demand, and a robust stock market,
Consumer spending should increase about 3.0 percent in 2011. Similarly, housing prices
should also improve in 2011. Overall, the U.S. economy is expected to grow about 3.0
percent in 2011.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 5
California Market
In line with the U.S. economy, California’s economy is also slowly beginning to recover
from 2009 lows. Although a modest recovery emerged in 2010, the damage caused by the
significant recession has left deep wounds that will take a number of years to heal.
Fortunately for California, the process of healing appears under way.
Peaking in July 2007, California’s payroll employment peak of 15.2 million jobs rapidly
eroded in 2008 and 2009. By December 2009, California payroll employment bottomed out
at 13.8 million jobs. Based on this measure, the California state recession lasted 29 months
with 1.4 million job losses, or a decrease of 9.2 percent.
While California’s economy appears to be pulling out of recessionary lows, the state’s
economy faces unique challenges. To begin, the state’s budget deficit will need to be
addressed immediately in a meaningful way. Fortunately 2010 brought improved fiscal
revenues, however, the state continues to incur a deficit that will need to be filled with
increased tax revenues and or reductions in expenses. Both tactics for dealing with the
deficit will be challenging and may have an adverse impact on the state’s job picture.
Although the employment picture is expected to improve in 2011, unemployment will likely
still remain around 10 percent.
Although new home construction recently showed improved signs of life, activity has
subsided as federal tax credits have expired. At the moment, the housing market sits in an
uncertain position where on one hand, job growth has improved and interest rates remain
low, while on the other hand, a potential flood of foreclosures hangs over the market. The
expected pickup in jobs and personal income along with continued low interest rates is
expected to offset existing negative conditions and create a 2011 market where the median
price increases modestly up around 2 to 3 percent.
San Diego Market
Similar to California’s economy, San Diego County’s construction, real estate,
manufacturing, and retail trade sectors all suffered significant employment declines. San
Diego is expected to report a net loss in jobs for 2010. Nonfarm employment in San Diego
County is likely to fall by 8,700 jobs (-0.7 percent) in 2010 following a 5.3 percent drop in
2009. In 2011, the employment picture is expected to moderately improve with a 1.4
percent increase in nonfarm employment. The County’s unemployment rate should
average 10.7 percent in 2010 compared with a 9.7 percent average in 2009. For 2011, the
unemployment rate is expected to decline to 10.2 percent.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 6
San Diego’s housing market is expected to show moderate improvements in 2011. To
provide some perspective on recent market shifts, we can look back to 2003 when permitted
housing units peaked at 18,314 units. This in large part was driven by the downtown condo
development surge. As a comparison, 2009 recorded just 2,989 residential permits while
2010 recorded 3,342 residential permits. 2010’s increase above the prior year’s permit totals
marked an 11.8% year-over-year increase.
Out of the 40 California apartment submarkets evaluated in the 2010 USC Lusk Center
Southern California Multifamily Report, only four submarkets showed average rent
increases. Of those four positive markets, three were located in San Diego County.
Through 2011, the Lusk Center has forecasted stable-to-increasing rents for the rents in
Inland Empire and San Diego County.
Nonresidential construction declined in 2010, dropping 9.2 percent from 2009 (after falling
45 percent in 2009). Office vacancy continues to burden the office sector, with vacancies
reaching 20.4 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and ended 2010 at 19.4%. The industrial
office sector has fared better with a reported 12.5% vacancy rate in the first quarter of 2010.
Chula Vista Market
The first half of the past decade marked a period of tremendous growth for Chula Vista.
Average annual growth in housing units from 2000 to 2005 was about 2,590 per year, or a
simple average annual growth rate of about 4.5%. In contrast, growth in the second half of
the decade declined significantly, as growth in housing during this period was about 1,140
units per year, with considerably less recorded in 2009 and 2010. Annual average growth
over this period averaged 1.6%. In terms of sales, sales of existing single-family homes in
Chula Vista declined 21% in 2010 from 2009 levels. On a positive note, median home
pricing across all Chula Vista submarkets increased in 2010, increasing from 1.3% to 8.3%.
Chula Vista’s apartment market is concentrated in the City’s western sector. As part of this
study, 61 apartment properties with more than 25 units were identified in Chula Vista. Of
this total, vacancy rates were found to be 4.4% as compared to countywide average of 5.1%.
Rental rates in Chula Vista average about $1,169 per unit/month as compared to
countywide average of $1,335.
Chula Vista’s office market can be divided into an East and West market. Chula Vista’s
Eastern market provides about 981,068 square feet of office space while the Western market
is comprised of about 792,767 square feet. The Eastern market currently suffers from high
vacancy rates as compared to the Western market. At the end of 2010, the Eastern market
had a total vacancy rate of 40.1% as compared to the Western market average of 14.7%.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 7
V. RESIDENTIAL MARKET ASSESSMENT
New Home Market
San Diego County’s new home market ended 2010 at an all-time low. According to
MarketPointe Realty Advisors, there were only 421 net sales countywide in the 2010’s
fourth quarter. This represents a 12 percent drop from the previous quarter and is the lowest
quarterly level on record. From an annual perspective, 2010’s sales output was 17 percent
below 2009 levels and is more than 85 percent less than the peak in 2004.
Despite reaching new lows, some positive signs are beginning to become visible. New home
pricing is showing signs of stabilizing. Pricing for attached homes declined less than 1
percent in the fourth
quarter of 2010.
However, if Downtown
projects are excluded from
this analysis, countywide
pricing for attached
housing nearly increased 7
percent for the fourth
quarter. Pricing for
detached housing
remained largely
unchanged on a price per
square foot basis,
increasing only 1 percent
in the fourth quarter.
In the fourth quarter of
2010, San Diego’s inventory of new homes stood at 3,452 units. In comparison, inventory
levels at the end of 2009 were 3,833 units. 2010’s year-end inventory levels represents a 10
percent drop from 2009 levels. Based on current sales rates, offered and unsold attached
inventory represents about a five month supply of housing with unreleased inventory adding
an additional 15 months. In the detached sector there exists about a three-month supply of
available and unsold units with about a twelve-month supply of unreleased inventory.
The South County new home market is primarily comprised of Chula Vista, National City,
and Imperial Beach. In terms of total units provided by new home projects throughout the
county, South County represents about 29% of the county’s market. Total sales in South
County during the fourth quarter of 2010 represented about 15 percent of countywide sales.
6,652
5,565
4,736
3,773 3,833 3,898 3,954
3,377 3,452
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
4Q '08 1Q '09 2Q '09 3Q '09 4Q '09 1Q '10 2Q '10 3Q '10 4Q '10
San Diego County - New Home
Inventory
(Unsold & Remaining to Develop)
Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 8
At the end of 2010, there were seven attached new home projects with 54 unsold units and
379 units remaining for development. In terms of detached projects, the South County
market includes 16 new projects with 93 unsold units and 385 units available for
development. Fourth quarter pricing for South County sales was well below countywide
averages. For attached units, the average sales price per unit was $318,505 as compared to a
countywide average of $560,509. Pricing for detached units was similarly lagging the
countywide average with a South County average sales price of $532,666 per unit versus
$626,132 countywide.
As shown in the table below, the first half of the past decade marked a period of tremendous
growth for Chula Vista. Average annual growth in units from 2000 to 2005 was about 2,590
per year, or a simple average annual growth rate of about 4.5%. In contrast, the second half
of the decade captured a precipitous decline in growth, as the average annual growth in
housing during this period was about 1,140 units per year, with considerably less recorded
in 2009 and 2010. Annual growth over this period averaged about 1.6%.
3.6%
4.8%
5.1%4.8%
4.3%
4.5%
3.6%
2.0%
1.1%
0.7%0.5%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Chula
Vista
(Annual
Growth
in
Housing
Units)
Annual
Growth
in
Housing
Units Annual
Growth
Rate
in
Housing
Units
Source:
California
Department
of
Finance/EDD.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 9
In terms of issued residential permits, 2010 marked a year of notable improvement for
Chula Vista. According to the Construction Industry Research Board, 266 residential
permits were recorded in Chula Vista in 2009. In 2010, 518 permits were recorded, marking
a 94.7% increase. Behind the city of San Diego, Chula Vista was the second most active
city in San Diego County in terms of permit activity.
Table V.I below compares sales and pricing data for single-family and condominium resales
for the month of April in San Diego’s South County market. The Palomar Gateway
District lies within Chula Vista’s designated South market that largely covers the southwest
portion of Chula Vista. The South County Market overall experienced a 29.8% year-over-
year drop in April sales for single-family homes. Pricing however remained fairly stable
with only a 1.2% decline in median pricing. Similarly, condominium sales volume dropped
24.7%, however, year-over-year median pricing improved 5.9%.
As shown in the table, sales volume in Chula Vista was impaired equally across all
submarkets for single-family housing with mixed results in pricing. Median pricing for
single-family housing across Chula Vista’s submarkets ranged from $271,500 in the South
market up to $472,000 in Chula Vista’s Northeast market. South County’s overall median
price for single-family resales through April 2011 is $321,500.
South County condominium resale volume dipped in concert with single-family sales,
dropping 24.7% from April 2010 levels. Pricing however improved 5.9% over the prior
April bringing the April 2011 median price to $170,500. In terms of the Chula Vista
markets, median condominium pricing ranged from $135,000 in the South market to
$230,000 in the Southeast market.
Overall, Chula Vista’s South Market outperformed South County averaged for sales and
pricing for both single-family and condominium resales.
V.1
Home Sales & Median Prices - April 2011
San Diego - South County Market (Year-over-Year Comparison)
Zip
Place Code 2010 2011 % Change 2010 2011 % Change 2010 2011 % Change 2010 2011 % Change
Chula Vista N 91910 48 40 -16.7%$322,500 $316,000 -2.0%15 17 13.3%$150,000 $155,500 3.7%
Chula Vista S 91911 55 47 -14.5%$264,500 $271,500 2.6%21 21 0.0%$126,000 $135,000 7.1%
Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ranch 91913 58 44 -24.1%$378,000 $345,000 -8.7%23 25 8.7%$229,000 $182,500 -20.3%
Chula Vista NE 91914 15 11 -26.7%$458,000 $472,000 3.1%8 10 25.0%$228,000 $215,000 -5.7%
Chula Vista SE 91915 40 25 -37.5%$415,000 $386,500 -6.9%19 15 -21.1%$230,000 $250,000 8.7%
Bonita 91902 14 13 -7.1%$412,500 $430,000 4.2%1 4 300.0%$125,000 $116,000 -7.2%
Imperial Beach 91932 9 7 -22.2%$295,000 $256,500 -13.1%18 10 -44.4%$95,250 $226,500 137.8%
National City 91950 27 14 -48.1%$205,000 $184,000 -10.2%17 4 -76.5%$77,000 $133,500 73.4%
Nestor 92154 63 30 -52.4%$290,000 $271,000 -6.6%27 5 -81.5%$150,000 $120,000 -20.0%
San Ysidro 92173 7 5 -28.6%$235,000 $225,000 -4.3%9 8 -11.1%$105,000 $110,000 4.8%
Total - South County:336 236 -29.8%$325,500 $321,500 -1.2%158 119 -24.7%$161,000 $170,500 5.9%
Source: DataQuick Information Systems
# of Units Sold Median Price # of Units Sold Median Price
Resale
Single-Family Condominiums
Table V.I
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 10
Table X
Annual Home Sales (2010 vs. 2009)
San Diego County - South County Market
Zip
Place Code 2009 2010 % Change 2009 2010 change 2009 2010 % Change 2009 2010 % Change
Chula Vista N 91910 519 455 -12.3%$305,000 $325,000 6.6%211 188 -10.9%$151,250 $165,000 9.1%
Chula Vista S 91911 726 470 -35.3%$250,000 $270,000 8.0%195 189 -3.1%$130,000 $135,000 3.8%
Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ranch 91913 589 507 -13.9%$375,000 $380,000 1.3%291 289 -0.7%$215,000 $210,000 -2.3%
Chula Vista NE 91914 288 228 -20.8%$482,500 $500,000 3.6%106 123 16.0%$215,500 $217,000 0.7%
Chula Vista SE 91915 462 381 -17.5%$360,000 $390,000 8.3%237 209 -11.8%$235,000 $235,000 0.0%
Bonita 91902 157 141 -10.2%$425,000 $460,000 8.2%41 27 -34.1%$170,000 $157,500 -7.4%
Imperial Beach 91932 109 102 -6.4%$267,500 $295,000 10.3%84 97 15.5%$182,500 $115,000 -37.0%
National City 91950 310 234 -24.5%$180,000 $210,000 16.7%106 105 -0.9%$104,000 $138,500 33.2%
Nestor 92154 694 540 -22.2%$279,000 $285,000 2.2%262 242 -7.6%$150,000 $155,000 3.3%
San Ysidro 92173 152 91 -40.1%$240,000 $270,000 12.5%114 127 11.4%$94,250 $99,000 5.0%
Total - South County:4,006 3,149 -21.4%$312,750 $334,000 6.8%1647 1596 -3.1%$178,000 $180,000 1.1%
Source: MDA DataQuick
# of Units Sold Median Price # of Units Sold Median Price
Resale
Single-Family Condominiums
Table V.II below takes a longer view of the South County market in comparing 2009 total
sales to 2010 total sales. South County single-family resales sales volume in 2010 declined
21.4% from 2009 sales with sales dropping from 4,006 to 3,149 in 2010. In line with South
County’s annual drop, Chula Vista single-family sales also declined 21%. The biggest sales
decline in Chula Vista occurred in the City’s South Market, where 2010 sales volume
dropped 35% from 2009 levels. Of the 3,149 recorded single-family sales in South County
in 2010, 2,041 or 65% occurred in Chula Vista.
Median pricing across all Chula Vista and South County markets improved. For the South
County market as a whole, median pricing for single-family homes increased 6.8%.
Increases across Chula Vista’s submarkets ranged from 1.3% to 8.3%. South County’s
median resale price for a single-family home was $334,000 in 2010. Chula Vista’s Northeast
market posted the highest median price at $500,000 while the lowest median price was
recorded in the City’s South market at $270,000.
Condominium sales in South County showed some positive signs, declining only 3.1% in
2010 from 2009. Median pricing in the condominium sector remained stable, increasing
1.1% from 2009 levels. For Chula Vista’s Condominium market, 2009 saw 1,040 sales
compared to 998 sales in 2010, representing a 4.0% year-over-year decline. Median pricing
for condominiums increased in all Chula Vista submarkets with the exception of the (East
Chula Vista/East Lake/Otay Ranch) submarket. The East submarket posted a 2.3% year-
over-year decline in median prices for condominiums. The South County’s median price
for condominiums in 2010 was $180,000, increasing $2,000 over the 2009 median price.
Once again, Chula Vista’s South market recorded the lowest median price at $135,000 while
the Southeast market posted the highest median price in 2010 at $217,000.
Table V.II
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 11
New home sales in April 2011 remained unchanged from April 2010. As shown in Table
V.III, April sales for new homes recorded at 35 sales for both 2009 and 2010. Median
pricing for the South County Market increased about 5.3%, although this increase was only
generated from a small base of sales that could be influenced by product mix. Similar to the
home resale market, Chula Vista dominated the South County market activity posting 28 of
the 35 new home sales in April 2009 and 29 of the 35 home sales in April 2010. Median
pricing for Chula Vista’s new sales declined significantly over the prior year’s April.
As shown in Table V.IV below, South County’s new home market in 2010 remained largely
unchanged from 2009. 2010 sales for new single-family and condominiums recorded at 545,
a decline of 17 units or 3.0% from the 2009 level of 562. Chula Vista experienced a 5.1%
drop in year-over-year sales, dropping from 470 new homes sales in 2009 to 446 in 2010.
Three of Chula Vista’s five submarkets posted strong year-over-year gains, however, Chula
Vista’s East Lake/Otay Ranch and Southeast submarkets pulled down annual gains.
Median pricing for the South County market declined 2.8% over 2009, dropping from
$360,000 in 2009 to $350,000 in 2010.
Table V.III Table X
Home Sales & Median Prices - April 2011
San Diego - South County Market (Year-over-Year Comparison)
Place 2010 2011 % Change 2010 2011 % Change
Chula Vista N 1 2 100%$485,000 $252,000 -48.0%
Chula Vista S 2 0 -100.0%$257,500 n/a n/a
Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ranch 11 8 -27.3%$412,000 $380,000 -7.8%
Chula Vista NE 2 10 400.0%$670,000 $620,750 -7.4%
Chula Vista SE 12 9 -25.0%$377,250 $339,500 -10.0%
Bonita 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Imperial Beach 1 1 0.0%$177,500 $339,000 91.0%
National City 3 3 0.0%$206,500 $155,000 -24.9%
Nestor 2 2 0.0%$258,000 $260,000 0.8%
San Ysidro 1 0 -100.0%$290,000 n/a n/a
Total - South County:35 35 0.0%$375,000 $395,000 5.3%
Source: DataQuick Information Systems
# of Units Sold Median Price
New
Single-Family/Condominiums
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 12
South County’s actively selling new home communities were evaluated as part of this study.
Table V.V on the following page summarizes actively selling communities in the South
County. All 26 of the communities audited as part of the South County market are located
in the Chula Vista market. On average, 2011 first quarter sales at each community averaged
about 0.47 sales per week. Out of the 2,697 total units, 1,659 units were sold to date
through the end of March 2011. Of the 1,038 unsold units, 899 are remaining to be
developed and 139 are developed and unsold. All new communities are located in Chula
Vista’s eastern sector with a large share of communities in Otay Ranch.
Table V.IV Table X
Annual Home Sales (2010 vs. 2009)
San Diego County - South County Market
Zip
Place Code 2009 2010 % Change 2009 2010 % Change
Chula Vista N 91910 13 25 92.3%$283,500 $305,000 7.6%
Chula Vista S 91911 14 32 128.6%$240,000 $257,500 7.3%
Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ranch91913 213 151 -29.1%$336,000 $360,000 7.1%
Chula Vista NE 91914 66 100 51.5%$693,000 $598,000 -13.7%
Chula Vista SE 91915 164 138 -15.9%$379,500 $350,000 -7.8%
Bonita 91902 7 5 -28.6%$220,000 $505,000 129.5%
Imperial Beach 91932 1 8 700.0%$251,500 $177,500 -29.4%
National City 91950 38 56 47.4%$338,500 $225,000 -33.5%
Nestor 92154 39 21 -46.2%$404,500 $261,500 -35.4%
San Ysidro 92173 7 9 28.6%$255,000 $161,000 -36.9%
Total - South County:562 545 -3.0%$360,000 $350,000 -2.8%
Source: MDA DataQuick
# of Units Sold Median Price
New
Single-Family/Condominiums
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 13
Table V.V
San Diego's South County Q1, 2011
Development Summary Table By Community
Community/Sales/Week Ranges Sales Start LotSize/Total Total CurQtr Remain
Development/Developer MasterPlan CurQtr Cum Price Sqft $/Sqft Map/Page #Concept Units Sold Sold Unsold ForDev
ANDORRA @ EASTLAKE SUMMIT CHULA VISTA 0.33 0.34 $319,990 1,445 $174.88 7-May-05 0 135 107 4 4 24
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES EASTLAKE SUMMIT $389,990 2,230 $221.44 108 TOWNHOMES
JACARANDA II @ LOMAS VERDES CHULA VISTA 0.25 0.39 $410,261 1,935 $183.89 15-May-10 4000 109 18 3 9 82
MCMILLIN COMPANIES LOMAS VERDES $449,990 2,447 $212.02 114 DETACHED
MOSAIC @ LOMAS VERDES CHULA VISTA 0.00 0.37 $237,900 1,175 $181.35 16-Jun-07 0 218 74 0 7 137
SHEA HOMES LOMAS VERDES $324,900 1,656 $202.46 119 TOWNHOME
TAPESTRY @ LOMAS VERDES CHULA VISTA 0.00 0.22 $343,900 1,822 $167.28 28-Jul-07 2000 98 44 0 5 49
SHEA HOMES LOMAS VERDES $376,900 2,253 $188.74 126 DETACHED
TERRACOTTA @ LOMAS VERDES CHULA VISTA 0.83 0.38 $329,990 1,577 $194.49 26-Aug-06 3075 132 93 10 5 34
MCMILLIN COMPANIES LOMAS VERDES $399,990 2,010 $209.52 127 DETACHED
ANACAPA @ OTAY RANCH CHULA VISTA 1.00 1.00 $369,900 2,221 $166.54 1-Mar-11 3000 49 5 5 2 42
KANE DEVELOPMENT OTAY RANCH $374,900 2,249 $166.69 107 DETACHED
CASITAS DE AVILA @ OTAY RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.08 0.21 $309,900 1,648 $157.82 18-Sep-10 2000 61 6 1 3 52
HERITAGE BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT OTAY RANCH $346,900 2,198 $189.25 109 DETACHED
MONTEREY @ OTAY RANCH CHULA VISTA 3.66 3.66 $340,990 1,917 $167.81 19-Feb-11 2890 95 22 22 13 60
KB HOME OTAY RANCH $364,990 2,175 $177.87 117 DETACHED
PRESIDIO @ OTAY RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.40 0.40 $419,900 2,571 $163.13 1-Mar-11 3000 40 2 2 5 33
KANE DEVELOPMENT OTAY RANCH $433,900 2,610 $166.24 122 DETACHED
SANTA RITA @ OTAY RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.25 0.17 $427,900 2,439 $172.73 18-Sep-10 4500 23 5 3 2 16
HERITAGE BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT OTAY RANCH $442,900 2,564 $175.44 123 DETACHED
VILLAS DE AVILA @ OTAY RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.00 0.10 $288,900 1,342 $177.79 18-Sep-10 0 76 3 0 6 67
PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITIES OTAY RANCH $309,900 1,743 $215.27 130 DUPLEX
MONET @ OTAY RANCH-HILLSBOROUGH CHULA VISTA 0.32 0.77 $222,900 1,000 $187.88 23-Apr-05 0 255 242 4 13 0
PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITIES OTAY RANCH-HILLSBOROUGH $264,900 1,368 $222.90 116 SIXPLEX
CYPRESS LANE @ MONTECITO RIDGE CHULA VISTA 0.75 0.36 $359,900 1,511 $209.04 17-Jun-06 2700 89 89 3 0 0
KANE DEVELOPMENT OTAY RANCH-MONTECITORIDGE $399,900 1,913 $238.18 112 DETACHED
MONTE SERENO @ MONTICITO RIDGE CHULA VISTA 0.08 0.24 $499,900 2,978 $167.07 28-Jun-06 4250 95 60 1 7 28
OAKWOOD DEVELOPMENT OTAY RANCH-MONTECITORIDGE $519,900 3,108 $169.54 118 DETACHED
SANTA BARBARA @ MONTECITO RIDGE CHULA VISTA 0.16 0.20 $488,900 2,825 $158.69 7-Nov-06 4250 96 48 2 4 44
PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITIES OTAY RANCH-MONTECITORIDGE $512,900 3,232 $173.06 124 DETACHED
TERRAZA @ MONTECITO RIDGE CHULA VISTA 1.33 0.28 $390,000 2,508 $141.18 8-Jul-07 2600 85 55 16 4 26
SUNRISE COMPANY OTAY RANCH-MONTECITORIDGE $404,990 2,833 $161.47 128 DETACHED
PALMA @ ROLLING HILLS RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.25 0.56 $554,990 2,555 $195.12 15-Jan-10 20000 54 36 3 5 13
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES ROLLING HILLS RANCH $678,990 3,285 $217.21 120 DETACHED
ESTRELLA @ SAN MIGUEL RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.66 0.26 $536,100 3,244 $149.27 26-Jun-06 4000 69 67 8 2 0
SHEA HOMES SAN MIGUEL RANCH $568,900 3,811 $165.25 113 DETACHED
MARAVILLA @ SAN MIGUEL RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.16 0.24 $727,200 3,814 $161.34 19-Jun-06 10200 74 60 2 4 10
SHEA HOMES SAN MIGUEL RANCH $804,000 4,983 $190.66 115 DETACHED
PATRIA @ SAN MIGUEL RANCH CHULA VISTA 0.66 0.87 $517,500 2,687 $171.56 27-Feb-10 20000 52 50 8 2 0
TRI POINTE HOMES SAN MIGUEL RANCH $573,183 3,341 $192.59 121 DETACHED
AGAVE @ WINDINGWALK CHULA VISTA 0.25 0.62 $302,900 1,464 $206.89 18-Jan-06 0 175 170 3 5 0
SHEA HOMES WINDINGWALK $344,900 1,581 $220.94 105 TOWNHOME
AMBER @ WINDINGWALK CHULA VISTA 0.16 0.41 $440,900 2,342 $181.06 17-Jun-06 4600 119 104 2 1 14
SHEA HOMES WINDINGWALK $484,900 2,678 $188.25 106 DETACHED
CLOVER @ WINDINGWALK CHULA VISTA 0.00 0.31 $288,900 1,579 $171.23 23-Jun-07 0 112 63 0 9 40
SHEA HOMES WINDINGWALK $369,900 1,891 $204.49 110 FOURPLEX
CORDOVA @ WINDINGWALK CHULA VISTA 0.00 0.36 $295,900 1,638 $172.74 14-Jul-07 0 180 70 0 12 98
BROOKFIELD HOMES WINDINGWALK $369,900 2,011 $184.92 111 SIXPLEX
SAPPHIRE @ WINDINGWALK CHULA VISTA 0.08 0.28 $486,900 2,589 $168.38 17-Jun-06 4600 80 72 1 4 4
SHEA HOMES WINDINGWALK $514,900 3,046 $188.06 125 DETACHED
TRELLIS @ WINDINGWALK CHULA VISTA 0.50 0.38 $430,900 2,361 $177.82 29-Jul-06 3800 126 94 6 6 26
BROOKFIELD HOMES WINDINGWALK $465,900 2,620 $187.19 129 DETACHED
26 Total Projects 12.16 13.38 2,697 1,659 109 139 899
Average Per Development 0.47 0.51
Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 14
Rental Market
San Diego’s rental housing market performed relatively well throughout the recent
downturn. As shown in Table V.VI, the average monthly rental rate in San Diego in March
2011was $1,335. This represents a 1.47 percent increase over March 2010’s average and
only 0.7 percent below the all time high recorded in September 2008. The overall
countywide vacancy rate increased to 5.06 percent, however, this measure is slightly skewed
with the release of 435 units from Downtown’s Vantage Pointe project. Excluding this
project, and its 331 vacancies from the vacancy analysis, would result in a countywide
vacancy rate of 4.8 percent.
San Diego’s South County rental market primarily includes Chula Vista, National City, and
Imperial Beach. With 17,615 rental units, South County represents 15 percent of the
countywide market, as measured by MarketPointe’s audit of apartment properties with at
least 25 units. Of South County’s 17,615 total units, about 53% or 9,390 are located in
Chula Vista.
In comparison to countywide averages, the South County market enjoys a lower vacancy
rate of 4.19 percent vs. the countywide average of 5.06 percent. Of the audited units in
Chula Vista, a vacancy rate of 4.4% was identified. South County’s average monthly rental
rate of $1,188 is about 11% lower than the countywide average of $1,335. The following
table provides an overview of San Diego County’s rental market:
In terms of future rental housing, a total of 9,127 units included in 48 projects have been
identified countywide as part of MarketPointe’s 2011 Q1 Rental Trends Report. The future
housing includes units under construction, approved, and in the planning stages. Of this
total, 10 projects and 1,707 units were identified in the South County market.
!"#$%&
'(&")*
+#(,%-&.'(&")*/01&.
'(&")*
2%0&%3
'(&")*
4"-"0&
4"-"0-5*
6"-&(#2%0&789*6&9*:;789*6&9
<".&*=(>0&5 ?@A ?ABCAC ?ABDEE CFA @9DEG :?B??H CFA :?9IE
J1KLM"5*NC*=(##13(#?CE EFBHAA EIBND??BEA@ @9DNG :?B?CN CAE :?9IC
O0&%#.&"&%*?@*=(##13(#N???BAEN ??BDIN @HD @9DNG :?BFDI CNH :?9AD
P(#&L*=(>0&5*=(".&")HC ?HBFEE ?CB@CF CIC F9I?G :?BA@N HFC :?9N@
7"0*Q1%K(*=%0&#")?AA ENB@FI E@BCF@ ?BAHC A9?AG :?BFIN CIN :?9NE
7(>&L*=(>0&5 ?IE ?NBA?@ ?ABCNN NIC F9?HG :?B?CC C@?:?9FD
!"!#$%&'((%)&*(((+)&,,')-.''/&,0 1()22'%,%1(/'*
7(>#-%R*!"#$%&+(10&*2%")&5*S3T1.(#.
U%1KL&%3*ST%#"K%
Table V.VI
San Diego Rental Housing Market
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 15
As shown in Table V.VII on the following page, 61 apartment projects were identified in
Chula Vista. The projects identified in the table were included as part of MarketPointe
Realty Advisors 2011 Q1 Rental Trends Update. Apartment complexes larger than 25
units were included in the analysis. Chula Vista apartment communities average about 154
units per property with units averaging about 872 square feet. Chula Vista monthly rental
rates averaged $1,169 compared to a South County average of $1,188 and a countywide
average of $1,335. Chula Vista’s apartment market is largely comprised of older apartment
communities with the average age of construction in 1978. Of Chula Vista’s 61 audited
apartment communities, only five were constructed after the year 2000. In the Chula
Vista/Imperial Beach market area, Garden Communities is completing a 644-unit project,
Greenfield Village.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 16
Table V.VII
Summary of Chula Vista Apartment Properties
Mar-11
Weighted Average
Development/Owner
A POINT OF VIEW APARTMENTS/VIEW POINTE
BAY BREEZE
BAY POINTE APARTMENTS
BEACON COVE
BONITA HILLS APARTMENTS
CANYON VILLA
CASA VICTORIA
CENTRE TOWER APARTMENTS
EUCALYPTUS GROVE
EUCALYPTUS PARK VIEW
ONE PARK
PARK REGENCY APARTMENTS
ROYAL APARTMENTS - CHULA VISTA
SOMERSET APARTMENTS - CHULA VISTA
SOUTH BAY TOWERS APARTMENTS
ST. THOMAS APARTMENTS
TELEGRAPH CANYON APARTMENTS
TERRA NOVA VILLAS
THE GEORGIAN
TOSCANA AT RANCHO DEL REY
VILLAGES AT BONITA GLEN
VISTAN APARTMENTS
WINDSONG
WOODLAND HILLS APARTMENTS
WOODLAWN COLONIAL
WOODLAWN GARDENS
WOODLAWN WEST APARTMENTS
ALVA GARDENS
ANGELINA TERRACE
BRANDYWINE
CASA DE PALOMAR
CASTLE ARMS
COUNTRY APARTMENTS
COUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE
EAST ORANGE VILLAGE
GREENBRIAR
JAMES PLACE
MALIBU SOUTH APARTMENTS
ORANGE GLEN APARTMENTS
PALM VILLAS
PARK PALOMAR APARTMENTS
PARK VIEW - CHULA VISTA
SEAWIND APARTMENTS
SEVILLA APARTMENTS/ALEXAN SEVILLA
SIERRA PARK APARTMENTS
SOUTH BAY APTS./NAPLES COURT/ALDERWOOD
SUNSET VILLA APARTMENTS
THE MISSIONS AT SUNBOW
VILLA GRANADA
VILLA K
VILLA MARINA
VILLA NAPOLI
VILLA SEVILLE
VISTA DEL CORONADO
VISTA KNOLLS
VISTA LANE
VISTA PACIFIC VILLAS
CAMDEN SIERRA @ OTAY RANCH
MARQUIS VILLAS AT OTAY RANCH
PINNACLE AT OTAY RANCH
TERESINA AT LOMAS VERDES
Total:
Average:
Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors & Gafcon.
* Rental rates and SF averages are simple averages based on community weighted averages.
Summary of Chula Vista Apartment Properties
Weighted Average
Zip Rent Sqft $/sqft
Lease
Start Units Leased Vacant
Vacancy
Rate
91910 $1,212 816 $1.49 Aug-90 37 33 4 10.8%
91910 $785 460 $1.71 Jan-58 58 58 0 0.0%
91910 $1,224 906 $1.35 Jan-85 33 31 2 6.1%
91910 $1,341 860 $1.56 Mar-86 176 166 10 5.7%
91910 $1,429 942 $1.52 Jan-78 94 91 3 3.2%
91910 $1,484 978 $1.52 Jan-81 183 170 13 7.1%
91910 $928 697 $1.33 Jan-73 136 133 3 2.2%
91910 $1,061 934 $1.14 Jan-68 92 92 0 0.0%
91910 $1,255 701 $1.79 Dec-86 376 357 19 5.1%
91910 $1,149 818 $1.40 Dec-88 53 52 1 1.9%
91910 $1,227 847 $1.45 Jul-87 94 94 0 0.0%
91910 $695 390 $1.78 Jan-57 125 121 4 3.2%
91910 $775 450 $1.72 Jan-64 128 125 3 2.3%
91910 $975 800 $1.22 Jan-59 96 95 1 1.0%
91910 $879 860 $1.02 Jan-69 132 125 7 5.3%
91910 $1,233 892 $1.38 Sep-89 77 75 2 2.6%
91910 $948 691 $1.37 Jan-69 94 88 6 6.4%
91910 $1,332 800 $1.66 Jan-85 232 216 16 6.9%
91910 $1,067 993 $1.07 Jan-69 35 35 0 0.0%
91910 $1,675 1,074 $1.56 Jul-90 500 460 40 8.0%
91910 $1,087 983 $1.11 Jan-74 295 263 32 10.8%
91910 $990 768 $1.29 Jan-64 352 352 0 0.0%
91910 $1,158 813 $1.42 Jun-90 104 101 3 2.9%
91910 $1,355 1,133 $1.20 Jan-72 60 59 1 1.7%
91910 $908 806 $1.13 Jan-72 160 150 10 6.3%
91910 $1,066 831 $1.28 Jan-69 150 135 15 10.0%
91910 $895 650 $1.38 Jan-66 117 113 4 3.4%
91911 $1,262 887 $1.42 Oct-87 65 64 1 1.5%
91911 $1,365 1,064 $1.28 Jan-75 75 73 2 2.7%
91911 $1,091 781 $1.40 Jan-86 48 45 3 6.3%
91911 $1,202 913 $1.32 Jan-81 80 78 2 2.5%
91911 $808 679 $1.19 Jan-77 120 116 4 3.3%
91911 $938 800 $1.17 Jan-72 144 140 4 2.8%
91911 $1,143 1,008 $1.13 Jan-68 107 106 1 0.9%
91911 $1,261 1,060 $1.19 Jan-77 128 124 4 3.1%
91911 $1,122 713 $1.57 Jan-85 100 97 3 3.0%
91911 $1,006 1,066 $0.94 Jan-85 32 32 0 0.0%
91911 $1,169 849 $1.38 Jan-75 140 132 8 5.7%
91911 $1,046 720 $1.45 Jan-85 124 119 5 4.0%
91911 $1,196 951 $1.26 Apr-90 42 41 1 2.4%
91911 $793 522 $1.52 Jan-64 476 476 0 0.0%
91911 $1,093 824 $1.33 Jan-76 37 37 0 0.0%
91911 $1,091 740 $1.47 Jan-70 200 184 16 8.0%
91911 $1,714 1,101 $1.56 Mar-01 156 140 16 10.3%
91911 $1,212 1,213 $1.00 Jan-66 120 118 2 1.7%
91911 $1,116 652 $1.71 Jan-72 167 164 3 1.8%
91911 $985 830 $1.19 Jan-67 155 151 4 2.6%
91911 $1,591 1,002 $1.59 Aug-02 336 299 37 11.0%
91911 $1,175 1,023 $1.15 Jan-69 203 199 4 2.0%
91911 $940 800 $1.18 Jan-70 75 68 7 9.3%
91911 $1,160 778 $1.49 May-86 175 172 3 1.7%
91911 $1,078 836 $1.29 Jan-82 146 140 6 4.1%
91911 $1,271 1,064 $1.19 Jan-68 123 122 1 0.8%
91911 $1,075 923 $1.16 Jan-69 224 213 11 4.9%
91911 $943 892 $1.06 Jan-74 74 74 0 0.0%
91911 $846 656 $1.29 Jan-73 150 149 1 0.7%
91911 $1,224 950 $1.29 Jan-81 55 54 1 1.8%
91913 $1,656 1,018 $1.63 Jun-02 422 384 38 9.0%
91913 $2,457 1,964 $1.25 Jul-08 98 97 1 1.0%
91913 $1,589 1,055 $1.51 Aug-01 364 353 11 3.0%
91913 $1,576 976 $1.61 Dec-99 440 427 13 3.0%
61 ------------9,390 8,978 412 4.4%
---$1,169 872 $1.34 Jul-78 154 147 7 4.4%
* Rental rates and SF averages are simple averages based on community weighted averages.
r
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 17
As shown in Table V.VIII below, about 93% of Chula Vista’s apartment properties are
generally located in the City’s western sector. Roughly 44% of Chula Vista’s apartment
properties are located in the City’s North market (Zip 91910), with 49% located in the South
market (Zip 91911) and the remaining properties are located in East Lake/Otay Ranch area
(Zip 91913). In terms of the distribution of apartment units, about 42% are located in the
North market; 43% in the South market; and 14% are located in the East Lake/Otay Ranch
area.
As shown in the following chart V.IX, monthly rental rates for the North and South markets
are roughly equal at $1,116 and $1,131 respectively. On a per square foot basis however,
the North market enjoys slightly higher rates of $1.38 per square foot as compared to the
South market average of $1.29. The East Lake/Otay on the other hand, receives the highest
rents for Chula Vista with average monthly rents of $1,819 or $1.45 per square foot. The
stronger rents recorded in the East Lake/Otay Ranch are largely attributed to premiums
associated with newer properties, larger floor plans, and preferred locations.
Table V.VIII
Chula Vista Apartment Market Overview
Mar-11
Place ZIP
# of
Properties
# of
Properties
(% of Total)
Total
Units
Units
(% of Total)
Total
Units
Leased
Total
Units
Vacant
Vacancy
Rate
Chula Vista N 91910 27 44%3,989 42%3,790 199 5.0%
Chula Vista S 91911 30 49%4,077 43%3,927 150 3.7%
Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ranch 91913 4 7%1,324 14%1,261 63 4.8%
Chula Vista NE 91914 ---------------------
Chula Vista SE 91915 ---------------------
Total:61 100%9,390 100%8,978 412 4.4%
Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors & Gafcon.
r
Table V.IX
Chula Vista Apartment Market Overview (Market Averages)
Mar-11
Place ZIP
# of
Properties
Avg. # of
Units
Avg. Date of
Lease Start
Avg. Monthly
Rent per Unit
Avg. SF per
Unit
Avg. Monthly
Rent per SF
Chula Vista N 91910 27 148 Aug-75 $1,116 811 $1.38
Chula Vista S 91911 30 136 Nov-77 $1,131 877 $1.29
Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ranch 91913 4 331 Feb-11 $1,819 1,253 $1.45
Chula Vista NE 91914 ---------------
Chula Vista SE 91915 ---------------
Total Average:---154 Jul-78 $1,169 872 $1.34
Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors & Gafcon.
* Rental rates and SF averages are simple averages based on community weighted averages.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 18
There are currently no major market-rate apartment properties located directly within the
Palomar Gateway District. The following map provides the locations of the 30 apartment
properties identified in Chula Vista’s South market. As shown in the following image of
Chula Vista’s South Market, the majority of Chula Vista’s South Apartment market
properties can be found running along Broadway and 4th Avenue.
The five closest apartment communities to the Palomar District are summarized in Table
V.X below. The adjacent projects listed are generally located within 0.5 miles of the Trolley
Station and are older properties, constructed between 1968 and 1972. Vacancy rates are
well below the countywide average of 5.06% and range from 0.8% to 4.9%. Average
monthly rents from these communities are below the countywide average of $1,335.
Table V.X Table X
Summary of Select Apartment Communities Adjacent to Palomar Gateway District
Distance Weighted Average Lease Vacancy
Development Trolley Station Rent Sqft $/sqft Rent Sqft $/Sqft Start Units Leased Vacant Rate
COUNTRY APARTMENTS 0.4 miles $938 800 $1.17 $825 700 $1.17 Jan-72 144 140 4 2.8%
$995 850 $1.18
SUNSET VILLA APARTMENTS 0.4 miles $985 830 $1.19 $850 680 $1.14 Jan-67 155 151 4 2.6%
$1,150 1,012 $1.25
VILLA GRANADA 0.5 miles $1,175 1,023 $1.15 $875 700 $1.10 Jan-69 203 199 4 2.0%
$1,475 1,256 $1.25
VISTA DEL CORONADO 0.5 miles $1,075 923 $1.16 $890 756 $1.13 Jan-69 224 213 11 4.9%
$1,250 1,110 $1.18
VILLA SEVILLE 0.6 miles $1,271 1,064 $1.19 $875 700 $1.17 Jan-68 123 122 1 0.8%
$1,475 1,256 $1.25
Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors and Gafcon
Ranges
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 19
Housing Demand
Housing demand projections for the Palomar Gateway District were developed as part of
this study. These projections are intended to measure potential market demand for multi-
family housing over a 20-year horizon. Because of the uncertainty inherent with a long-
term forecast, as well as, the lack of a specifically defined development project, the forecast
provided in this study is intended to provide general projections for general land use
planning purposes.
As part of Gafcon’s development of demand projections for the Palomar Gateway District,
the San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG) 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
was utilized as a basis for future market trends. SANDAG’s forecast for San Diego County
projects housing to grow from 1,140,654 units in 2008 to 1,262,488 units in 2020. This
increase of 121,834 housing units represents an overall percentage increase of 10.7% over
the twelve-year period, or a simple annual average of 0.89% housing unit growth per year.
For Chula Vista, SANDAG projects that Chula Vista’s rate of housing growth will outpace
the rate of growth expected for the San Diego Region. From 2008 to 2020, Chula Vista’s
housing is expected to increase from 77,484 to 88,185 units. This housing increase of
10,701 represents a 13.8% increase during the forecast period or a simple annual average of
1.15%. Chula Vista’s housing growth is expected to outpace the region in part due to
comparatively higher job growth rates coupled with available land, land use plans and
policy, and anticipated areas of growth, primarily in the city’s eastern sector.
SANDAG’s housing projections for San Diego’s South Suburban Market, as shown in
Table V.XI on the following page, indicate total housing units will grow from about 112,391
housing units in 2010 to about 143,027 housing units in 2030. In total, 30,636 units are
expected to be added by 2030, or about 1,532 units per year over the twenty-year forecast
horizon. This represents a simple average annual growth rate in housing units of about
1.4%. Housing growth during this period is expected to occur disproportionately in the
multi-family sector, as 73% to 78% of housing units added through 2030 are anticipated to
be multi-family units.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 20
SANDAG’s housing projections for Chula Vista, as shown in Table V.XII below, indicate
total housing units will grow from about 74,489 housing units in 2010 to about 91,306
housing units in 2030. In total, about 16,817 units are expected to be added by 2030, or
about 841 units per year over the twenty-year forecast horizon. This represents a simple
average annual growth rate in housing units of about 1.1%. As the forecast horizon moves
out into 2030, Chula Vista’s rate of growth decreases as its base of housing grows and the
supply of developable land declines.
In 2010, Chula Vista was estimated to have 74,489 single-family and multi-family units. Of
this total, 47,923 units, or 64% of total housing units, were estimated to be single family
units. Multi-family units were estimated to total 26,656 units, or 36% of total housing units.
Looking to the future, multi-family units are anticipated to comprise a larger share of Chula
Vista’s housing supply. Throughout the forecast horizon, single-family units are estimated
to grow at an average annual growth rate ranging from 0.4% to 0.7%. Conversely, multi-
family units are forecasted by SANDAG to grow at an average annual rate of 1.0% to 2.6%.
Table V.XI TABLE
V.I
HOUSING
DEMAND
-‐
SAN
DIEGO'S
SOUTH
SUBURBAN
MARKET
2010 2012 2015 2020 2030
San
Diego
-‐
South
Suburban
Market
Population 386,303
398,604
417,055
448,240
489,096
Cummulative
Growth 12,301
30,752
61,937
102,793
Avg.
Annual
Growth 6,150
6,150
6,194
5,140
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)1.6%1.6%1.6%1.3%
Housing
Single
Family
Housing 71,231
71,879
73,030
76,043
77,921
Cummulative
Growth 648
1,799
4,812
6,690
Avg.
Annual
Growth 324
360
481
335
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)0.5%0.5%0.7%0.5%
Share
of
Cummulatiave
Growth 24%24%26%22%
Multi-‐Family
Housing 41,160
43,193
46,806
54,829
65,106
Cummulative
Growth 2,033
5,646
13,669
23,946
Avg.
Annual
Growth 1,016
1,129
1,367
1,197
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)2.5%2.7%3.3%2.9%
Share
of
Cummulative
Growth 76%76%74%78%
Total 112,391
115,071
119,836
130,872
143,027
Cummulative
Growth 2,680
7,445
18,481
30,636
Avg.
Annual
Growth 1,340
1,489
1,848
1,532
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)1.2%1.3%1.7%1.4%
Source:
SANDAG
and
Gafcon
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 21
Similar to South County’s projected growth, housing growth is expected to occur
disproportionately in the multi-family sector, as 69% to 77% of housing units added through
2030 are anticipated to be multi-family units. Through 2012, 1,244 units of the 1,795 total
projected housing units are anticipated by SANDAG to be multi-family housing units. By
2030, multi-family units are projected to represent 43% of the city’s housing supply as
compared to 36% as estimated in 2010.
Table V.XII TABLE
V.II
HOUSING
DEMAND
-‐
CHULA
VISTA
2010 2012 2015 2020 2030
Chula
Vista
Population 237,595
241,561
247,509
267,427
289,044
Cummulative
Growth 3,966
9,914
29,832
58,647
Avg.
Annual
Growth 1,983
1,983
2,983
2,932
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)0.8%0.8%1.3%1.2%
Single
Family
Housing 47,923
48,413
49,593
50,898
51,762
Cummulative
Growth 490
1,670
2,975
3,839
Avg.
Annual
Growth 245
334
298
192
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)0.5%0.7%0.6%0.4%
Share
of
Cummulative
Growth 49%46%30%23%
Multi-‐Family
Housing 26,566
27,086
28,500
33,600
39,544
Cummulative
Growth 520
1,934
7,034
12,978
Avg.
Annual
Growth 260
387
703
649
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)1.0%1.5%2.6%2.4%
Share
of
Cummulative
Growth 51%54%70%77%
Total 74,489
75,499
78,093
84,498
91,306
Cummulative
Growth 1,010
3,604
10,009
16,817
Avg.
Annual
Growth 505
721
1,001
841
Avg.
Annual
Growth
(%)0.7%1.0%1.3%1.1%
Source:
SANDAG
and
Gafcon
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 22
As part of this study, Gafcon forecasted multi-family housing demand for the Palomar
Gateway District. Utilizing, Chula Vista’s multi-family housing projections generated by
SANDAG, Gafcon applied feasible market capture rates to the City’s forecasted multi-
family housing growth through 2030. The capture rates applied to SANDAG’s growth
forecast are based on the assumption that potential future multi-family projects in the
Palomar Gateway District will provide attractive design features, amenities, finishes, and
servicing consistent with competitively offered new multi-family programs. The applied
capture rates also consider the strength of the Palomar District’s location relative to other
major existing and planned projects in Chula Vista (Ex. Downtown/Urban Core, Bayfront
development, & East Lake/Otay Ranch). For this study, Gafcon projected the multi-
family housing projects located in the Palomar Gateway District could capture 5% - 10% of
future market demand in Chula Vista for multi-family housing. This study anticipates that
future growth throughout the City will continued to be largely captured in the City’s East
Lake/Otay Ranch submarket. In the longer term, the study anticipates that western project
areas (Downtown/Urban Core & Bayfront) will establish themselves as market draws.
A range of capture rates was provided to reflect the likely varying range of competitive
product releases and their relative strength to future District projects. The lower range of
the capture rate scenario represents the anticipated scenario for the District while the upper
range of 10% reflects a more aggressive capture rate scenario. These capture rate scenarios
are applied to anticipated multi-family growth for both for sale and for rent housing units.
Even with many uncertainties at the time of this study, Gafcon believes the Palomar
Gateway District currently possesses attributes that position the area to be competitive in
the current and future multi-family marketplace. Future housing growth is anticipated to
be focused in the City’s eastern side, and as such, was projected to capture the majority of
future demand as part of this study. The Western half of the City has the potential to create
new demand for multi-family housing based on the potential progress of the Urban Core
and Bayfront project areas. This study assumes plans for the Urban Core and Bayfront
become realized over the back end of the forecast horizon and therefore capture a majority
of demand in the City’s western sphere during that period. Factors that could influence the
distribution of future capture rates throughout the city include: Number of competitive
projects active in the marketplace; Progress of the District as a Transit Focus Area; Market
Value of District projects; Progress of City’s other project areas; and Market Value of other
projects.
As shown in Table V.XIII below, applying a capture rate of 5% to Chula Vista’s projected
multi-family housing growth through 2030 results in a theoretical demand for 649 multi-
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 23
family housing units in the Palomar Gateway District. In applying a 10% capture rate to
forecasted citywide multi-family housing growth, a theoretical demand of 1,298 multi-
family housing units for the Palomar Gateway District was projected. It’s important to note
that units projected in this study represent a theoretical demand and not an expected
delivery of units to the Palomar Gateway District. With the exception of the 5-acre lot on
southwest corner of Industrial Blvd. and Palomar St., the Palomar Gateway District is
largely built out. Redeveloping existing developed lots is typically challenging, both in
terms of time and cost. Furthermore, the District is comprised of a large number of
residential lots. In order to accommodate larger scale multi-family developments, lots may
need to be assembled. Assembling lots for larger scale development may inhibit the
District’s ability to accommodate future demand.
Table V.XIII TABLE
V.III
HOUSING
DEMAND
-‐
PALOMAR
GATEWAY
DISTRICT
2010 2012 2015 2020 2030
Chula
Vista
-‐
Housing
Forecast
Single
Family
Housing
Units
Cummulative
Growth 490
1,670
2,975
3,839
Avg.
Annual
Growth 245
334
298
192
Multi-‐Family
Housing
Units
Cummulative
Growth 520
1,934
7,034
12,978
Avg.
Annual
Growth 260
387
703
649
Total
Cummulative
Growth 1,010
3,604
10,009
16,817
Avg.
Annual
Growth 505
721
1,001
841
Palomar
Gateway
District
-‐
Multi-‐Family
Demand
(Upper
Range)
Capture
Rate
(%
of
Citywide
MF
Demand)10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%
Demand
for
Multi-‐Family
Units
(Cummulative)52
193
703
1,298
Demand
for
Multi-‐Family
Units
(Annual
Avg.)26
39
70
65
Palomar
Gateway
District
-‐
Multi-‐Family
Demand
(Lower
Range)
Capture
Rate
(%
of
Citywide
MF
Demand)5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Demand
for
Multi-‐Family
Units
(Cummulative)26
97
352
649
Demand
for
Multi-‐Family
Units
(Annual
Avg.)13
19
35
32
Source:
SANDAG
and
Gafcon
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 24
Housing Conclusions
Situated within walking distance of shopping, restaurants, and trolley access, the Palomar
Gateway District provides an attractive opportunity for multi-family housing development.
In particular, a vacant site located adjacent to the Palomar Trolley Station on the southwest
corner of Palomar and Industrial represents an attractive multi-family site as a five-acre
undeveloped site with frontage along Palomar St. and adjacent to the Palomar Trolley
Station.
In the near term, development of for-sale multi-family housing will continue to be a
challenge. The required investment returns for investors to develop multi-family projects
will continue to be inhibited by compressed market pricing, high shadow inventory levels,
strict lending standards, and sagging investor/consumer sentiment. This study assumes
demand for new housing will begin the return to historically normal levels beginning in
2012.
The development of higher density multi-family for-sale programs in lower priced
communities may lag behind higher priced areas, as the high development costs associated
with high-density development will be less likely to be absorbed in lower priced
communities. Pricing in Chula Vista’s South Market is below average when compared to
Chula Vista, South County, and the San Diego region as a whole.
Conversely, demand for rental housing in the near term appears strong in the San Diego
region and Chula Vista. Chula Vista’s South Market contains 30 of Chula Vista’s 61 major
apartment complexes. Chula Vista’s South Market has a vacancy rate of 3.7% compared to
a citywide average of 4.4%. San Diego County as a whole has a vacancy rate of 5.06% and
South County has a vacancy rate of 4.19%. Low vacancy rates and an aging inventory of
apartment complexes in Chula Vista’s South Market coupled with the District’s proximity
to shopping and transit, provides compelling conditions for rental housing development in
the Palomar Gateway District.
Near and long-term market supply/demand conditions are anticipated to be favorable for
rental housing within the Palomar Gateway District. Below average rental rates in Chula
Vista’s South Market, however, present a potential inhibitor to future investment. Through
March 2011, Chula Vista’s South Market average rental rate was recorded at $1.29 per
square foot as compared to San Diego South County’s average of $1.40 and a San Diego
countywide average of $1.54 per square foot. Part of South Chula Vista’s rental rate gap
can be attributed to an aging rental-housing inventory.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 25
Another challenge in expanding the Palomar Gateway District’s supply of housing is the
limited amount of undeveloped sites within the District. With the possible exception of the
five-acre lot along Palomar St., assembling multiple lots in order to accommodate larger
scale multi-family projects will be challenging for potential investors. There are, however,
more available opportunities for smaller scale redevelopments involving underutilized lots
around 1.0-acre.
From a planning perspective, the General Plan land use designations applied to the Palomar
Gateway District provide the appropriate densities at the appropriate locations in order to
accommodate transit-oriented multi-family projects.
Demand for multi-family housing in the Palomar Gateway District was forecast over a 20-
year horizon. Demand was forecasted to range from 649 to 1,298 multi-family units
through 2030. The lower range of this study’s forecast is considered a more realistic
scenario for the District, as it assumes the District will capture 5.0% of Chula Vista’s future
multi-family housing demand. This capture rate assumes the East Lake/Otay Ranch
market will continue to capture the majority of Chula Vista’s housing growth. It also,
assumes future redevelopment projects areas such as the Downtown/Urban Core and
Bayfront will capture the largest share of West Chula Vista’s growth in the future, as these
areas grow closer to realizing their visions. The area around the Bayfront E St. Trolley
Station was also considered to be a competitive location to capture a small share of future
housing demand. An upper range to the forecast was included to provide scale for an
optimistic scenario.
The District’s limited supply of undeveloped sites will likely limit future growth and prevent
the District from achieving the total demand forecasted in this study. There are currently
about 400 dwelling units in the District. Utilizing the General Plan land use designations
can result in a maximum of 2,400 dwelling units, resulting in a net increase capacity for
2,000 additional units. Based on this study’s forecasted housing demand, as well as, the
limited supply of undeveloped sites, the build out capacity for the District will not be
achieved.
In order to help stimulate new rental housing development in the Palomar Gateway
District, conditions of approval should provide flexibility in recognition of the District’s
challenges, as well as, the investment thresholds required to initiate development. Potential
planning targets to integrate commercial uses into a residential development should be
promoted through incentives as opposed to requirements for approval.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 26
The following list summarizes major opportunities and challenges the Palomar Gateway
District provides as an area for residential development:
Opportunities:
+ Within walking distance of trolley station
+ Within walking distance of restaurant/retail opportunities
+ Proximity to freeway on/off-ramp
+ Location between San Diego and Mexico
+ Underutilized trolley site represents a strong potential opportunity for mixed-use
residential development
+ Large and underutilized residential lots south of Palomar St.
+ Recent public infrastructure improvements
+ Proximity to Chula Vista Bayfront Plan Area
+ Vacant five-acre lot on Palomar St./Industrial Blvd.
+ Aging apartment properties
+ Affordability to other to other residential markets and TOD project areas
+ Development of previously underutilized large lots (Approximately 1.0-acre) with
multiple housing units indicates some market and investor interest in the area
Challenges:
− Auto oriented focus
− Restricted pedestrian connectivity (Retail, park, bike paths, etc.)
− Pedestrian barriers (Freeway, trolley crossing, and Industrial Blvd.)
− Low Income
− Traffic congestion, particularly related to trolley use and freeway related congestion
− Minimal sense of community/place
− Mixed market perception
− Secondary commercial users (Ex. North east corner of Industrial Blvd./Palomar St.)
− Land assembly
− Low rents and pricing
− Limited supply of undeveloped land
− High cost of mixed-use/high-density development relative to surrounding pricing
and incomes
− Existing District park is isolated from residential center of the District, south of
Palomar St.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 27
SD
Retail
Market
2010
Q4
Submarket #
of
Bldgs Total
Inventory
Direct
Vacancy
Rate
YTD
Net
Absorption
Under
Construction Proposed
SF
Avg
Rental
Rate
Central
San
Diego 2,948
35,216,339
5.0%233,544
20,000
415,337
2.01$
East
County 1,473
18,074,608
5.5%(104,632)
3,729
39,984
1.44$
I-‐15
Corridor 434
7,142,983
3.0%53,862
18,030
36,465
2.38$
North
County 2,520
37,889,188
6.6%10,987
23,819
831,295
1.80$
North
San
Diego 474
7,673,111
5.1%31,779
-‐
-‐
2.36$
South
County
Chula
Vista/Bonita 540
8,477,453
5.1%46,204
-‐
350,823
1.81$
National
City 243
3,302,402
7.0%(47,799)
12,958
25,557
1.58$
San
Ysidro/Imperial
Beach 295
4,055,180
2.8%17,873
-‐
216,418
1.61$
South
County
Total 1,078
15,835,035
4.9%16,278
12,958
592,798
1.71$
San
Diego
County
Total 8,927
121,831,264
5.5%241,818
78,536
1,915,879
1.84$
Source:
Colliers
International
VI. RETAIL MARKET ASSESSMENT
Retail Market
San Diego’s retail market ended 2010 with some reason for optimism. For three
consecutive quarters, retail demand posted positive net absorption. According to Colliers
International, countywide net absorption for 2010 totaled 241,818 square feet. With only
249,000 square feet of new countywide retail space delivered in 2010, total direct vacancy
remained unchanged at 5.5%. In the first quarter of 2008, retail rental rates peaked at a
historical high of $2.14 per square foot. Since that peak, rental rates have declined almost
15%, reaching $1.84 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2010.
San Diego’s countywide retail market, as measured by Colliers International, totals
121,831,264 square feet. The Chula Vista/Bonita market sits within the South County sub-
market. The South County market totals 15,835,035 square feet or about 13 percent of the
countywide total. In terms of proposed future retail projects, of the San Diego County’s
1,915,879 square feet of proposed future retail projects, almost 30 percent is being proposed
in South County’s market, including 350,823 square feet in the Chula Vista/Bonita market.
Furthermore, of South County’s proposed projects, about 59 percent is being proposed in
the Chula Vista/Bonita area. In terms of vacancy rates, the Chula Vista/Bonita market
ended 2010 at 5.1 percent as compared to a South County rate of around 4.9 percent and a
countywide average of 5.5 percent. Lease rates for the Chula Vista/Bonita averaged $1.81
per square foot, exceeding the South County average of $1.71 per square foot and almost
equaling the countywide average of $1.84 per square foot.
Table VI.I below summarizes San Diego County’s retail market:
Table VI.I
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 28
Demographic Overview
As part of this study, Gafcon analyzed demographic, household expenditure, and retail sales
data provided by The Nielsen Company/Claritas for 1.5-mile, 3.0-mile, and 5.0-mile trade
areas surrounding the Palomar Gateway District. The map below represents the trade area
rings evaluated in this study:
The Palomar Trolley Station was designated as a center point for the Palomar Gateway
District’s trade area. A 1.5-mile radius surrounding the Trolley Station was evaluated and
recognized as the primary trade area for supporting community level retail. The study
assumes that households within this trade area will provide the primary support for
potential neighborhood retail uses in the District. As shown in Table VI.II, population
within the primary trade area is relatively low at 41,587 people. Attributing to this
population level is the fact that a significant portion of this trade area crosses into the San
Diego Bay. Additionally, a large portion of this trade area is occupied by commercial land
uses.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 29
Household income within this trade area is relatively low with a median household income
of $40,240. As the trade area extends to 3.0-miles, median household income increases to
$47,620. Extending the trade-area further out to 5-miles generates a median household
income of $51,973.
The Palomar Gateway District and the surrounding area are primarily comprised of
Hispanic or Latino households. Within the District’s primary trade area (0 – 1.5 miles),
people of Hispanic or Latin origin represent 73.7% of the population. For the City of Chula
Vista, about 58.0% of the population is of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Workers within the District’s trade areas have an average work commute of about 27
minutes. The primary trade area, however, has fewer cars per household than the
secondary trade areas. For the 1.5-mile trade area, residents average about 1.64 cars per
household. Extending out to three miles generates an average of about 1.84 vehicles per
household. Vehicles per household average about 1.87 within the 5-mile trade area. With
fewer cars per household, public transportation is utilized more in the primary trade area.
Within the primary trade area, 7.3% of workers utilize public transportation to work as
compared to 6.5% for residents within the secondary (3.0-mile) trade area. Similarly, more
people walk to work in the primary trade area (3.1%) as compared to the secondary trade
area (1.9%).
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 30
!"#$%&'()((
*%+,-."/0(1&23"/20,!&4/567859&-5:;<5=&*>?:9>@:&!95A;&"9;5B
*;?@9>C:>7D
E&F&G)H&+>6;&
.5A>I?
E&F&J)E&+>6;&
.5A>I?
E&F&H)E&+>6;&
.5A>I?
!"#$%&'(")*+,-./+.0,.10 12+,1-*
3"$456"%74 +1,810 -0,-.9 0/,2//
!5:4")4;#5:;3"$456"%7 1<9*1<+/1<2+
=57(&);3"$456"%7;>)?"@5 A*9,2*9 A*/,829 A-+,0/1
B;3(4#&)(?;":;C&'()";D:(E()/1</B 88<-B 81</B
=57(&);FE5 1+<1 12<*12<+
C&)E$&E5
G#5&H;D)%I;J)E%(46;&';3"@5 1+<-B 1.<1B 1.<*B
G#5&H;G#&()(46;&';3"@5 82<1B -*<9B -2<0B
D'65:8<2B /<.B .</B
FK5:&E5;L$@M5:;"N;O56(?%54 +<8*+<.*+<./
FK5:&E5;P:&K5%;P(@5;'";Q":H 2/<*1 2/<*-2/<92
D??$#&'(");R%&44(N(?&'(")
S%$5;R"%%&:28<*B 2*<*B 21<+B
Q6('5;R"%%&:*/<+B -+<.B -*<+B
G5:K(?5;&)7;T&:@ 28<-B 21<.B 22<0B
P:&)4#":&'(");'";Q":H
U:"K5;F%")5 8.<1B /+<.B /2<+B
R&:;!""%57 +8</B +*<-B +*<+B
!$M%(?;P:&)4#":'&'(")/<1B 8<-B -<0B
Q&%H57 1<+B +<0B 2<+B
S(?I?%57 9<1B 9<-B 9<*B
D'65:;=5&)4 +<+B +<9B +<1B
Q":H57;&';3"@5 1<2B 1<.B *<+B
G"$:?5V;P65;L(5%45);R"@#&)I;&)7;GFLUFW
1KI65&
'>?:5
2*1,0+8
/+,80/
1<19
A88,0--
-.<9B
11<*
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 31
Retail Demand
Retail demand projections for the Palomar Gateway District were developed as part of this
study. These projections are intended to measure potential market demand for retail land
uses over a 20-year horizon. Because of the uncertainty inherent with a long-term forecast,
as well as, the lack of a specifically defined development project, the forecast provided in
this study is intended to provide general projections for general land use planning purposes.
The Palomar Gateway District is part of a unique retail market that is comprised of separate
markets. As part of this study, each market was evaluated individually and collectively to
measure total potential retail demand. For this study, primary and secondary markets were
evaluated. Primary markets are defined as existing households within a 1.5-mile radius of
the Palomar Trolley Station, as well as, projected future Palomar Gateway District
households. Secondary markets were defined as cross borders shoppers, area workers, and
households with a 5.0-mile radius of the Palomar Trolley Station.
Primary Market – Existing Residents
The District’s primary retail market for this study is defined as existing households within a
1.5-mile radius of the Palomar Trolley Station. Demographic and expenditure data
generated by Claritas was evaluated by Gafcon to measure household expenditure
capacity/demand and retail sales/supply within the trade area. Demand within the primary
trade area was derived by Claritas from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which is
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey consists of a Quarterly
Interview Survey and a Diary Survey that provide information on buying habits,
expenditures, income, and consumer characteristics. Retail sales/supply within the primary
trade area was derived by Claritas from the Census of Retail Trade, made available by the
U.S. Census. Consumer expenditure data was then compared to retail sales data by retail
category. Retail categories that were determined to be compatible land uses with a transit
focus area were evaluated. As such, retail categories such as, building material, garden
equipment, motor vehicle, and gasoline stores were not evaluated as part of this study.
As shown in Table VI.III on the following page, household expenditures within the 1.5-mile
trade area total $265.4M. This total represents expenditures households within the trade
area made in the listed retail categories. Total retail sales were reported at $567.7M. The
total for retail sales represents reported sales by retailers within the designated trade area. In
total, the data suggests that the supply of retail in the District far exceeds the expenditure
capacity of trade area households. This imbalance is largely driven by the relatively low
number of households in the primary trade area and the high concentration of major
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 32
retailers within the trade area. With the trade area’s strong retail concentration,
expenditures are likely being pulled from households outside the primary trade area.
Individual retail categories were also evaluated to identify specific retail opportunities. In
retail categories where household expenditures exceed trade area supply for related
categories, potential retail sales opportunities were identified. Specific retail capture rates
based on historical retail market trends were applied to each retail category in order to
quantify sales that can reasonably be captured within the designated trade area. Industry
standard sales per square foot averages, provided by Bizminer, were applied to the potential
sales revenue in order to estimate potential square footage demanded for the retail category
in demand.
As shown in Table VI.III, the expenditure capacity of households within the primary trade
were found to be considerably lower than the existing level of retail sales/supply in the trade
area. As such, new retail opportunities from trade area households were not identified.
Primary Market – Future Residents
In addition to existing households within the primary trade area, potential retail demand
from future Palomar Gateway District households was also measured. Average household
expenditure data was evaluated for Chula Vista based on California State Board of
Equalization data. Based on this data, average household expenditures by retail categories
were calculated. Household expenditure averages were then applied to forecasted Palomar
Gateway District households in order to calculate expenditure potential in total and by retail
category. Industry standard retail capture rates were then applied the future household
expenditure capacity to calculate reasonable expenditures in the project area. With
captured sales potential figures, industry sales per square footage averages were applied to
each retail category to convert sales demand to square footage demand.
!"#$%&'()(((
*%+",$&-%."/0&1&23,."34&5"36%+&73%"&89&1&:);15,$%&!3"0%&73%"<
=>,?+,/@&ABC?%DB$0?&EF,/&23,."34&!3"0%&73%"
*%+",$&G"+%@B34
!"#$%&"#'()*+,')!"#$%-.%$/-()0)12'3&#+$%3-
!++4)0)5'6'#7/')8&+#'-
*'72&.)7$4)9'#-+$72):7#')8&+#'-
:2+&.%$/)7$4):2+&.%$/);33'--+#%'-
8<+#&%$/)=++4-()*+>>?()5++@()0)A"-%3)8&+#'-
='$'#72)A'#3.7$4%-')8&+#'-
A%-3B)8&+#')C'&7%2'#-
!++4)8'#6%3')7$4)D#%$@%$/)9273'-
!B+"$
8+"#3'-E)FB8B)5"#'7")+G)H7>+#)8&7&%-&%3-():+$-",'#)1I<'$4%&"#')8"#6'?J):'$-"-)+G)C'&7%2)K#74'J):27#%&7-J)5%L,%$'#J)0)=7G3+$B
*%+",$&-%."/0&1&23,."34&5"36%+&73%"&89&1&:);15,$%&!3"0%&73%"<
H9:9&-%."/0
8GB/?C.%3&=>I%/0,+C3%?<
H9:9&JCII$4
8*%+",$&J"$%?<
J"$%?&
KIIB3+C/,+4
G"I+C3%&
*"+%
L&I%3&JM&
7N@)
JOC"3%&MBB+"@%&
KIIB3+C/,+4
MNO(POQ(ORS MTU(VSV(TQT WMP(QTT(XVPY NUZ MXUU [;
MRS(URT(PVT MNXT(RUP(TTN WMOP(QXU(VPSY XUZ MQUU [;
MTQ(TTV(OVT MPX(PNS(TNP WMS(USU(XPNY PUZ MOUU [;
MTN(ROV(PPP MPT(TPR(SQO WMNU(QQV(RTXY TUZ MPUU [;
MV(NPX(PQT MTX(NVR(VSR WMNR(UQT(QXXY NQZ MPUU [;
MRX(NOV(UNO MTNV(UNQ(OUV WMNQP(VPO(RSNY TUZ MPNQ [;
MS(SOQ(UUT MTU(UQP(ORV WMNU(UOV(ORRY NUZ MPQU [;
MXS(ORV(VOO MOQ(PQO(NRX WMTQ(QVV(TVOY PQZ MXUU [;
LHP;QR9:Q;:R L;PSQPS:Q:ST 8LU9HQHPTQPP;<111 111 V7
8+"#3'-E)FB8B)5"#'7")+G)H7>+#)8&7&%-&%3-():+$-",'#)1I<'$4%&"#')8"#6'?J):'$-"-)+G)C'&7%2)K#74'J):27#%&7-J)5%L,%$'#J)0)=7G3+$B
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 33
As shown in Table VI.IV below, two separate retail demand scenarios are provided. Each
scenario is based on the study’s housing demand forecast. The lower range scenario is
based on housing projections provided in this study that assume the Palomar Gateway
District captures 5.0% of Chula Vista’s future multi-family housing demand. The upper
range scenario assumes the District captures 10% of Chula Vista’s future multi-family
housing demand. Under the lower range scenario, a total of 8,172 square feet of retail
demand is anticipated to be generated from future District households. The upper range
scenario generates a potential demand of 16,344 square feet of retail from future residents.
!"#$%&'()('
*+,-./&0+1-23&4&56.1-67&8-69+,
:;,;6+&0.<,6.=,&>?;<+@?/3<
"AB)&"22;-/&
>?;<+@?/3&
%CD+23.,;6+<
E-D,;6+&
*-,+F-/+<GF:HIJK HIHI HILI
$MN%*&*"OP%&FE%O"*(M
!"##"$%&'()*+"$&',-%#'$.*/)#%01 ,,,,,,,,,23 456 782
E;11;/-,.A+&*+,-./&0+1-23&QFR;-6+&:++,S
-"90'&"9):*;<#)*-"90'=>'0?=:*@*A$)B&9<0'B=C6:D44 EDF C8DD 82 E32 44D
-<<1*%01*G)()9%?)*H&<9)=CE:748 8DF C5DD E67 87D I8I
!$<&>'0?*%01*JBB)==<9')=*H&<9)=CE:757 6DF C4DD ED3 4II 3E7
K)0)9%$*+)9B>%01'=)*H&<9)=CI:7E5 6DF C4E5 562 E:268 4:582
-<<1*H)9('B)=*%01*/9'0L'0?*M$%B)=C4:2E3 45F C8DD 44E E:6D5 6:668
N&>)9*O)&%'$*K9<"P C6:36D EDF C45D 35 634 5D8
F;DD?6,-T/+&F:JUHJV WUWHX VUJYH
Z55%*&*"OP%&FE%O"*(M
!"##"$%&'()*+"$&',-%#'$.*/)#%01 ,,,,,,,,,E24 3D4 E62I
E;11;/-,.A+&*+,-./&0+1-23&QFR;-6+&:++,S
-"90'&"9):*;<#)*-"90'=>'0?=:*@*A$)B&9<0'B=C6:D44 EDF C8DD 2I 45I 77D
-<<1*%01*G)()9%?)*H&<9)=CE:748 8DF C5DD 654 2E2 E:727
!$<&>'0?*%01*JBB)==<9')=*H&<9)=CE:757 6DF C4DD 6E8 333 E:844
K)0)9%$*+)9B>%01'=)*H&<9)=CI:7E5 6DF C4E5 E:D5I 4:I83 3:D22
-<<1*H)9('B)=*%01*/9'0L'0?*M$%B)=C4:2E3 45F C8DD 774 6:8EE 8:88I
N&>)9*O)&%'$*K9<"P C6:36D EDF C45D E5D 583 E:DD2
F;DD?6,-T/+&F:HUWL[VUVKV J[ULWW
H<"9B)=Q*RSHS*G"9)%"*<T*U%V<9*H&%&'=&'B=:*!<0="#)9*AWP)01'&"9)*H"9().:*!)0="=*<T*O)&%'$*X9%1):*RSHS*!)0="=:*!$%9'&%=:*@*K%TB<0S
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 34
Given the primary trade area’s significant retail base, its current disproportionate
relationship of retailers to households, and the relatively minimal retail demand projected
from future District residents, it’s anticipated that demand generated directly from District
residents will be negligible.
Secondary Market – 1.5 to 5.0 Mile Trade Area
The clustering of major big box retailers, such as Target, Costco, and Wal-Mart, within the
primary trade area market creates a synergy in attracting household shoppers from outside
of the primary trade area. Based on this condition, the primary trade area was extended to
capture potential expenditures from households outside the primary trade area.
A trade area from 1.5 to 5.0-miles was evaluated to capture a secondary market that is a
support base for retailers adjacent to the Palomar District. In order to evaluate this market,
data was measured for a 5.0-mile radius trade area and the Palomar Trolley Station. Totals
from this trade area were subtracted from the 1.5-mile trade area to capture the market area
from 1.5 to 5.0-miles. As shown in Table VI.V below, the following retail categories present
potential opportunities: Food and beverage; Health and personal care, Sporting
goods/hobbies/music, Miscellaneous stores, and food service and drinking places. Sales
opportunities in terms of revenues were applied to capture rates that the primary trade area
could reasonably capture form this secondary market.
Capture rates were reduced to reflect diminishing demand that accompanies increased
distances and shopping opportunities. As calculated in the primary markets, theoretically
captured sales revenue was applied to industry average sales per square foot indices to
estimate a potential demand in square footage by retail category. Based on the assumptions
noted in Table VI.V, a total of 48,365 square feet of retail space can potentially be captured
in the primary trade area from secondary markets households.
!"#$%&'()'
*%+",$&-%."/0&1&2%34/0"56&7"58%+&95%"&:;)<&1&<)=17,$%&!5"0%&95%">
?4@A%B4$0A&C,+B,/&2%34/0"56&7"58%+
*%+",$&D"+%E456
!"#$%&"#'()*+,')!"#$%-.%$/-()0)12'3&#+$%3-
!++4)0)5'6'#7/')8&+#'-
*'72&.)7$4)9'#-+$72):7#')8&+#'-
:2+&.%$/)7$4):2+&.%$/);33'--+#%'-
8<+#&%$/)=++4-()*+>>?()5++@()0)A"-%3)8&+#'-
='$'#72)A'#3.7$4%-')8&+#'-
A%-3B)8&+#')C'&7%2'#-
!++4)8'#6%3')7$4)D#%$@%$/)9273'-
!4+"$
8+"#3'-E)FB8B)5"#'7")+G)H7>+#)8&7&%-&%3-():+$-",'#)1I<'$4%&"#')8"#6'?J):'$-"-)+G)C'&7%2)K#74'J):27#%&7-J)5%L,%$'#J)0)=7G3+$B
*%+",$&-%."/0&1&2%34/0"56&7"58%+&95%"&:;)<&1&<)=17,$%&!5"0%&95%">
F=;=&-%."/0
:D4/A@.%5&
GHI%/0,+@5%A>
F=;=&2@II$6
:*%+",$&2"$%A>
2"$%A&
JII45+@/,+6
D"I+@5%&
*"+%
K&I%5&2L&
9ME)
2N@"5%&
L44+"E%&
JII45+@/,+6
MNO(MPQ(NRO))))))))))MPS(QNS(OQO))))))))))TQN(MPO(PUVW)))))))))UX YNVV Z;
NPV(UOV(UQQ))))))))))NQU(OUP(Q[Q))))))))))QU(OSQ(MNV))))))))))OVX YUVV MN(MVU
MRV(OMU(V[S))))))))))MSV(OSU([PQ))))))))))M[([N[(MOQ))))))))))MVX YPVV O(RUV
MSR(MMM(SVR))))))))))Q[U(UMN(NMV))))))))))TOOP(NVO(RVOW)))))))MVX YQVV Z;
SU(OR[(V[V))))))))))))NV(OPR(UNS))))))))))))OU(VMV(UNN))))))))))PX YQVV U(RQS
NSU(QUR(O[Q))))))))))RR[([[O(PQV))))))))))TNON(SQN(NQPW)))))))MVX YQMU Z;
PU(URR(VNP))))))))))))PN(QMU(MSP))))))))))))M(OPO(RRV))))))))))))UX YQUV MRO
QUQ(RRU(QQO))))))))))QUV(ONP(QRM))))))))))Q(SQP([UM))))))))))))MUX YNVV M(QSN
;OPF;O;Q;OQR;&&&&&&&FO<FFOF;SORTF&&&&&&&:U=;O=SUOT<;>&&&&&&&11 11 FQOTTS
8+"#3'-E)FB8B)5"#'7")+G)H7>+#)8&7&%-&%3-():+$-",'#)1I<'$4%&"#')8"#6'?J):'$-"-)+G)C'&7%2)K#74'J):27#%&7-J)5%L,%$'#J)0)=7G3+$B
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 35
Secondary Market – Cross Border Shoppers
The Palomar Gateway District is a major southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista. In
particular, cross border visitors from Mexico can easily access the Palomar Gateway District
area from the freeway and the blue line San Diego Trolley. Site visits at District area retail
properties by Gafcon, as well as, analysis of trade area retail sales data, review cross border
related studies, and interviews with Stakeholders indicate Cross Border shoppers have a
significant impact on Chula Vista and District area retailers.
Table VI.VI on the following page represents Gafcon’s estimate of retail expenditures from
cross border shoppers. The assumptions that serve as the primary basis for this study’s cross
border shopper estimates are primarily based on secondary data sources that examine cross
border activity. In a study prepared by The Center for Border Economic Studies (The
Economic Impact of Mexican Visitors Along the U.S. Mexican Border: A Research
Synthesis, 2005), northbound border crossings by Mexicans into San Diego County were
found to total 19,101,000 in 2004 with San Diego County expenditures estimated at
$2,731,230,000. A different source, The University of Autonoma de Baja California
estimated that Baja residents spend $1,600,000,000 annually in the San Diego region (Based
on a 2001 survey). In another study released by the San Diego Dialogue (Who Crosses the
Border: A View of San Diego/Tijuana Metropolitan Region, 1994), it was estimated that
50% of border crossers make Chula Vista their first stop and Border Crossers spend
$1,500,000,000 on taxable items. With a lack of definitive historical data tracking this
activity and changing economic conditions since previous surveys, Gafcon estimated cross
border expenditures at $2,000,000,000 for this study.
For this study, Gafcon assumed Chula Vista captures 30% of cross border retailer
expenditures, or $600,000,000 in retail sales annually based on annual expenditures of
$2,000,000,000. In the San Diego Dialogues 1994 study, it was estimated that Chula Vista
captured about 50% of San Diego County Cross Border shoppers. With increased shopping
opportunities within border communities and a lack of regularly updated data tracking cross
border expenditures, this study assumes a more conservative capture rate of 30%.
Based on the Palomar Gateway District’s proximity to the Mexican border, direct freeway
trolley and freeway access, and high concentration of major retailers in the District area, this
study assumes the Palomar Gateway District market area captures about 20% of Chula
Vista’s cross border shopping expenditures. This capture rate is considered conservative, as
comprehensive data to refine area capture rates is not available. With this capture rate, the
study estimates that the Palomar Gateway District market area captures about $120,000,000
in cross border retail sales. The captured total of $120,000,000 was then adjusted to exclude
retail categories considered inconsistent with retail uses found in Transit Focus Areas.
Retail categories excluded include: Building Material Stores; Gasoline Stores; and Motor
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 36
Vehicles. Excluding these retail categories resulted in $101,811,611 of sales demand for the
Palomar Gateway District trade area. Comparing the estimated cross border sales total to
the primary trade area’s measured sales of $574,339,105 indicates that Cross Border Sales
are estimated to account for about 18% of the primary trade area’s total measured retail
sales.
Utilizing market sales per square foot averages by retail category results in total square foot
retail demand generated from Cross Border shoppers at about 249,271 square feet. Of this
total, the Clothing and Accessories retail category was estimated to have a demand of about
68,155 square feet. The General Merchandise Store category was the retail category with
the second highest measured demand.
Overall, retail space supported from Cross Border shoppers in the Palomar Gateway District
trade area is estimated to be significant at about 249,271 square feet.
!"#$%&'()'(
*"$+,"-&."/%0"1&234/-35/
6-+44&7+-8%-&9:+;;3<=&>&9"$%4&6";/?-%&*+/%</3"$
@"-A%/&B44?,;/3+<4C
!"#$%&'()*(%#('++*(+,-.,/,.///
!"#$%012*3)456(*+%78%&'()*(%#('++*(+9:.///.///.///!"#$
012*3)456(*+%2*(%2;(58 9,/<
#=6>;%?4+5;%#;256(*%@;5*A/B
#=6>;%?4+5;%#;256(*)%!;>*+9C//.///.///
D;>E'(%F;5*G;8%"4+5(4H5%I;(J*5%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
K#;256(*%@;5*.%B%'L%#=6>;%?4+5;%!;>*+M :/B
D;>E'(%F;5*G;8%"4+5(4H5%I;(J*5%K!;>*+%"*E;3)M 9,:/.///.///N>>%@*5;4>%#;5*O'(4*+
D;>E'(%F;5*G;8%"4+5(4H5%I;(J*5%KP*5%!;>*+%"*E;3)M 9,/,.Q,,.C,,K01H>6)*+R%&>)O.%N65'.%F;+M
D%/"3$&6"/%=+-1 9"$%4 9"$%4E9F
&9G?"-%&F++/"=%&
H;;+-/?<3/1&
S6(3456(*.%T'E*%S6(34+=43O+.%U%0>*H5('34H+9V.Q,,.:,-9V,/,,.WA<
S'')%;3)%&*X*(;O*%!5'(*+9,-.,::.Q<,9<C/AV.,VQ
T*;>5=%;3)%D*(+'3;>%#;(*%!5'(*+9C.-Q<.C<-9Q</Q.:,Q
#>'5=43O%;3)%#>'5=43O%NHH*++'(4*+9:<.Q-Q.Q/Q 9AQ/CQ.,<<
!2'(543O%F'')+.%T'778.%&''J.%I6+4H%!5'(*+9:.:<:.AV,9A,/W.:CC
F*3*(;>%I*(H=;3)4+*%!5'(*+9,W.WW/.V/Q 9A,/<W.A:V
I4+HY%!5'(*%@*5;4>*(+9,,.,Q-.W//9V//:W.-WV
S'')%!*(X4H*%;3)%"(43J43O%D>;H*+9,A.WQ/.C:C 9V//AV.V<:
!+/"$&IJK5$?8%4C&7$8=EB?/+E."4LC MNONPQNNPRNN STUPSVN
,Y<ZI4>*%[(;)*%N(*;%@*5;4>%!;>*+9<WV.AA-.,/<
#('++%&'()*(%!;>*+%;+%;%B%'L%[(;)*%N(*;%!;>*+,QB
!'6(H*+R%
[=*%0H'3'E4H%\E2;H5%'L%I*14H;3%?4+45'(+%Z%N>'3O%5=*%I*14H;3%&'()*(.%#*35*(%L'(%&'()*(%0H'3'E4H%
!56)4*+%K://<M]%^='%#('++*+%5=*%&'()*(R%N%?4*G%'L%5=*%!;3%"4*O'_[4`6;3;%I*5('2'>45;3%@*O4'3.%N%
@*2'(5%'L%!;3%"4*O'%"4;>'O6*%K,--VM]%F;LH'3Y
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 37
Secondary Market – Area Workers
Workers within the Palomar Gateway District’s primary trade area provide additional retail
market support. In order to calculate the number of workers surrounding the Palomar
Gateway District, Gafcon utilized the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics data mapping tool. Utilizing the LEHD data mapping tool, the
Palomar Trolley Station was selected as the center point of a designated 1.5-mile radius.
From this data ring, 9,620 jobs were estimated to be located in the Palomar Gateway
District’s 1.5-mile trade area.
The map below is an LEHD data map that represents job distributions within Palomar
Gateway District’s primary area.
Table VI.VII on the following page provides a detailed breakdown of jobs within the
Palomar Gateway District’s trade area. Jobs within the trade area are primarily comprised
of below average income jobs with 70.1% of the jobs providing monthly earning of $3,333
or less. The highest share of jobs consists of retail, education, and manufacturing jobs with
professional services only accounting for 2.1% of the area total. Educational services,
retail/wholesale trade, and manufacturing/Transportation/Warehouse combined account
for about 63% of the area’s total jobs. Jobs are largely occupied by Hispanic or Latinos,
about 59%. In terms of worker education levels, about 18% of area workers have attained a
bachelors or advanced degree.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 38
Table VI.VII Table XX
Work Area Profile Report
1.5-Mile Radius around Palomar Trolley Station
Job
Categories #
of
Jobs Share
Total
All
Jobs 9,620 100.0%
Jobs
by
Worker
Age
Age
29
or
younger 2,331 24.2%
Age
30
to
54 5,542 57.6%
Age
55
or
older 1,747 18.2%
Jobs
by
Earnings
$1,250
per
month
or
less 2,996 31.1%
$1,251
to
$3,333
per
month 3,747 39.0%
More
than
$3,333
per
month 2,877 29.9%
Jobs
by
NAICS
Industry
Sector
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fishing
and
Hunting 38 0.4%
Mining,
Quarrying,
and
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction 0 0.0%
Utilities 15 0.2%
Construction 345 3.6%
Manufacturing 961 10.0%
Wholesale
Trade 493 5.1%
Retail
Trade 2,086 21.7%
Transportation
and
Warehousing 347 3.6%
Information 63 0.7%
Finance
and
Insurance 140 1.5%
Real
Estate
and
Rental
and
Leasing 108 1.1%
Professional,
Scientific,
and
Technical
Services 200 2.1%
Management
of
Companies
and
Enterprises 34 0.4%
Administration
&
Support,
Waste
Management
and
Remediation 257 2.7%
Educational
Services 2,144 22.3%
Health
Care
and
Social
Assistance 583 6.1%
Arts,
Entertainment,
and
Recreation 87 0.9%
Accommodation
and
Food
Services 612 6.4%
Other
Services
(excluding
Public
Administration)788 8.2%
Public
Administration 319 3.3%
Jobs
by
Worker
Ethnicity
Not
Hispanic
or
Latino 3,918 40.7%
Hispanic
or
Latino 5,702 59.3%
Jobs
by
Worker
Educational
Attainment
Less
than
high
school 2,099 21.8%
High
school
or
equivalent,
no
college 1,473 15.3%
Some
college
or
Associate
degree 1,969 20.5%
Bachelor's
degree
or
advanced
degree 1,748 18.2%
Educational
attainment
not
available
(workers
aged
29
or
younger)2,331 24.2%
2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2009)
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 39
In a study conducted by the International Council of Shopping Centers (Office Worker
Spending Patterns, 2004), ICSC estimated that office workers in suburban areas within large
metropolitan areas spent about $143 per week at retail stores before arriving home. Based
on the relatively low ratio of office jobs within the primary trade area, the area’s job type
composition and relatively low worker income levels in the area, Gafcon assumed weekly
worker expenditures will average $85 per week. Based on the high concentration of major
retailers within the primary trade area, Gafcon applied a 60% capture rate to worker
expenditures.
As shown in the Table VI.VIII below, supportable sales generated from trade area workers
are estimated at $25,531,000. Based on an average sale per square foot rate of $400, retail
space demanded from area workers was estimated at 61,328 square feet.
Secondary Market – Trolley Riders
This study assumes area households, workers, and cross-border shoppers drive the largest
share of trolley ridership into the Palomar Trolley station. Since this study includes
demand projections for these retail markets, it is assumed that any additional demand
outside of these measured consumer markets consumer markets is minimal. The small
share of riders who may fall outside of these measured categories are not expected to
generate notable retail demand due to the small estimated size of this potential population
and the assumption that trolley ridership alone generally does not generate significant retail
Table VI.VIII
Market Area Jobs
Sales Capture Potential
Market Area Jobs (1.5-Mile Trade Area)9,620
Capture Rate 60%
Avg. Weekly Worker Expenditures $85.00
Avg. Annual Work Weeks 50
Supportable Sales 24,531,000$
Avg. Sales per Square Foot $400
Supportable Square Feet:61,328
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, & Gafcon
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 40
demand from riders. In a study prepared by Brion & Associates (Retail Analysis of Dublin
Transit Center Specific Plan, 2003), it was determined that BART riders did not generate
meaningful retail demand. In this study, Black BART Inc., the largest retail concessionaire
within the BART system, reported that Black BART only captured about 3% of riders and
the average expenditure was about $3.50 per transaction. Since this study already captures
area residents, workers, and cross-border shoppers, any residual retail demand from riders
outside these measured categories is considered to be negligible and as such, is not included
in this study.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 41
Retail Conclusions
The Palomar Gateway District area is a major center of retail activity. Favorable traffic
counts, retail clustering, site configurations, freeway/street access, and proximity to the
border have made this area around Palomar St. and Broadway an attractive location for a
wide range of retailers.
As shown in Table VI.IX below, overall current and future retail demand potential for the
Palomar Gateway District was determined to be limited. As part of this analysis, Gafcon
developed separate demand projections for primary and secondary markets. Primary
markets were considered existing households within a 1.5-mile radius of the Palomar
Trolley Station, as well as, future households forecasted as part of this study to potentially
be developed in the Palomar Gateway District. Existing trade area households were
determined to generate about $265.4M in retail expenditures while future households were
projected to generate $26.7M in expenditures at build out.
Secondary markets were also evaluated individually and included: Households within a
more distant 1.5 to 5.0-mile radius of the Palomar Trolley Station; Cross border shoppers;
and workers within the primary trade area. Due to diminished retail capture rates
associated with a retailer’s increased distances from households, households within the
secondary trade area (1.5 to 5.0-miles) were estimated to generate retail expenditures of
$11.2M in the primary trade area. With the Palomar Gateway District market area’s
proximity to the Mexican border, it’s concentration of major retailers, and its favorable
access, expenditures from Cross Border shoppers were estimated at $101.8M. Workers
within the District’s primary trade area were projected to generate $24.5M in retail
expenditures.
Expenditure estimates for primary and secondary markets were combined to result in a total
retail expenditure forecast of $429.7M. This total was compared to actual expenditures
within the primary trade area. As part of this analysis, expenditure estimates by retail
!"#$%&'()(*
+,--"./&01&!02"$&3%2"4$&5%-"67&
8"$0-".&9"2%:"/&54;2.4<2&8.4-"./&=".>%2
3%2"4$&?"2%@0./!"#$%#&
'(#)*+(#%,-."/%-'(#)*&0*)1&,-2-34%5+#")*5&67,879,7:;-----------6,7<=,<9=------------->-------------------<,=66,?6;---------6,:@:,@8=------
'""A-2-B%C%#D1%-E+"#%&:;,@:?,8=?-----------:,;<;,<=:-------------7,@9?,:?=---------6;,6??,=96-------:,8=8,<?@------
.%D4+0-D)A-F%#&")D4-GD#%-E+"#%&?9,??=,7=?-----------?,98=,:77-------------6,;;<,;6?---------:,;=9,:9;---------?,886,=;@------
G4"+0*)1-D)A-G4"+0*)1-H55%&&"#*%&?6,:7=,888-----------?,6=6,<@;------------->-------------------?9,=;=,=@=-------?,@@8,7?8------
EI"#+*)1-J""A&,-."KKL,-B""$,-2-M(&*5-E+"#%&=,68<,89?------------=6=,9?;----------------6,79@,78=---------?,?9?,8<6---------796,=9:---------
J%)%#D4-M%#50D)A*&%-E+"#%&:<,67=,@67-----------:,<97,;;6------------->-------------------67,77@,<@=-------9,;86,;9;------
M*&5N-E+"#%-O%+D*4%#&;,;79,@@?------------6,@@8,7<7-------------:8,:<<--------------66,6=;,7@@-------;?6,;=7---------
'""A-E%#C*5%-D)A-P#*)$*)1-F4D5%&<;,7:=,=77-----------9,@@=,@9<-------------8:8,7;9------------68,7=@,:?:-------<,:@@,6?:------
!02"$A BCDEFGHEDHF&&&&&&&&&BCEIGCEJDG&&&&&&&&&&&HHEBBDEIHI&&&&&&&HGHEKHHECHH&&&&&BFEDJHEGGG&&&
Q"+%&R-S6T-."(&%0"4A-A%/D)A-U#"/-&%5")AD#L-/D#$%+-KD&%A-")-(II%#-#D)1%-"U-U"#%5D&+N
+"$%;&5%-"67&L&8.4-"./&=".>%2;+"$%;&5%-"67&L&+%<067"./&=".>%2;
'(+(#%-."(&%0"4A&
G#"&&-B"#A%#-
E0"II%#&
3V*&+*)1-
."(&%0"4A&."(&%0"4A&S6T
W"+D4-EID5%
'"#%5D&+%A W"+D4-E(II4L W"+D4-ED4%&XII"#+()*+L
3VI%)A*+(#%&SF#*/D#L-MD#$%+T XII"#+()*+L SEY(D#%-'%%+T
?9,9<6,<=<------?@,=;=,?9?-------------<,:<8,?8?----------66,:@=
6@=,97@,7:7---6<?,:@8,??6-----------S8<,@8?,<9<T-------@
8;,@7;,;?6------8<,86;,?68-------------<,7:@,7@=----------:,=@6
96,7:?,?78------8?,?8:,;97-------------6;,9?9,86:--------:9,@=<
68,7@7,=6:------?<,6=:,=;:-------------S6@,<7;,@=@T-------@
;<,88=,879------?6=,@69,7@=-----------S6?8,:77,888T-----@
?8,69<,@=@------?@,@98,7:=-------------8,6@@,86?----------=,=9=
78,9?6,<7=------79,897,6:<-------------S6,=89,:=:T---------@
FBMECICEHMB&&&DCIECIHEHIM&&&&&&&&&&&NHJIEMMFEMKCO&&&&MBEJDB
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 42
category were compared to actual primary trade area expenditures by retail category in
order to identify specific retail opportunities by retail type. In total, current retail
expenditures in the primary trade area were estimated at $567.7M, resulting in no sales
opportunities in total. However, when evaluating retail supply and demand projections by
retail category, a few retail categories were found to provide potential retail demand
opportunities.
On a square foot basis, the following retail categories were found to represent potential retail
demand opportunities:
1. Furniture & Electronics (11,608 square feet)
2. Health & Personal Care (6,801 square feet)
3. Clothing & Accessories (65,084 square feet)
4. Food Service & Drinking Places (8,858 square feet)
It’s important to note that the retail categories found in this study to provide demand
potential do not limit potential market opportunities for other retail categories where
competitive retailers enter the markets with a competitive advantages that allows these
retailers to capture market share from existing retailers. As such, these projections should
be viewed as a theoretical demand to provide general parameters for better understanding
the area’s measurable retail market dynamics.
The District’s currently undeveloped 5-acre site on the southwest corner of Palomar St. and
Industrial Blvd. provides limited opportunities as a retail only site. Based on the site’s size,
retail development on the site would likely not be able to accommodate a large anchor
retailer. As such, a potential retail development concept would likely be a strip center
development. While this type of development is assumed to be feasible from a physical
development standpoint, it is Gafcon’s opinion that this type of development is already well
represented in the Palomar Gateway District market area and development of a strip center
development would be an impediment to implementing the vision of the District as a
Transit Focus Area.
The area north of Palomar St. is developed with a mix of residential and commercial land
uses. Due to the concentration of residential lots on the northwest corner of Palomar St.
and Industrial Blvd., relevant retail development is not feasible in this area without the
process of assembling individual residential lots. Another area on the northeast corner of
Palomar St. and Industrial Blvd. is currently developed as a business park. Although it
appears to have been designed for more traditional business park users, the property has
evolved to become a center for wholesale retailer type users. In terms of location, size,
configuration, and street frontage, this site represents a good site for a traditional
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 43
community retail center. Due to the anticipated significant redevelopment costs associated
with redeveloping this site, mixed-use development of this site is not anticipated in the near
term. Longer-term prospects for the redevelopment of this site may improve with increased
residential pricing. Even with the potential for improved residential pricing, the costs
associated with acquiring an existing/active commercial property and clearing the site for
the development of a mixed-use project creates an extremely challenging financial hurdle for
investors to receive a targeted return on investment. Overcoming these financial hurdles is
typically more attainable in markets with higher price premiums that help overcome heavy
initial investments.
Future retail space in the Palomar Gateway District as part of a mixed-use project should be
focused along Palomar St. in order to help maximize shopper visibility and access. Retail
categories identified in this study as representing potential demand can be integrated into
intelligently designed mixed-use developments. As noted above, other retailers may also
have the opportunity to be competitive based their unique competitive strengths.
Retail programs that are integrated into mixed-use developments may have challenges and
opportunities unique from traditional retail developments. Some challenges with
integrating retail uses into residential projects include: Restricted vehicle access, limited
retail clustering/synergies, limited parking, limited retail floor space configurations,
restricted uses, and restricted visibility.
The currently undeveloped five-acre site sits between the I-5 Freeway and Industrial Blvd.
A potential mixed-use development program that provides ground floor retail fronting
Palomar St. may be at risk of restricted pedestrian traffic. The area west of the I-5 Freeway
can primarily be characterized by low-density residential and light industrial land uses. This
area lacks a high concentration of households or workers that could potentially cross the I-5
Freeway and walk eastward into the District. Furthermore, while pedestrian access is
available on the bridge that crosses the I-5 Freeway, freeways can sometimes serve as an
impediment to welcoming leisurely pedestrian movement generally associated with
pedestrian oriented communities. North/south traffic along Industrial Blvd. and the Blue
rail line may potentially inhibit pedestrian movement moving westward across these
transportation lines. Pedestrian friendly crossings, bridges, or tunnels could be help mitigate
such impediments but would be costly relative to the limited amount of retail that would
likely be generated as part of a mixed-use residential project.
In an effort to better facilitate pedestrian traffic, initial retail delivered as part of a mixed-use
development project within the District may be initially concentrated on Palomar St.
fronting sites east of Industrial Blvd. Focusing retail uses in these areas may help minimize
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 44
potential pedestrian barriers and allow more opportunities for shoppers from existing
surrounding retail properties to more easily interact with new retail opportunities.
Potential retail that is integrated into a mixed-use project on the five-acre site should be
more heavily oriented toward the Palomar St./Industrial Blvd. intersection. Focusing retail
in this area within site of the Palomar Trolley Station will help draw trolley users and
shoppers from neighboring retail properties. Secondly, the concept of place making as part
of the Trolley Station will be more strongly communicated with a visual connection
between mixed-use retail and the Trolley Station.
In considering potential development conditions for mixed-use projects in the Palomar
Gateway District, flexibility of uses will be critical in allowing developers to respond to
marketplace conditions. Based on interviews with area stakeholders, it is recommended
that retail uses not be a required element of future developments in the District. Retail uses
can be integrated into mixed-use residential projects, but should only be done so to meet
compelling market fundamentals.
Limited areas of retail demand have been identified in the project area’s market area as part
of this study. The current General Plan land use designations that are applied to the
Palomar Gateway District generate a potential capacity for retail that is far above potential
demand identified in this study. Approximately 37 acres have been designated as Mixed-
use Transit Focus. This land use designation allows retail and office uses a FAR of 1.0.
Based on the retail demand levels projected as part of this study, the commercial land use
capacity provided by the General Plan land use designations far exceeds the projected
demand for retail space.
The following list summarizes major opportunities and challenges the Palomar Gateway
District provides as an area for retail development:
Opportunities:
+ Within walking distance of transit station
+ High auto traffic counts
+ Synergies related to retail clustering
+ Proximity to freeway on/off-ramp
+ Proximity to Mexican border
+ Community-wide draw from adjacent major retailers (Costco, Wal-Mart, Target)
+ Vacant five-acre lot on Palomar/Industrial (Retail frontage along Palomar St.)
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 45
Challenges:
− Traffic congestion, especially created by trolley backup and freeway entrance/exit.
− Unappealing pedestrian connectivity to all retail properties
− Limited pedestrian traffic
− Pedestrian barriers (I-5 Freeway, Industrial Blvd., Trolley Crossing)
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 46
VII. OFFICE MARKET ASSESSMENT
Office Market
San Diego County’s office market appears to be stabilizing and is showing some modest
signs of improvement. As shown in Table VII.I below, about 164,000 square feet of space
was absorbed countywide in the fourth quarter of 2010. This brought the total net
absorption for 2010 to a positive 606,800 square feet. In contrast, San Diego County’s office
market had a combined negative absorption of about 1.4 million square feet in 2009/2008
combined. San Diego’s positive absorption in 2010 helped improve the countywide total
vacancy rate to 19.4%. On a net vacancy basis, vacancies that exclude subleased space,
countywide office vacancy decreased from 17.4% in 2009 to 16.9% in 2010.
Table VII.I
!"#$%&'()$*++&,'$-"./'0
1232$45
6)0"7$!8
9$)+$
!:;0)0"7
9$)+$<."#=$
6)0"7 >","#0$!8
6)0"7$
>","#,?
@6%$
A;B).C0&)#
1232$D"0'$)+$
A;B).C0&)#E7"BB$A E7"BB$F
G).0H$E):#0?
!"#$%&"'()*+,)-.*//////0*1-2 31-2 *)003)03-//////04132 44)000////////+132 41(+5///////414.5///////
678979:"%-4;)(+(/////////31;2 *1+2 *+;)+33/////////*(1;2 0.)40+////////31(2 014-5///////410.5///////
6%8<7'9'<,3-);(0/////////;1;2 *142 443)3;+/////////4;102 =4.)34;>///////?01(2 413-5///////*1,+5///////
@8A"7%9'A ,-()0.3/////////;1-2 *142 4*,)3../////////431+2 4,)(.,////////0102 41+(5///////*1,+5///////
B"78C</DA#7"#'<()+40)(00//////0*1+2 31;2 ;+-)30,/////////*31*2 ;*;)(++//////*3102 41.*5///////*1.(5///////
E"7/F"#8<%.04)330/////////-142 *102 40*)4-0/////////4(1,2 =**)***>///////?*142 413.5///////41+05///////
E<$"7"/DA"8C -3()+4*/////////31,2 *1+2 *(4)3*+/////////*,1.2 =,)*+,>/////////?*1*2 41,,5///////414-5///////
G9%:";.+).*(/////////3102 *1+2 4(+)(0,/////////0(1,2 =(,)43+>///////?-1+2 *1-.5///////*1(,5///////
!:;0)0"7 31IJKLI3M5$$$322N29 3ONJ9 PI331IPMO$$$$$15N29 ;+.)(;;//////5NO9 1N5KQ$$$$$$$1N31Q$$$$$$$
E'#0."7$E):#0?
3;/!<##9'<#(-+)443/////////*1*2 +1;2 ?////////////////+1+2 ?//////////////+1+2 ?5/////////?5/////////
HA$/F"#()0(-)+3;//////*+142 ;1+2 ,,;)-../////////4+1(2 *34)040//////0132 01*45///////41-(5///////
6"%:I":A 4)+.()-(-//////(1.2 41.2 (*4);;3/////////*.1-2 =*43)*+4>/////?;1+2 413+5///////410+5///////
J<KA#7<#/L"#M ,.,)(;3/////////41*2 *142 *;0)34*/////////*,142 *;3).-.//////*,132 *1,;5///////*1.*5///////
NA"#7O/FA%"/-)*,0).*;//////*;1.2 .1.2 ,.+),+;/////////*41(2 30)*4(////////+1-2 410+5///////*1.;5///////
P"/Q<$$"*)+43)(.+//////41(2 *1(2 *4,)*,;/////////*4132 =*+)(+,>///////?*1+2 01035///////41-.5///////
F9#"R"#,.*);,./////////41*2 *142 *(0)3;4/////////*;1*2 *,)3(*////////41*2 *1.35///////*1-(5///////
F9%%9<7/G"$$AO ;);0*)04.//////*31;2 .142 *)+,+).+-//////*;102 *-)+-4////////+102 41(35///////41+(5///////
L<S"O *)43+)+;*//////41.2 *1-2 (3-)344/////////0;1;2 =.),-;>/////////?+1,2 41;05///////41(;5///////
B<%A/!"7O<7 0++)*0(/////////+1-2 +1(2 ;+)+4-//////////4+1+2 =0-)3;;>///////?*4132 *13+5///////*1045///////
E8#9TT%*)3.3),0.//////01,2 4142 ;.,).--/////////(01,2 =*(0)0,*>/////?.1+2 41(05///////*1,.5///////
E<##A7:</FA%"3)4,-)-+0//////*41(2 -102 .03).40/////////*-1-2 (;).-.////////+1.2 41(35///////41*+5///////
E<##A7:</G"$$AO 0.;),;3/////////+1.2 +132 3-)3(3//////////*(132 00)43-////////,1(2 *1-+5///////*1;-5///////
U<##AO/L97A%3),4()(4-//////*01-2 ,1+2 ,3+)0;;/////////*(1;2 =*+0),(3>/////?*1,2 01((5///////01*-5///////
VU!()04,)3;+//////*+142 ;1+2 .-,)433/////////441;2 *44)+*.//////41,2 413,5///////41*-5///////
!:;0)0"7 51IM1KIM2K$$$322N29 MLNL9 OIOPJIL15$$$$$3LN19 3OJI33K$$$$$$2N59 1NO1Q$$$$$$$1N1PQ$$$$$$$
!):0H$E):#0?
!CW$"/G9%:"/?/6"%:.,*)+;,/////////31,2 *1(2 0.0)(+,/////////(+1*2 *3).3+////////*1;2 41005///////414.5///////
!CW$"/G9%:"/?/XA%:-.4)-;-/////////(1-2 *1*2 **;)30-/////////*(1-2 4*)3.+////////41-2 41--5///////*1.,5///////
H<S7:<S7 .)-3+)+**//////3-1,2 *0132 *),*0)3+4//////*,1;2 =4*.)*.,>/////?4142 41345///////410,5///////
6"%:/!<W7:O *),4()0--//////*+1,2 4132 400)34+/////////*41,2 *3)*.*////////+1,2 41035///////41+(5///////
Y":9<7"$/!9:O (-(),*3/////////41,2 +1-2 40()33./////////(.1(2 0*)++(////////;132 ?5/////////*1,+5///////
@$'/U<S7 *)*;*)-3,//////;1.2 *1;2 4+3);0*/////////*-1-2 =(()4;*>///////?01,2 41-*5///////*1.05///////
VT:<S7 *),-().(,//////**1*2 41;2 *3.)0-*/////////,132 =4)+3+>/////////?+1*2 ?5/////////41*(5///////
!:;0)0"7 3KILMJIO55$$$322N29 1PNP9 PI3M1IOO1$$$$$3LNO9 R3L3IOO5S$$$$$T3N39 1NM3Q$$$$$$$1N1PQ$$$$$$$
<."#=$6)0"7 O1IPM5I525$$$322N29 322N29 35I2PKIOM5$$$3JN59 K2KIL2L$$$$$$2NL9 1NK3Q$$$$$$$1N13Q$$$$$$$
E<W#8AZ/!"%%9'O/UW#$AO/DB6/!<RRA#89"$)/@[[98A/E7"T%C<:/?/\<W#:C/]W"#:A#/4+*+
AB/&#($D'#0
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 47
Despite improving demand for office space, monthly asking rents remain compressed as
excess space continues to be absorbed. The overall asking rate for countywide office space
for all classes was $2.27 per square foot at the end of 2010. This represents a 5.8% decrease
from the previous year’s average.
San Diego’s office market is expected to slowly recover in 2011 as employment growth
makes modest improvements.
Moving into 2012, the office
market recovery is projected to
deepen as job growth begins to
accelerate.
Construction activity in the office
sector has slowed significantly,
almost grinding to a halt.
According to Cassidy
Turley/BRE Commercial’s 2010
Q4 Office Market Report for San
Diego, only 133,600 square feet
of office space was under construction in the fourth quarter of 2010. Construction activity
was limited to the North County market. With a countywide total vacancy rate of 19.4%,
total available or vacant space in the fourth quarter of 2010 was estimated at 14,036,754
square feet.
Chula Vista’s office market is part of the larger South County submarket. The South
County submarket includes Downtown, East County, National City, Old Town, and
Uptown. The submarket is dominated by the Downtown office market, a market comprised
of about 9,7750,011 square feet of office space that represents about 58% of South County’s
market and 13.5% of San Diego County’s total market. The Downtown submarket ended
2010 with a total vacancy rate of 18.6%. The largest Downtown landowner, The Irvine
Company, owns six of downtown’s eleven Class A buildings, and has plans to construct a
680,000-square-foot building on West Broadway once market conditions improve.
Chula Vista’s office market can be divided into an East and West market. Chula Vista –
East includes about 981,068 square feet or 5.8% of the South County Market while Chula
Vista – West includes about 792,767 square feet or 4.7% of the South County Market. At
the end of 2010, Chula Vista – East was performing well below the countywide average with
a 40.1% average vacancy rate as compared to a countywide average of 19.4%. Absorption
for 2010 was a positive 15,950 square feet for Chula Vista – East. Conversely, Chula Vista –
!"#$%$!!!&&'!!!(')!!
!*)+$,!!*&)(,!
!(%)!!
+-%.!
"%-".!""-'.!
"'-+.!
")-&.!"(-$.!
%-%.!
/-%.!
&-%.!
(-%.!
+-%.!
"%-%.!
"/-%.!
"&-%.!
"(-%.!
"+-%.!
/%-%.!
!*"#%%%,!
!*'%%,!
!0!!!!
!'%%!!
!"#%%%!!
!"#'%%!!
!/#%%%!!
!/#'%%!!
/%%'!/%%(!/%%)!/%%+!/%%$!/%"%!
!"
#
"
$
#
%
&
'
"
(
)
&
*)
(
&
+
,
-
.
/
0
1
.
$
&
2"$&34)5.&6.7$(%&89#)&:"/;)(&
<*)(&+,-./01.$&"$=&!"#"$#%>&
123!456789:7;!*%%%<6,!=>82?3!@A?A;?B!
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 48
West performed relatively well in 2010 with an average vacancy rate of 14.7% and positive
absorption of 21,950 square feet. Combined, both Chula Vista – East/West, total 1,773,835
square feet or 10.5% of the South County Market. With combined vacant square footage of
509,945, the East/West market has a combined vacancy rate of 28.7%.
Office Demand
The demand for office space is directly driven by growth in employment; in particular, office
related employment. This principal was demonstrated recently in San Diego during the
recent economic expansion and subsequent correction. In 2007, Non-Farm Employment
peaked at 1,308,800 jobs. As employment levels have dropped each year since 2007, so too
have office values, monthly asking rates, and occupancy levels. As job losses have
stabilized, the office market is now in a period where demand is expected to improve
modestly. However, rents and office values in the short-term will be restrained as available
space is absorbed to more normal occupancy levels.
As part of our evaluation of Chula Vista’s current and future office market, regional
employment and office market trends were measured. Employment projections were based
on the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2050 Regional Forecast. For
2010 employment figures, data from the California Employment Development Department
was utilized. SANDAG’s job growth forecast through 2020 was utilized to calculate
average annual growth rates through 2020 for this study. The total job growth over this
forecast period was annualized on a simple average basis resulting in an average job growth
rate of about 1.4% through 2020. SANDAG’s job totals were adjusted to only include Non-
farm employment. Job growth projections through 2030 were also included in this study.
As shown in Table VII.II on the following page, San Diego County’s non-farm employment
in 2010 is 1,214,992. Based on an annual job growth average of 1.4%, 173,284 jobs are
anticipated to be added to the county by 2020. San Diego’s job growth rate from 2020 to
2030 is anticipated by SANDAG to slow to a 1.2% annual growth rate, resulting in the
addition of 285,041 jobs by 2030.
In order to estimate job growth for office sector jobs, Gafcon evaluated San Diego County
and Chula Vista historical job totals by job category. The North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) was utilized to separate area jobs by job type. As a guide in
identifying office jobs, a report prepared by John Burns Consulting Company for the
National Association of Realtors (Who Are Your Future Tenants? Office Employment in
the United States 2004 – 2014, January 2007) was utilized. As part of this study, job growth
in office-using industries was measured. The study found that the overall average for office-
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 49
based employment in 23 metropolitan areas was 42.6% while 41.9% of jobs in San Diego
were found to be office jobs.
As part of this study, Gafcon evaluated San Diego County’s 2009 job base. Office jobs were
estimated from each job category, resulting in an office job total of 514,751 office jobs. In
2009, this represented 41.9% of the county’s total jobs. For this study, Gafcon adjusted San
Diego’s office job totals to exclude public or institutional job office users including:
Government; Educational services; Healthcare & Social assistance. Excluding these job
categories resulted in 346,216 selected office jobs or 28% of total San Diego county jobs.
Applying this 28% factor to San Diego County total job growth results in a projected 80,381
non-public/institutional office jobs created by 2030.
In order to project future space demands for this forecasted job growth, an industry standard
factor of 250 square feet of office space per office job was applied to the study’s job forecast.
Based on these assumptions, Gafcon forecasted demand for 20,095,356 square feet of office
space for selected office job categories through 2030. On an annual basis, selected
countywide space demand is projected to range from about 1.0 to 1.2 million square feet
annually.
San Diego County’s job growth over the forecast horizon was compared to SANDAG’s job
growth projections for Chula Vista. Table VII.III below highlights Chula Vista’s forecasted
job growth through 2030. Through 2020, approximately 10.1% of countywide job growth
is estimated to occur in Chula Vista, resulting in the creation of 17,420 jobs by 2020 and
40,405 new jobs by 2030. Chula Vista’s job growth rate is projected to exceed the
countywide growth rate, averaging an annual rate of 2.9% through 2020 as compared to an
average rate of 1.4% for San Diego County.
!"#$%&'(()((
*++,-.&/.0123&4567.-8,629
!"#"!"#!!"#$!"!"!"%"
&'()*+,-.)/.0(12)3)4.56 :;<:=;>><&&&&&&&&&&:;<=>;<?@&&&&&&&&&&&:;@A:;=AB&&&&&&&&&:;@??;<CB&&&&&&&&&:;DAA;A@<&&&&&&&&&
E6F&G56H8I&JKL00LM18,N.O PPP @=;<><&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?B;=:=&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:C@;<?=&&&&&&&&&&&&<?D;A=:&&&&&&&&&&&&
E6F&G56H8I&J"22L1M&"NQ)O PPP :C;:=B&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:C;<?@&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:C;@<?&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:=;<D<&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"N.51Q.&"22L1M&E6F&G56H8I&R PPP :)=R :)=R :)=R :)<R
R&*++,-.&E6F9&<?R <?R <?R <?R
E6F&G56H8I&P&*++,-.&JKL00LM18,N.O >;BCA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&<=;@B>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&=?;?BB&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?A;@?:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"N.51Q.&"22L1M&E6F&K5.18,62 PPP =;?@D&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&=;?C=&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&=;??C&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&=;A:>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"NQ&STL15.&U..8&V.5&*++,-.&E6F&JSTL15.&U..8O <DA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&<DA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&<DA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&<DA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
S12&/,.Q6&K6L28W&*++,-.&/.0123&P&KL00LM18,N.&JSTL15.&U..8O <;=:C;DC@&&&&&&&&&&&B;A><;:>A&&&&&&&&&:<;<:B;DD@&&&&&&&<A;A>D;@DB&&&&&&&
S12&/,.Q6&K6L28W&*++,-.&/.0123&P&"22L1M&"NQ)&JSTL15.&U..8O :;<A?;C?B&&&&&&&&&&&:;<:?;=@?&&&&&&&&&:;<<:;BDD&&&&&&&&&:;AA=;CB?&&&&&&&&&
S6L5-.X&S"Y/"GZ&K1M,+652,1&%0VM6W0.28&/.N.M6V0.28&/.V1580.28Z&[)S)&K.29L9&#L5.1L;&$%\/Z&G1+-62)
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 50
Chula Vista’s share of office jobs is well below the estimated countywide average. In order
to calculate Chula Vista’s share of office jobs, Chula Vista’s 2009 job totals were evaluated
by NAICS classification. Each NAICS job category was reviewed and a related office job
ratio was applied to calculate office jobs within that job category. Adjustments were then
made to exclude public or institutional job office users including: Government; Educational
services; Healthcare & Social assistance. Excluding these job categories resulted in 6,920
selected office jobs from a citywide job base of 55,133. Based on this analysis, it was
assumed that about 13% of Chula Vista’s future jobs within the evaluated job categories will
be office jobs as compared to the estimated countywide average of 28%.
As shown below, Chula Vista is anticipated to add 5,091 office jobs by 2030 within the job
categories evaluated as part of this study. Chula Vista’s job growth was calculated based on
SANDAG’s job growth projections for Chula Vista relative to San Diego County’s overall
job growth. Adjustments were made to job projections to only include non-farm labor jobs.
Additionally, SANDAG’s long-term growth estimates were annualized to provide forecasts
for periods selected as part of this study.
!"#$%&'(()(((
*++,-.&/.0123&4567.-8,629&:&;<=>1&',981
!"#"!"#!!"#$!"!"!"%"
&'()*+,-.)/.0(12)3)4.56 ?@A?B@CCA&&&&&&&?@ABC@ADE&&&&&&&&&&&?@EF?@BFG&&&&&&&&&?@EDD@AHG&&&&&&&&&?@IFF@FEA&&&&&&&&&
J6K&L56M8<&N;=00=>18,O.P :::EB@ACA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DG@B?B&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?HE@ADB&&&&&&&&&&&&ADI@FB?&&&&&&&&&&&&
J6K&L56M8<&N"22=1>&"OQ)P :::?H@?BG&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?H@ADE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?H@EAD&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?B@AIA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"O.51Q.&"22=1>&J6K&L56M8<&R :::?)BR ?)BR ?)BR ?)AR
R&*++,-.&J6K9&ADR ADR ADR ADR
J6K&L56M8<&:&*++,-.&N;=00=>18,O.P C@GHF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AB@EGC&&&&&&&&&&&&&&BD@DGG&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DF@ED?&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"O.51Q.&"22=1>&J6K&;5.18,62 :::B@DEI&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&B@DHB&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&B@DDH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&B@F?C&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"OQ&ST=15.&U..8&V.5&*++,-.&J6K AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
S12&/,.Q6&;6=28W&*++,-.&/.0123&:&;=00=>18,O.A@B?H@IHE&&&&&&&&&&&G@FCA@?CF&&&&&&&&&?A@A?G@IIE&&&&&&&AF@FCI@EIG&&&&&&&
S12&/,.Q6&;6=28W&*++,-.&/.0123&:&"22=1>&"OQ)?@AFD@HDG&&&&&&&&&&&?@A?D@BED&&&&&&&&&?@AA?@GII&&&&&&&&&?@FFB@HGD&&&&&&&&&
/708')9+61')3)4.56
;<=>1&',981&:&S<15.&6+&S12&/,.Q6&;6=28W&J6K9 ?F)?R ?F)?R ?F)?R ?B)AR
J6K&L56M8<&N;=00=>18,O.P :::E@BBH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&D@GDH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?H@BAF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&BF@BFI&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
J6K&L56M8<&N"22=1>&"OQ)P :::?@HAB&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?@HEH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?@HBA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&A@FAF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"O.51Q.&"22=1>&J6K&L56M8<&R :::A)CR A)CR A)CR E)BR
R&*++,-.&J6K9&:::?ER ?ER ?ER ?ER
J6K&L56M8<&:&*++,-.&N;=00=>18,O.P :::BEB&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?@FCI&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&A@?CI&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&I@FC?&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
J6K&L56M8<&:&*++,-.&N"22=1>&"OQP :::A?H&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&A?C&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&A?C&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AII&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"OQ&ST=15.&U..8&V.5&*++,-.&J6K&NST=15.&U..8P AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AIF&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
;<=>1&',981&*++,-.&/.0123&:&;=00=>18,O.&NST=15.&U..8P ?FD@IDC&&&&&&&&&&&&&&AHE@GBF&&&&&&&&&&&&IBD@HAB&&&&&&&&&&&&?@AHA@HIF&&&&&&&&&
;<=>1&',981&*++,-.&/.0123&:&"22=1>&"OQ)&NST=15.&U..8P IB@ACB&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&IB@HAD&&&&&&&&&&&&&&IB@DHA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&GE@GEH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
S6=5-.X&S"Y/"LZ&[)S)&;.29=9&#=5.1=@&$%\/Z&L1+-62)
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 51
On average, an office worker requires about 250 square feet. Applying this space
requirement to projected office worker growth in Chula Vista results in office space demand
of about 1,272,750 square feet through 2030. Chula Vista’s current office space supply is
approximately 1,773,835 square feet. Based on a simple annual average growth rate, about
63,637 square feet of office space is projected to be demanded on average throughout this
study’s 20-year forecast horizon. In 2010, 37,540 square feet of office space was absorbed in
Chula Vista.
Chula Vista’s existing office market is largely centered in the City’s Downtown/Urban Core
and Otay Ranch area. With the notable exception of the Chula Vista Gateway project in
the City’s Downtown/Urban Core, the City’s West office market is largely characterized by
older low-rise office development.
The Palomar Gateway District does not provide a notable level of office space. In general,
the area directly south of the District provides a significant concentration of Industrial land
uses. This study anticipates that the City’s existing centers of office activity will continue to
capture future office demand activity. For Chula Vista’s West-Office market, the City’s
Downtown/Urban Core office market and Chula Vista Bayfront is expected to absorb an
overwhelming share of office demand within the City’s western market. As such, this study
assumes potential future office space provided within the Palomar Gateway District will be
limited.
Office space within the District is anticipated to focus on neighborhood serving offices users.
Additionally, other potential office users may be attracted to the area’s proximity to the
Palomar Trolley Station, freeway access, retail, and proximity to Downtown San Diego and
the Mexican border. Based on the District’s competitive strength relative to existing and
planned office areas (Downtown/Urban Core & Bayfront), the study assumes that the
Palomar Gateway District can potentially capture 4% of Chula Vista’s total future office
space demand. This capture rate assumes that future development programs offered in the
Palomar Gateway District area are competitively positioned relative to other office
properties. The study assumes that the area’s lack of an existing office base can potentially
be compensated by the area’s positive attributes as well as the limited supply of new office
properties within Chula Vista’s Western office market.
As shown in Table VII.IV on the following page, the Palomar Gateway District is projected
to have the capacity to capture 50,910 square feet of Chula Vista’s 1,272,750 square feet
demanded through 2030. If annualized over the forecast horizon on a simple average basis,
this equates to about 2,172 square feet of demand annual.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 52
!"#$%&'(()('
*++,-.&/.0123&4567.-8,629&:&41;6015&<18.=1>&/,985,-8
!"#"!"#!!"#$!"!"!"%"
&'()*+,-./*+0+123.
?@A;1&',981&:&B@15.&6+&B12&/,.C6&?6A28>&/.0123 DE)DF DE)DF DE)DF DG)HF
I6J&<56=8@&K?A00A;18,L.M :::NOGGP&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&QORQP&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DPOGHE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&GEOGES&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I6J&<56=8@&K"22A1;&"LC)M :::DOPHG&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DOPNP&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DOPGH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HOEHE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"L.51C.&"22A1;&I6J&<56=8@&F :::H)TF H)TF H)TF N)GF
F&*++,-.&I6J9&:::DNF DNF DNF DNF
I6J&<56=8@&:&*++,-.&K?A00A;18,L.M :::GNG&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DOETS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HODTS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&SOETD&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I6J&<56=8@&:&*++,-.&K"22A1;&"LCM :::HDP&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HDT&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HDT&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HSS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"LC&BUA15.&V..8&W.5&*++,-.&I6J HSE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HSE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HSE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HSE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
?@A;1&',981&*++,-.&/.0123&:&?A00A;18,L.&KBUA15.&V..8M DEQOSQT&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HPNORGE&&&&&&&&&&&&SGQOPHG&&&&&&&&&&&&DOHPHOPSE&&&&&&&&&
?@A;1&',981&*++,-.&/.0123&:&"22A1;&"LC)&KBUA15.&V..8M SGOHTG&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&SGOPHQ&&&&&&&&&&&&&&SGOQPH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&RNORNP&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&'()*+,-./*+0+455-67+89*67+:7;*<=
41;6015&<18.=1>&/,985,-8&KF&B@15.&6+&?,8>=,3.&*++,-.M GF GF GF GF
4</&*++,-.&/.0123&:&?A00A;18,L.&KBUA15.&V..8M GONGG&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&DEOTGR&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HDOTGT&&&&&&&&&&&&&&SEOTDE&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
4</&*++,-.&/.0123&:&"22A1;&"LC)&KBUA15.&V..8M HODPH&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HODQT&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HODTS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&HOSGS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
B6A5-.X&B"Y/"<Z&[)B)&?.29A9&#A5.1AO&$%\/Z&<1+-62)
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 53
Office Conclusions
Chula Vista’s office market can be divided into an East and West market. Chula Vista’s
East market at 981,068 square feet represents about 55% of the city’s total office market. At
the end of 2010, the East market posted a high total vacancy rate of 40.1% as compared to a
South County average of 18.7% and a countywide average of 19.4%. Chula Vista’s West
market totals 792,767 square feet, or 45% of the city’s total office supply. Unlike the city’s
East market, the West market ended 2010 relatively well with a 14.7% vacancy rate.
With the notable exception of Chula Vista’s Gateway project, the Western office market can
largely be characterized by older office space centered in the Downtown/Urban Core area.
Chula Vista’s Bayfront represents a significant potential development opportunity that could
have a significant impact of the City’s office supply.
The Palomar Gateway District area is not anticipated to become a notable center of office
activity. Chula Vista’s Otay Ranch/Eastlake, Downtown/Urban Core, and planned
Bayfront areas are anticipated to capture an overwhelming share of the city’s future office
demand.
The Palomar Gateway District can, however, capture office demand on a more limited scale
as part of providing office related services for the surrounding community. Also, in some
cases, more general office users may be attracted to the potential of the District as a Transit
Focus Area. Overall, office space demand is anticipated to be limited, reaching 50,910 over
the study’s 20-year forecast horizon.
The current General Plan land use designations that are applied to the Palomar Gateway
District generate a potential capacity for office that is far above potential demand identified
in this study. Approximately 37 acres have been designated as Mixed-use Transit Focus.
This land use designation allows retail and office uses a FAR of 1.0. Based on the office
demand levels projected as part of this study, the commercial land use capacity provided by
the General Plan land use designations far exceeds the projected demand for office space.
The following list summarizes major opportunities and challenges the Palomar Gateway
District provides as an area for office development:
Opportunities:
+ Within walking distance of transit station
+ Within walking distance of restaurant/retail opportunities
+ Proximity to freeway on/off-ramp
+ Location between San Diego and Mexico
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 54
+ Vacant five-acre lot on Palomar/Industrial
+ Public infrastructure improvements
+ Proximity to Chula Vista Bayfront Plan Area
+ Aging office properties in west market
+ Comparative low vacancy rates in west market vs. east market
Challenges:
− Retail and industrial area identity
− Traffic congestion
− Mixed market perception
− Potentially limited floor plan flexibility if integrated into mixed-use project
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 55
VIII. LAND USE DEMAND SUMMARY
The following table summarizes cumulative demand for the land uses evaluated as part of
this study. A detailed discussion of market demand for these land uses is provided in the
preceding sections of this study.
!"#$%&'((()(
$"*+&,-%&+%."*+&-,.."/0
1"$2."/&3"!%4"0&+(-!/(5!&6789:&;&78<8=
$>?@&,AB 789:7878 78<8
/BAC@B?DC>E !"#$%&'(
#))*+!,-$.*/01 231 /4506
789*+!,-$.*02 1:5 ;<0
5FGGBHIC>E&J&/BD>CE!"=>?-+*!@**&(264<<<6<46;;0541:5
5FGGBHIC>E&J&2KKCIB&"=>?-+*!@**&(/340<;5/40<0 :340/3
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 56
IX. DESIGNATED LAND USES
The Palomar Gateway District is currently comprised of a variety of land uses that include
residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Residential land use is the dominant land use
with densities ranging from around 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. There are currently
about 400 residential units in the District, including 67 rooms related to two hotels located
in the District. Residential is primarily concentrated South of Palomar St., with community
commercial, housing, motel, light industrial, and park land uses North of Palomar St.
Directly adjacent to the District is a concentration of commercial centers anchored by large
retailers such as Target, Costco, and Wal-Mart. Overall, the District and the area
immediately surrounding it can be characterized as an auto-focused area with lower
residential densities and a concentration of anchored and in-line retailers clustered around
the intersection of Palomar Street and Broadway. Although the District’s primary land use
in terms of acreage is residential, heavy vehicle trips along Palomar St, Industrial Blvd, and
Broadway characterize the District as less of a neighborhood and more a center for auto
generating shopping trips.
Chula Vista’s 2005 General Plan designates the Palomar Gateway District as one of five
“areas of change.” The General Plan objective for the District is to help transition the
District from a low-density auto-focused interchange into a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
surrounding the Palomar
Trolley Station. The vision
for the Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area includes higher
intensity residential, as well
as, mixed-use developments
that offer a mix of
residential, office, and retail
uses in a pedestrian-friendly
area with strong linkages to
the Palomar Trolley
Station. The Transit Area
Mixed-Use projects are
anticipated to provide a
larger share of residential
uses, with a mix of retail
and office uses being
located along Palomar St.
Residential uses along
9
Area (TFA) directly west and
north of the Palomar Trolley
Station, higher residential
intensity, a neighborhood park
and retail to the south of the
TFA. The goal is to provide for
additional housing and mixed-
uses (residential and
commercial) that take advantage
of a major transit station within
walking distance. Future
development of the PGD must be
consistent with the goals and
policies of the 2005 General
Plan. Shown below are tables
listing the objectives and policies
for the Southwest Area and PGD.
Existing Land Use and Infrastructure
Existing Land Use and Infrastructure
Land Use and Transportation Element Objectives and Policies
Existing Land Use and Infrastructure
Southwest Area
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 57
Palomar St. are envisioned above and/or behind retail and office uses.
The General Plan provides the following land use designations for the District:
High Residential: This land use designation is intended for multi-family units with
densities ranging from 18 to 27 units per acre.
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area: This land use designation allows a mix of residential,
office, and retail in pedestrian friendly areas with strong links to the trolley station.
Residential densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre are allowed with retail and office uses
allowed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0.
Retail Commercial: This designation only applies to a small area in the southeast corner of
the District of only about one acre. This land use designation is intended to allow a range of
neighborhood and community retail shopping services.
Parks and Recreation: This land use designation is provided for parks; sports fields;
playgrounds; golf courses; and other passive urban recreation uses. The land use also
includes community centers and urban parks.
The following table summarizes the General Plan Land Use designations within the
Palomar Gateway District:
The General Plan strives for a district wide distribution of land uses in the Palomar
Gateway District as follows: Residential (~60%); Retail (~20%); and Office (~20%). The
Palomar
Gateway
District
General
Plan
Land
Use
Designations
and
Potential
Buildout
District
Acreage DU's DU's/Acre
Maximum
DU's
Maximum
DU's/Acre
Net
Increase
in
DU's
Residential
High 35 189 5 949 27 760
Transit
Focus 37 211 6 1,460 40 1,249
Commercial
Retail 1 5 3 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐5
Park 5 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Total 78 400 5 2,400 -‐-‐2,000
Notes:
(1)
All
numbers
are
approximate
and
have
been
rounded
off.
(2)
Existing
DU
count
includes
67
rooms
related
to
two
District
motels.
(3)
Approximately
20
acres
District
land
is
designated
Transportation
Corridors
&
Right
of
Way.
(4)
Source:
Palomar
Gateway
District
Specific
Plan
-‐
Existing
Conditions
Summary
Report
Existing
DU's General
Plan
DU's
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 58
demand projections generated as part of this study indicate that the General Plan’s targeted
distribution of land uses has the capacity to accommodate projected future demand.
Residential
Utilizing the General Plan land use designations can result in a maximum of 2,400 dwelling
units, resulting in a net increase capacity for 2,000 additional units. Based on this study’s
forecasted housing demand, as well as, the limited supply of undeveloped sites, the build out
capacity for the District will not be achieved.
Although a demand potential ranging from 649 to 1,298 housing units was identified, it’s
likely the District will not be able to accommodate the market’s projected future demand
through 2030 due to the limited availability of developable sites. The most prominent
developable site is a five-acre site located on the southwest corner of Palomar St. and
Industrial Blvd. This site falls within the General Plan’s Transit Focus Area land use
designation. With this designation, up to 40 dwelling units per acre are permitted. This
could potentially allow up to 200 units to be developed on this site. The ability to develop
up to 40 units per acre on this site appears sufficient to attract future residential investment.
Areas north of Palomar St. are also provided a Transit Focus Area designation. These areas
are already developed and would require significant redevelopment investment in order for
these areas to provide the unit capacity allowed by the General Plan. The significant
investment required to redevelop those areas as higher-density residential projects is
anticipated to be a limiting factor that will likely preclude redevelopment of those areas in
the near term and inhibit longer-term investment.
A small area adjacent to the Trolley Station is also provided a Transit Focus Area
designation. The site currently provides parking for the Trolley Station. The site’s size,
configuration, and proximity to the Trolley Station, may present challenges for developing
the site as a residential development.
Other areas in the District, south of Alda St., are provided a Residential High designation
by the General Plan. This designation allows for development of up to 27 DU’s per acre.
The District areas that are provided this designation are largely lower density residential
properties. Future development that provides this density is anticipated to be limited by the
lack of undeveloped sites and the costs and challenges related to acquiring existing
residential properties. Several properties appear to be roughly 1-acre lots with smaller
residential units at the front of the property. These may represent selected opportunities
over time for redevelopment, however, assembling such properties to accommodate larger
scale redevelopment is difficult. As such, it is anticipated that these conditions will likely
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 59
prevent the District from being able to accommodate market demand over the study’s
forecast horizon resulting in actual housing unit growth below forecasted housing demand.
Retail
Approximately 37 acres have been designated as Mixed-use Transit Focus. This land use
designation allows retail and office uses a FAR of 1.0. Based on the retail demand levels
projected as part of this study, 92,353 square feet, the commercial land use capacity
provided by the General Plan land use designations far exceeds the projected demand for
retail space.
Retail uses are generally only allowed along Palomar St. These areas are assigned the
Transit Focus Area designation by the General Plan. As part of this designation, a mix of
residential, retail, and office is allowed with retail uses allowed an FAR of 1.0. Based on
the limited amount of retail demand forecasted as part of this study (92,352 square feet
through 2030), the commercial land use capacity provided by the General Plan land use
designations far exceeds the projected demand for retail space.
The Retail Commercial designation is also provided in the District. This designation
appears appropriate to accommodate an approximately one-acre area in the southeast
corner of the District. This designation allows for a range of neighborhood and community
retail shopping services. This site is considered a secondary retail location relative to other
retail sites along Palomar St. and Industrial Blvd.
Office
General Plan land use designations allow office uses along Palomar St. These areas are
assigned the Transit Focus Area designation by the General Plan. As part of this
designation, a mix of residential, retail, and office is allowed with retail uses allowed an
FAR of 1.0. Based on the limited amount of office demand forecasted as part of this study
(50,910 square feet through 2030), the commercial land use capacity provided by the
General Plan land use designations far exceeds the projected demand for office space.
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 60
X. LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
While potential market demand has been identified for residential, retail, and office land
uses, integrating these uses into a cohesive mixed-use transit oriented development program
presents unique opportunities and challenges. A key element in helping to work through
these challenges includes a proactive public sector that recognizes the benefits of transit-
oriented developments and their role in shaping TODs.
Local government plays a key role in providing zoning and comprehensive planning
authority. In addition to beginning the process of developing a Specific Plan for the
Palomar Gateway District, the City of Chula Vista has also made several improvements
aimed at promoting a more pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood around the
Palomar Trolley Station. In the fall of 2009, the following pedestrian and traffic
improvements on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard were completed:
1) Construction of missing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
2) Traffic circle at the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and Ada Street.
3) Safety improvements at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
4) Landscape improvements along Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
While these improvements represent important beginning steps in creating a
transit/pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, additional land use implementation strategies can
be initiated to stimulate private investment and maximize public benefits. Some strategies
and supportive public policies to help stimulate private sector investment into
transit/pedestrian-oriented development in the Palomar Gateway District include the
following:
PLANNING:
• Prepare a Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
o A completed Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan will help provide a
neighborhood vision for developers, reduce design uncertainty, reduce
entitlement risk, and help provide market information as part of related market
studies.
• Zoning Incentives – Incentives to consider during development of Specific Plan
o Incentive zoning provides rewards to developers for improvements that create
public benefits. Examples of zoning incentives include: Provide Density, FAR,
and Height Bonuses. Increasing densities can help improve project revenues and
overall project financial feasibility.
o Residential parking requirements may be reduced. According to the California
Department of Transportation, Transit-Oriented Development has the potential
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 61
to reduce parking per household by approximately 20% (Statewide Transit-
Oriented Development Study: Factor for Success in California, California
Department of Transportation, September 2002 Distribution). Reduction of
retail and office parking requirements should be considered carefully as
commercial tenants may have minimum parking requirements and parking
should be flexible enough to provide for a range of commercial users.
• Flexible Zoning
o Zoning should provide enough flexibility to allow developers to create programs
that effectively respond to current market conditions on the project level while
maintaining the overall vision of the area plan.
• Public Outreach
o Facilitate neighborhood meetings, develop program website, facilitate
print/media distribution, and conduct charettes to solicit input and build
community support for area vision.
o Provide the development community with area plan vision and program updates.
• Public-Private Partnering
o Public entities and private investors should collaborate early in the planning
process to help articulate and reconcile visions, expectations, responsibilities,
schedules, concerns, etc.
IMPLEMENTATION:
• Area Infrastructure Improvements
o Public improvements such as, landscaping, sidewalks, parks, lighting, signage,
drainage, and utilities. Such improvements elevate the value and appeal to an
area and demonstrate the public sector’s commitment.
o As noted above, Chula Vista has made improvements surrounding the trolley
station. Additional improvements that enhance pedestrian access, connectivity,
and provide a sense of “place-making” will help in making area developments
more valuable and attractive to investors, tenants, and neighbors. Examples of
improvements include: Signage, landscaping, streetscape improvements, and
bicycle pathways/connectivity.
• Area Amenities
o Utilize the northern portion of the Trolley Station parking lot as a Public Plaza
that may include sitting areas, shading trees, and a water fountain/feature. The
Plaza will provide an area for transit riders, shoppers, and residents to
congregate. A small stage area can be incorporated for community related
activities. Parking stalls that are eliminated as part of this improvement can be
9/9/11 Palomar Gateway District – Market Study 62
transferred to the southern end of the trolley station parking lot into the SCE right
of way.
o Developing a plaza would create an identifiable landmark for the district that
communicates its vision as a pedestrian neighborhood. The public plaza can be
utilized to fulfill public park/open space goals, as well as, offset potential open
space requirements related to residential developments in the District.
• Expedite Development Review and Approval
o The City can provide expedited planning review and permit priority to help
reduce developer uncertainties and costs.
• Reduce Developer Impact Fees
o Generally speaking, TOD developments impact infrastructure less than
traditional developments. Impact fees can be applied on a sliding scale to help
match development’s real impact on infrastructure. For example, in 2011 the
Chula Vista City Council suspended Development Impact Fees in
Redevelopment Project Areas for residential development and limited retail and
industrial development.
• Funding/Financing Incentives
o The City can provide funding or discounts for infrastructure improvements and
provide below market rate loans.
• District Branding
o Construct impactful monument signage at the District entryways that creates a
sense of place and promotes the vision of the District. In its current state, the
District and the adjacent retail properties form a collection of individual uses with
no cohesive connection. The use of signage that communicates a personality and
vision at the main points of entry into the District can create a sense of identity
and place for the area.
o Marketing programs to customers and investors to promote the areas vision and
identity.
FINAL
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Palomar Gateway District
Specific Plan
Adopted by the Sweetwater Authority
Governing Board on February 22, 2012
Sweetwater Authority
Prepared by
Sweetwater Authority Staff
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
Water Supply Assessment
Sweetwater Authority
505 Garrett Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
www.sweetwater.org
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Table of Contents
February 2012 i
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
SECTION 2 - IDENTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC WATER PROVIDER ................... 2
SECTION 3 – PREVIOUS WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENTS ................................. 3
SECTION 4 – SWEETWATER’S URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .............. 3
SECTION 5 – SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT ............................................ 4
5.1 Project Demand Analysis .............................................................................. 4
5.1.1 Climate ...................................................................................................... 4
5.1.2 Population ................................................................................................. 5
5.1.3 Demand Assessment ................................................................................ 5
5.1.4 Demand Management Measures (Water Conservation) ........................... 8
5.2 Existing and Projected Supplies ................................................................. 21
5.2.1 Local Supply ........................................................................................... 21
5.2.1.1 Surface Water Sources .................................................................... 21
5.2.1.2 Groundwater Sources ...................................................................... 22
5.2.1.3 Water Recycling ............................................................................... 23
5.2.1.4 Sweetwater's Recycled Water Master Plan ..................................... 24
5.2.1.5 Membrane Bioreactor Studies ......................................................... 24
5.2.2 Imported Supply ...................................................................................... 25
5.2.2.1 Metropolitan’s 2010 Regional UWMP .............................................. 27
5.2.2.2 San Diego County Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP .......................... 27
5.3 Dry Year Demand Assessment ................................................................... 28
5.4 Dry Year Supply Assessment ..................................................................... 28
SECTION 6 – CONCLUSION: AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT SUPPLIES.......... 29
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Table of Contents
February 2012 ii
List of Tables
Table 1 Climate Data
Table 2 SANDAG Population and Redevelopment Adjustment
Table 3 Historical and Projected Potable Water (Not Including the Westside
Specific Plan)
Table 4 Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan Projected Water Demands
Table 5 Historical and Projected Potable Water Demands (Including the
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan)
Table 6 Historic and Normal Water Year Projected Sweetwater Supplies
Table 7 Groundwater Production 2004 through 2011
Table 8 Historic Sweetwater Imported Supplies
Table 9 Projected Water Demand during Normal, Single and Multiple Dry-Years
Table 10 Local Projected Water Supply during Normal, Single and Multiple Dry-
Years
Table 11 Projected Water Supply and Demand for Normal Years
Table 12 Projected Water Supply and Demand during Normal, Single and
Multiple Dry-Years
List of Appendices
Appendix A: City of Chula Vista Request to Prepare a Water Supply Assessment
Appendix B: 2009-10 CUWCC BMP Annual Report
Appendix C: Sweetwater Authority Drought Resolution 09-12 and Drought
Response Plan
Appendix D: Sweetwater Authority Resolution Adopting an Interim Groundwater
Management Plan
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 1
Section 1 - Introduction
The City of Chula Vista is currently in the process of preparing a Specific Plan for the
area known as the Palomar Gateway District, which is located in the Southwest p art
of Chula Vista. The proposed Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (PGDSP) is
being prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07,
Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3,
Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements
identified in Government Code Section 65451.
As shown in Appendix A, Regional Vicinity Map, the proposed PGDSP is located in
the southwest corner of the City of Chula Vista, near the i nterchange of Palomar
Street and Interstate 5 (I-5), within the County of San Diego, California. The proposed
PGDSP is approximately four miles north of the international border with Mexico. The
boundaries of the PGDSP include approximately 100 -gross acres surrounding the
Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard
(see Attachment A). The PGDSP area includes the properties north of Palomar
Street around Walnut Street, Trenton Street and Industrial Boulevard. Furthe r east,
the PGDSP also extends north from Palomar Street to Oxford Street. South of
Palomar Street, the PGDSP extends along Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road
to Anita Street. A San Diego Trolley light rail transit station, Palomar Transit Station,
is located within the PGDSP at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial
Boulevard. The PGDSP area is considered the major southern gateway to the City of
Chula Vista for visitors entering both from I-5 and from the San Diego Trolley.
The PGDSP is intended to implement the General Plan’s Smart Growth vision for
Transit-Oriented mixed-use development in proximity to a major regional transit
center. The PGDSP will provide design guidance and a regulatory framework that
maximize the full potential of multi-modal transit integration within the community and
will be implemented as individual projects are constructed in the Palomar Gateway
District over the next 15 to 20 years. Over time, the Palomar Gateway District will be
transformed from its underutilized/lower-density setting into a vibrant and cohesive
higher-density, pedestrian and transit-oriented community.
The purpose of the PGDSP is to encourage an appropriate mixture and density of
activity adjacent to the existing San Diego Trolley light rail transit station at Palomar
Street. The PGDSP is being created to promote a pedestrian, bicycle, public transit,
and private automobile-supportive development environment and by integrating
these mobility elements with a complementary mix of land uses, all within a
comfortable walking and bicycling distance from the light rail station. Transit -oriented
development will generally occur as infill and reuse within the Palomar Gateway area.
Uses that do not support light rail transit ridership are generally discouraged within
the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 2
The specific objectives of this district are to:
create a vibrant, safe, pedestrian friendly live/work/play environment that
emphasizes the area as a southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista;
achieve a compact pattern of development conducive to walking and bicycling;
encourage light rail transit use and convenient access to services and jobs;
allow for a mix of uses, designed to attract pedestrians;
maintain an adequate level of parking and access for automobiles and integrate
automobile use safely with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users;
provide sufficient density of employees, residents, and recreational users to
support transit; and generate a relatively high percentage of trips serviceable by
transit.
Based on the City’s General Plan, the City’s population is projected to reach
approximately 300,000 by the year 2030. Based on the 2010 Census, the current
population for Chula Vista is 243,916 people. The General Plan population coeff icient
for the Palomar Gateway District is 2.58 persons per household based on the
residential land uses (Multi-Family) permitted. The City’s General Plan includes
intensification of retail, office and residential uses with less emphasis on industrial
uses in this area of Chula Vista. The General Plan also proposes the replacement of
a significant amount of existing lower density commercial and residential
development in western Chula Vista with mixed use and higher density residential
types. Due to the length of time that build-out of the PGDSP is expected to take (20+
years), as well as the nature of urban revitalization, the exact extent, timing and
sequencing of development is difficult to predict.
The projected additional water use for the District and its four sub-districts is
illustrated in Table 4, Palomar Gateway District Existing and Proposed Development
20-Year Horizon.
Section 2 - Identification of the Public Water Provider
In accordance with Water Code Section 10912(c), Sweetwater Authority
(Sweetwater) is the “public water system” for the area in which the City’s PGDSP is
proposed. As such, the City requested that Sweetwater prepare a WSA. The WSA is
intended to be used by the City in their evaluation of the PGDSP under the CEQA
process. The Sweetwater Governing Board adopted the WSA on February 22, 2012.
Sweetwater was formed by the condemnation of a private water company that served
the cities of Chula Vista and National City, and a portion of the county of San Diego.
The condemnation suit was filed by the South Bay Irrigation District (SBID) and the
City of Chula Vista on May 10, 1968, and was finalized on August 30, 1977. SBID
and the City of Chula Vista formed Sweetwater by the Joint Powers Agreement of
February 1, 1972. The Agreement was amended and re-adopted on July 22, 1977.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 3
Sweetwater was formed pursuant to the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7,
Title 1, of the Government Code of the State of California. Sweetwater is empowered
by the Joint Powers Agreement to acquire, own, lease, operate, manage, maintain,
and improve the water system.
SBID was formed during March 1951, under the Irrigation Law of California (Division
11, Section 20500 of the Water Code), and includes most of the city of Chula Vista
and the unincorporated area within and adjacent to the Sweetwater River Valley. It
also overlaps small segments of the cities of National City and San Diego. On May 1,
1990, SBID transferred ownership of the water system, including all of the property
deeds and easements to Sweetwater. The City of Chula Vista is part of the urbanized
South Bay region of the San Diego metropolitan area located on the San Diego Bay.
Incorporated in 1887, National City is the second oldest city in the county of San
Diego. SBID and the City of Chula Vista are members of the San Diego County
Water Authority (CWA).
Section 3 – Previous Water Supply Assessments
Sweetwater has prepared this WSA in consultation with CWA and the City pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9, and California Water Code Sections
10631, 10657, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as SB 610, and Business
and Professions Code Section 11010. SB 610 amended state law, effective January
1, 2002, to improve the link between information on wate r supply availability and
certain land use decisions made by cities and counties.
Section 4 – Sweetwater’s Urban Water Management Plan
Sweetwater prepares an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years,
in accordance with Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water
Management Planning Act (Act), which were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009,
and became effective on January 1, 1984. The Act, which was Assembly Bill (AB)
797, requires that every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes
to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre -feet of water
annually, shall prepare and adopt a UWMP in accordance with the prescribed
requirements.
The Act requires urban water suppliers to file plans with the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) describing and evaluating reasonable and practical efficient
water uses, reclamation, and conservation activities. As required by law,
Sweetwater’s UWMP includes projected water supplies required to meet future
demands. Sweetwater prepared UWMPs in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010
and filed those plans with the DWR.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 4
As stated above, the adopted 2010 UWMP did not account for the water demands
associated with the City’s PGDSP. Therefore, in accordance with Water Code
Section 10910 (c)(3), and Government Code Section 66473.7 (a)(2), this WSA
includes a discussion with regard to whether Sweetwat er’s total projected water
supplies, available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a
20-year projection, would meet the projected water demand associated with the
proposed project, in addition to Sweetwater’s existing and planned future uses.
Applicable information from Sweetwater’s 2010 UWMP has been used in the
preparation of this WSA.
Sweetwater’s 2010 UWMP includes all potential future development and
redevelopment within its service area, including Chula Vista’s Urban Core Specific
Plan (UCSP), other projects identified in Chula Vista’s Vision 2020 General Plan, the
National City Downtown Specific Plan, the Unified Port of San Diego’s Chula Vista
Bayfront Master Plan, and the National City General Plan Update.
Section 5 – Supply and Demand Assessment
5.1 Project Demand Analysis
Sweetwater’s water system provides water service to approximately 177,288
consumers within the City of Chula Vista, a portion of the city of San Diego, and the
South Bay Irrigation District, which consists of a portion of the city of Chula Vista and
the unincorporated portion of the County of San Diego, known as Bonita. The
Sweetwater service area covers 32 square miles and contains approximately 32,567
service connections. In addition, the system has emergency interconnections to three
water agencies: Otay Water District, the City of San Diego, and the California
American Water Company. At the present time, there are no plans for expansion of
the Sweetwater service area.
Projected demands for years 2015 through 2035 were calculated using the SANDAG
2050 Regional Growth Forecast for population and multiplying the population by 105
gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The GPCD rate was based on the average of
fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
5.1.1 Climate
Climate conditions within the service area are characteristically Mediterranean along
the coast, with mild temperatures year-round. The majority of the service area is
within two miles of the San Diego Bay. However, the Bonita area and the reservoirs
are located farther inland, and experience slightly hotter summers and colder winters.
More than 80 percent of the region’s rainfall occurs in the period between December
through March. Average annual rainfall is approximately 11.3 inches per year at the
Sweetwater Reservoir based on records dating back to 1888. Climate data is
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 5
included in Table 1, and consists of the 122 -year Sweetwater Reservoir average
monthly rainfall, and Sweetwater Reservoir average monthly high temperature based
on records dating back to 1961. Average monthly evapotranspiration (ETo) data was
obtained from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
website for the Otay Lakes Station.
Table 1
Climate Data
5.1.2 Population
Population and housing growth data for Sweetwater was obtained from the SANDAG
2050 Regional Growth Forecast for years 2010 through 2050. These estimates do
not include the increase in population due to the PGDSP, but do include other
redevelopment projects identified in Chula Vista’s Vision 2020 General Plan, the
Unified Port’s Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, and National City’s Downtown
Specific Plan, Westside Specific Plan, and General Plan Update.
Sweetwater updated the land uses and densities associated with the National City
GPU and the Port and Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, and recalculated the
estimated population growth. Population projections are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
SANDAG Population and Redevelopment Adjustment
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Data
Source
SANDAG 2050
Population Projection 177,288 181,531 185,122 190,096 195,069 201,454
SANDAG 2050
Regional Growth
Forecast
National City General
Plan Update (GPU) 0 4,710 9,421 14,131 18,841 23,551 National City GPU
Port and Chula Vista
Bayfront Master Plan 0 0 905 2,051 3,181 3,870 Port and Chula Vista
Bayfront Master Plan
Service Area
Population 177,288 186,241 195,448 206,278 217,091 228,875
5.1.3 Demand Assessment
Table 3 shows the historical and projected water demands by use sector through
2035. The projected water demand below was calculated using the population
estimates in Table 2 and multiplying them by 105 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Ave precip (in.) 2.15 2.16 1.95 0.87 0.34 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.19 0.61 1.06 1.88
Ave temp (ºF) 68.7 69.1 69.1 71.8 72.9 76.2 81.4 84.1 82.8 79.0 73.6 68.9
ETo 0.98 1.43 2.44 3.31 4.03 4.49 4.64 4.03 3.31 2.44 1.18 0.61
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 6
Table 3
Historical and Projected Potable Water Demands
(Not Including the PGDSP)
(acre-feet)
Water Use
Sectors
Fiscal Year Ending 1
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Residential 2 16,094 14,151 14,905 15,643 16,509 17,375 18,318
Commercial 3,4 4,407 3,721 3,919 4,113 4,341 4,569 4,817
Industrial 405 291 308 323 341 359 378
Public 1,897 1,781 1,876 1,969 2,078 2,187 2,305
Irrigation/
Agricultural 31 21 22 23 24 26 27
Other 5 42 16 17 18 19 20 21
Unaccounted
for Water 694 814 842 884 948 998 1,052
Total 23,570 20,795 21,890 22,972 24,261 25,532 26,918
Notes:
1. Fiscal Year July 1 through June 30.
2. Residential includes domestic and irrigation for single-family, multi-family, and mobile homes.
3. Commercial includes domestic and irrigation for businesses and golf courses.
4. Prior to Fiscal Year 1991-92, commercial included mobile homes and apartments. Beginning in Fiscal Year
1991-92, mobile homes and apartments have been included in residential.
5. “Other” included construction meters and golf courses through Fiscal Year 1989 -90. Subsequent to Fiscal
Year 1989-90, “Other” only includes construction meters.
The total projected water demands for the PGDSP are shown in Table 4. These
demands have been developed by Sweetwater, and based on the project density and
land use information provided by the City, combined with actual water use data for
each type of land use within Sweetwater’s service area.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 7
Table 4
PGDSP Projected Water Demands
Land Use Population 1 Acres 1 Water Duty 2
Average Water
Demand
(MGD) (acre-feet
per year)
Residential3 3,354 83 gpcd 0.28 312
Commercial 3.44 1,861
gal/ac/day 0.01 7
Total 0.29 3194
1. Based on increased residential land use data included in the City’s letter to Sweetwater dated
November 2, 2011. Commercial acres are based on floor space in sq-feet.
2. Based on actual 2005 consumption within Sweetwater’s service area for each land use type.
3. Includes Mixed Use Commercial-Residential (MCR-1 and MCR-2). Because the residential
component of the land use was limited landscape water use, a water duty of 83 gpcd was used
instead of the Authority’s average of 105 gpcd.
4. Total demand in 2035 from development of the PGDSP.
The demands shown in Table 4 equate to an additional 0.29 mgd or 319 acre -feet
per year in demand above existing land uses. The projected dema nds, which are
shown in Table 5, have been increased to account for this difference.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 8
Table 5
Historical and Projected Potable Water Demands
(Including the PGDSP)
(acre-feet)
Water Use
Sectors
Fiscal Year Ending 1
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Residential 2 16,094 14,151 14,951 15,731 16,652 17,561 18,548
Commercial 3,4 4,407 3,721 3,930 4,135 4,377 4,616 4,875
Industrial 405 291 307 323 342 361 381
Public 1,781 1,860 1,888 1,987 2,103 2,218 2,342
Irrigation/
Agricultural 31 21 27 28 29 33 34
Other 5 42 16 17 18 19 20 20
Unaccounted
for Water 694 814 834 878 929 980 1,035
Total 23,570 20,795 21,954 23,100 24,452 25,787 27,237
Notes:
1. Fiscal Year July 1 through June 30.
2. Residential includes domestic and irrigation for single-family, multi-family, and mobile homes.
3. Commercial includes domestic and irrigation for businesses and golf courses.
4. Prior to Fiscal Year 1991-92, commercial included mobile homes and apartments. Beginning in Fiscal Year
1991-92, mobile homes and apartments have been included in residential.
5. “Other” included construction meters and golf courses through Fiscal Year 1989 -90. Subsequent to Fiscal
Year 1989-90, “Other” only includes construction meters.
The total demands associated with the PGDSP have n ot been included in any of
Sweetwater’s 2010 UWMP. In addition, the PGDSP demand has not been included in
CWA’s 2010 UWMP. In its recently adopted 2010 Regional UWMP, Metropolitan
utilized SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, and are therefore now inclu ded
in Metropolitan’s long range demand and supply forecast. It is intended that the
additional demand associated with the PGDSP be met through purchase of imported
water from Metropolitan.
5.1.4 Demand Management Measures (Water Conservation)
Sweetwater Authority recognizes water conservation and demand management as a
priority in its water use planning. The long-term goal of Sweetwater Authority’s water
conservation program is to achieve and maintain water use efficiency goals for
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 9
various use categories that are reasonable for that category. Specific objectives of
Sweetwater Authority’s conservation program are to:
Eliminate wasteful practices in water use;
Continue to develop information on both current and potential water conservation
practices;
Ongoing, timely implementation of conservation practices; and
Public information and education activities to spread knowledge of efficient water
use techniques and devices.
Sweetwater Authority started a water conservation program in 1990. Initial effo rts
included a long-term public information program and cooperation with the
conservation efforts of SDCWA. The water conservation program expanded
significantly during the 1987-1992 drought, and the backbone of a long-term
conservation program was formed. Since that time, Sweetwater Authority has
continued to revamp the conservation program by developing a variety of innovative
and effective approaches to demand management.
Water conservation programs are developed and implemented on the premise that
water conservation increases water supply by reducing the demand on available
supply, which is vital to the optimal use of the region’s supply resources. Sweetwater
Authority actively participates in countywide and regional conservation programs
through SDCWA and Metropolitan. As a member of SDCWA, Sweetwater Authority
benefits from regional programs performed on behalf of its member agencies.
Sweetwater Authority also participates in water conservation programs operated on a
shared-cost basis among SDCWA, Metropolitan, and their member agencies.
The vast majority of water savings result from the installation of residential and
commercial Ultra Low Flow Toilets (ULFT), High Efficiency Toilets (HET), and High
Efficiency Washers (HEW). In 2008, Sweetwater Authority shifted emphasis towards
more water efficient landscaping and commercial appliances. These programs
continue to evolve. The resulting savings in supply from these programs directly
relates to additional available water in the San Diego region for benefic ial use within
SDCWA’s service area, including Sweetwater Authority. In partnership with SDCWA
and San Diego County, Sweetwater Authority’s water conservation efforts are
expected to grow and expand.
Sweetwater Authority’s fiscal year 2010-11 budget included $119,700 for
conservation programs that are anticipated to save approximately 2,400 acre -feet for
the year. This fiscal year financial commitment represents an average cost of
approximately $50 per acre-foot of projected water sales. Conservation programs
also reduce imported water demand.
Demonstrating its commitment to conservation, Sweetwater Authority officials
became an original signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, which created the California
Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) in 1991 in an effort to reduce
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 10
California’s long-term water demands. As defined in the MOU, a water conservation
Best Management Practice (BMP) is:
“A policy, program, practice, rule, regulation or ordinance or the use of
devices, equipment or facilities which meets either of the following criteria: (a)
An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that
results in more efficient use or conservation of water; (b) A practice for which
sufficient data are available from existing water conservation projects to
indicate that significant conservation or conservation related benefits can be
achieved; that the practice is technically and economically reasonable and not
environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not
otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out.”
Since becoming a signatory in 1991, Sweetwater Authority has made implementation
of the BMPs a foundational element of its conservation programs, and a key
component in its water resource management strategy. Sweetwater Authority is in full
compliance with the CUWCC MOU. Since 2008, the BMPs have been updated to
include current technology and credit agencies for their innovative water conservation
programs. These revisions have been incorporated into Sweetwater’s conservation
program and resulting demand management measures. The current demand
management measures implemented by Sweetwater Authority are described below.
Foundational: Utility Operations
System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair– Sweetwater Authority’s
system water audits, leak detection, and repair programs contribute to better
water management and reduction in water loss.
Water Audits. Sweetwater Authority conducts a monthly audit of its overall
system for unbilled and unaccounted for water loss. Using these comparisons,
Sweetwater Authority can evaluate the need for implementation of a formal
water loss reduction program. Unaccounted for water loss is determined by
comparing total water use with total water production. Sweetwater Authority’s
12-month average unaccounted for water loss was 4 percent between 2000 –
2010.
Leak Detection. A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system
was installed in the distribution system in 2001, and is used to monitor water
flow throughout the system. Rapid changes in water quantity and/or pressure
at any of the monitoring points within the system are immediately evaluated.
On the rare occasion a leak is discovered, it is quickly detected and corrected.
A leak detection survey was performed on 19.49 miles of the distribution
system in September 2002. There was no total annual water loss for surveyed
portions of the system.
Water System Improvements. Routine and preventative maintenance is
performed on the distribution system. In addition, Sweetwater Authority
implements a capital improvement program to maintain and renew
transmission, distribution, and storage facilities.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 11
Facility Inspection. Critical facilities, including pump stations and valve vaults,
are inspected bi-weekly. Other distribution facilities are inspected weekly. As
part of Sweetwater Authority’s preventative maintenance program, each
system valve is exercised at least every three years, and each fire hydrant is
visually inspected and maintained every one to two years.
Meter Maintenance and Replacement Program. A 15-year repair/replacement
program covers every service meter within the Sweetwater Authority system.
Meters sized below ⅝-inch are calibrated and replaced as needed. Meters
sized 1-½ to 2-inches are calibrated and rebuilt as necessary. Meters sized at
3-inches and larger are calibrated and maintained annually.
Water Theft. Sweetwater Authority monitors incidents of water theft, and has
the ability to charge up to three times the water service rate when it is
determined that water theft has occurred.
Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of
Existing Connections– Sweetwater Authority requires the installation of water
meters on all services throughout its distribution system, and bills by volume of
water metered.
Wholesale Agency Assistance Program– This demand management measure
applies only to wholesale agencies. SDCWA provides conservation -related
technical support and information to its member agencies, and typically manages
the programs on behalf of its member agencies. Sweetwater Authority, SDCWA,
and Metropolitan share funding for some conservation incentives.
Retail Conservation Pricing– Sweetwater Authority’s water rate structure is set
up as an increasing block rate, which increases the cost of water in three steps for
residential use. This encourages residential users to limit their water use by
charging more for units above a base amount. A new inclining block rate structure
for single family residential accounts was adopted in 2010. The increasing rate
structure was implemented with a higher rate starting at the 50 th percentile of the
average consumer use, to encourage average consumers to reduce their use
below 28 units per billing cycle to avoid the higher rate. All other water users such
as multi-family, commercial, industrial, public, and agricultural are billed at a
single uniform rate, which is between the second and third tier rate of the
residential customer. This rate is higher than the second tier rate for residential
consumers, in order to encourage large users to control excess use of water.
Sweetwater Authority currently offers a financial incentive ($0.35 per unit) for
single-family residential consumers who use less than 10 units per billing cycle.
Water Conservation Coordinator– Sweetwater Authority first designated a
Conservation Coordinator in 1991. During this same year, Sweetwater Authority
used three temporary staff positions to handle the increased volume of
conservation-related activities caused by the drought. In June 1992 , a Water
Conservation – Information Specialist staff position was created.
Sweetwater Authority currently has a Program Supervisor and Conservation
Coordinator who manages and administers the water conservation program.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 12
Water Waste Prohibition – The following water waste prohibitions are designed
to encourage efficient water use within the region, and provide a method for
meeting demand reduction goals, should an extended water shortage occur.
Region. The County of San Diego enforces several state and local ordinances
requiring water conservation, to assure available water resources are put to
beneficial use for all citizens of the county. California Plumbing Code, Section
402, requires the installation of water conserving fixtures in new construction.
Section 67.101 of the County’s Code of Regulatory Ordinances simply
prohibits water waste: “No person shall waste or cause or permit to be wasted
any water furnished or delivered by any agency distributing for public benefit
any water dedicated to or provided for public use within the unincorporated
territory of the county of San Diego.”
In addition, the State Legislature determined in the Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act (Government Code sections 65591 et seq.) that the State’s
water resources are in limited supply. The Legislature also recognized that
while landscaping is essential to the quality of life in California, landscape
design, installation, maintenance and management must be water efficient.
Land use agencies including the cities and counties are required by the Act to
enforce California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or a similar
ordinance which is at least as effective.
For property within the County of San Diego, Section 6717c.1 of the County’s
Zoning Ordinance meets this requirement as it applies to new and
rehabilitated public and private landscapes that require a permit on developer
installed residential landscapes. The County’s Water Conservation and
Landscape Design Manual implements Zoning Ordinance Section 6712 (d),
which requires efficient irrigation uses (including rain sensors), transitional
zones, use of native plantings, restriction on turf, use of mulch, the
preservation of existing vegetation and natural features, and the use of
reclaimed water when available.
Within the City of Chula Vista, the landscape water efficiency is regulated
through the City of Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance
(Chapter 20.12). The general purpose of this chapter is to establish water use
standards for landscapes in Chula Vista that implement the landscape design
requirements established by the Urban Water Management Planning Act.
Similarly, the City Council of the City of National City passed Ordinance 2010 -
2331 amending Title 18 of the Municipal Code by amending Chap ter 18.54
establishing water efficient landscape regulations.
Agency. Resolution 09-12, attached in Appendix C, passed on May 27, 2009
and amended the drought response plan and associated conservation pricing
structure established in Resolution 08-19. For use during emergency
conditions such as drought or catastrophic inte rruption in service where
additional water use restrictions are necessary, Sweetwater Authority has
developed a four-level drought response plan allowing for water use cutbacks
up to 40 percent or more, and has established an allocation method of
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 13
rationing water during drought levels. The plan sets customer guidelines for
water conservation.
On December 10, 2008, a Level 1 Drought Watch was declared that officially
urges water consumers in the Sweetwater Authority’s service area to
voluntarily cut water use up to 10 percent. This resolution was passed in
response to potential cutbacks to the region’s imported water supply. On April
23, 2009, SDCWA took action to call for member agencies to reduce water
consumption by up to 8 percent. Because Sweetwater Authority customers
were already meeting or exceeding water use reduction goals, the Level 1
conservation measure remained in effect.
Level 1 Drought Watch. Demand reduction goal up to 10 percent.
Encourages measures to use water wisely.
Level 2 Drought Alert. Designed to reduce water consumption up to
20 percent. Calls for voluntary compliance with measures to reduce water
use and increase the efficiency of water use throughout the service area.
Target water allocations, an allocation based conservation water pricing
structure and penalties for willful violations drive customers to meet
mandatory water use goals. Should allocation -based water conservation
pricing be implemented, the Governing Board shall declare a Water
Shortage Emergency Condition in the manner and on the criteria provided
in California Water Code Section 350.
Level 3 Drought Critical. Designed to reduce water consumption up to 40
percent. In addition to target water allocations, an allocation based
conservation water pricing structure and pen alties, the Governing Board
shall declare a Water Shortage Emergency Condition in the manner and on
the criteria provided in California Water Code Section 350.
Level 4 Drought Emergency. Designed to reach in excess of a 40 percent
water use reduction goal. In addition to target water allocations, an
allocation based conservation water pricing structure and penalties, the
Governing Board shall declare a Water Shortage Emergency Condition in
the manner and on the criteria provided in California Water Code Sec tion
350.
According to the Drought Response Plan, “When customers of Sweetwater
Authority can no longer meet water use reduction goals as defined for any
drought level through voluntary efforts, or when the amount of water supply
available to Sweetwater Authority for service to customers is determined to be
inadequate to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human
consumption, sanitation and fire protection, and this condition is likely to exist
until precipitation and inflow dramatically increases, the Governing Board may
activate by resolution mandatory water use reductions and/or conditions in
accordance with California Water Code 350.”
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 14
Foundational: Education
Public Information Programs– Sweetwater Authority promotes water
conservation in coordination with the Water Conservation Garden, neighboring
water agencies, SDCWA, and Metropolitan. Regional activities include: public
service announcements, demonstration gardens, conservation strategy meetings,
water awareness month activities, wate r efficiency workshops, and landscape
water use classes and contests. Sweetwater Authority independently distributes
public information through its website, bill inserts, on-hold telephone messages,
annual Consumer Confidence Report/Calendar, newsletters, news releases,
brochures, keynote speakers, classroom presentations, facility tours, video library,
and participation in year-round special events and community festivals.
Sweetwater Authority participates in regional drought, conservation, and
environmental stewardship public outreach programs including the 20 Gallon
Challenge, WaterSmart programs, Climate Change Workgroups, and city Clean -
Green programs.
Literature-Brochures. Sweetwater Authority provides brochures and literature
on a variety of water conservation topics including gray water, lawn watering,
Xeriscape planting, WaterSmart and California Friendly gardening, drip
irrigation, swimming pool maintenance, leak detection, and general household
conservation tips. These are made available to residents through a literature
rack at Sweetwater Authority’s Administration Office and website, through
individual and group mailings, through distribution to residential complex
managers, and through distribution at public appearances by Sweetwater
Authority Board members and staff. Sweetwater Authority Customer Service
Representatives also distribute Conservation Policy Brochures to new and
other water consumers, while out in the field. The brochures contain leak
detection information and water-saving tips. Most materials are available in
English and Spanish.
Videos and Electronic Media. Sweetwater Authority has distributed "Water
Wise Gardening,” a video on Xeriscape plants and efficient irrigation, to all
public libraries in its service area. Upon request, Sweetwater Authority makes
available informational videos produced by Sweetwater Authority, which
promote conservation as a source for future water needs. Computer CD’s
packed with water saving tips, titled the Southern California Heritage
Gardening Guide, and the Frugal Gardener are distributed at community
events and speaking engagements.
Newsletters/Brochures. Sweetwater Authority publishes a consumer
newsletter, "Customer Connections" quarterly, incorporating conservation tips
and programs. Brochures are developed and distributed to deal with specific
conservation issues and to provide detailed information on drought response
measures. Drought Information is provided in English and Spanish and bulk
mailed to all physical addresses in Sweetwater Authority’s service area.
Personal Letters and Emails. Sweetwater Authority sends a personalized letter
or email to notify consumers of reported or observed water waste on their
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 15
property. These documents are sent to elicit cooperation in Sweetwater
Authority's efforts to use water efficiently, and are sent with appropriate
conservation materials, such as a lawn-watering guide, leak detection
information, or general conservation tips.
Seminars. Sweetwater Authority works with local agencies to cooperatively
host periodic conservation seminars for groups of water users, targeted toward
high water use consumers, or toward specific types of use. These seminars
include information on current water saving methods and devices, and
contacts for additional assistance and information, as well as a summary of
local agency information and contact persons for cooperative efforts between
Sweetwater Authority and its consumers.
Speakers Bureau. Sweetwater Authority staff and its Board of Directors are
available to address civic and community groups, clubs, associations, and
other organizations on a wide variety of water issues. Speakers provide
conservation handouts to interested audience members at these appearances.
The Sweetwater Authority speakers’ bureau is promoted through involvement
in civic groups, through the customer newsletter, through letters to local
libraries and schools, and through periodic newspaper announcements of
availability.
Committees. Sweetwater Authority maintains a permanent Communications
Committee to provide assistance and suggestions to staff regarding water
awareness issues. This committee can be convened as needed to provide
assistance and suggestions to staff regarding conservation issues and
address consumer concerns resulting from water reduction allocations.
Exhibits and Related Materials. Sweetwater Authority is an agency member of
the Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College. This garden promotes
water conservation, has nearly 5 acres of displays, and offers a variety of
water conservation educational programs. Sweetwater Authority also
participates in local business and community fairs to distribute water -saving
devices, conservation literature, and to answer consumer questions face -to-
face. Materials are provided to local merchants and libraries for their
distribution and displays on general water conservation issues. Sweetwater
Authority also partners with neighboring water agencies to put on water
conservation public awareness events, inclu ding water-efficiency technology
expos and landscape contests.
Sweetwater Authority partners with the Chula Vista Nature Center to provide
displays featuring relationship of good water stewardship to environmental
sustainability. Sweetwater Authority also promotes sustainable water practices
and water conservation through partnerships with the City of Chula Vista’s
Green programs, Climate Change Initiatives, and Naturescape Program.
Tours and Open Houses. Sweetwater Authority provides tours of its Perdue
Plant in Spring Valley and its Desalination Facility in Chula Vista. Open
houses at Sweetwater facilities which feature water supply and water
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 16
conservation displays are also periodically held. Bus fees are reimbursed for
any tour provided to elementary and secondary school students within the
service area. Tours are also provided for college and military students,
community groups, after school programs, and student enrichment clubs (i.e.
scouting, boys and girls clubs). Leadership tours of facilities are offered
periodically to local business leaders, elected officials, and representatives
from high-use water consumers. Lessons and information presented during
the tours incorporate information about the limited water supply for the region
and efficient water use practices.
News Relations. Sweetwater Authority provides formal press releases and
feature story information to the Chula Vista Star News, the San Diego Union
Tribune, and local radio and television reporters, as well a s to trade and
special interest publications.
Advertising. Sweetwater Authority has purchased advertising or content space
in local newspapers, school and city newsletters and chamber publications to
promote water conservation and understanding of water issues. Additional
advertising has been provided in the Star News through that newspaper’s co -
sponsorship of a Sweetwater Authority water conservation poster contest.
School Education Programs– Since 1991, Sweetwater Authority has had an
active school education program, which includes water conservation messages.
In 2000, Sweetwater Authority created a regular education specialist position to
support, in addition to other activities, the school education program. Sweetwater
Authority’s Education Specialist provides instructional assistance, educational
materials, and classroom lessons that identify urban, agricultural, and
environmental issues and conditions in the local watershed.
Sweetwater Authority also participates in SDCWA’s countywide education
programs. SDCWA offers students from kindergarten through high school, a wide
array of educational opportunities including water testing kits, and computer
programs.
Elementary School Education Program. A professional teacher provides
classroom lessons in elementary schools throughout the service area,
teaching students about the water cycle and watershed protection. Each of
these lessons includes discussion of wise water use practices. The Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College also has an Education
Department. Sweetwater Authority funds tours of the Garden and pays for the
Garden’s Education Coordinator, Ms. Smarty Plants, to hold assemblies at
elementary schools in the Sweetwater Authority’s service area.
Sweetwater Authority has provided copies of water conservation videos and
books to each elementary school library in the service area. Water
conservation games, books, and posters have been distributed to each
classroom, and Sweetwater Authority has provided each elementary student
with promotional gifts reinforcing water conservation during various water
awareness month campaigns. Sweetwater Authority also participates in the
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 17
Metropolitan poster contest. The contest has a theme every year and winning
submissions from the local elementary schools are submitted to Metropolitan.
Winning selections are printed in their annual calendar.
Sweetwater Authority provides web-based learning for elementary students on
its website. Its teachers also prepare and present specialized lessons for
science fairs, extended day programs, and classrooms upon request, and
promote the use of SDCWA and Metropolitan education programs. Staff from
Sweetwater Authority has received training and is certified in Project Wet
Curriculum. Workshops are held annually to train local teachers on the
curriculum so that they can implement water education into their lesson plans
Junior and Senior High School Education Programs . Sweetwater Authority’s
professional teachers have developed secondary-school classroom lessons
on water treatment, groundwater, and water supply issues, all with a
discussion of efficient water use practices. Laboratory equipment issued by
SDCWA is provided to secondary school teachers for classroom use.
Sweetwater staff promotes use of Metropolitan and SDCWA secondary sc hool
education programs on conservation gardening, water quality, water sources,
and the effects of the political process on water supplies. Sweetwater Authority
has been an active partner in programs geared toward local secondary school
students, including a program to encourage student activities to benefit the
Sweetwater River Watershed coordinated by the Resource Conservation
District of Greater San Diego. Staff from throughout Sweetwater Authority has
participated in career-based events with the local schools, and were featured
in "Water Works," a curriculum unit developed by SDCWA and Metropolitan.
Sweetwater Authority has provided a variety of water resources for use at local
schools, including water maps and issues guides, distributed to social scien ce
and science teachers, and "The Cadillac Desert," an eight -hour video series
produced by public television, distributed to secondary schools and public
libraries in the service area.
Sweetwater Authority hosts an annual High School Photo Contest with sch ools
in its service area. The winning photos are selected and used in the annual
Water Quality Report which also serves as a calendar. Cash prizes are
awarded to the students.
Mini-Grant Program for Local Schools. Sweetwater Authority provides
mini-grants to teachers for the development and presentation of water-based
lessons, to assist with providing conservation demonstration gardens at local
school sites, and to host use of San Diego County’s Splash Science Lab and
Green Machine at local schools.
Programmatic: Residential
In addition to the programmatic DMMs discussed below, additional programs may be
developed as technology improves or as needed to ensure appropriate water use.
Water Survey Programs for Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential
Consumers – The Residential Survey Program is free to both single-family and
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 18
multi-family residential consumers, and has been available since 1995. The
program helps consumers learn how to save water in their own homes, which in
turn saves the consumers money. The survey includes a review of landscaping,
outdoor irrigation system, indoor use, identification of indoor leaks, a complete
educational packet, information about other water conservation programs, and
free faucet aerators and low-flow showerheads. An irrigation surveyor will perform
a meter leak detection test, check the irrigation system, suggest seasonal
adjustments for a consumer’s individual water schedule, check the soil to ensure
that watering coincides with moisture absorption, discuss proper lawn
maintenance, and offer low water use landscape information.
Residential Plumbing Retrofit – Retrofit water conservation device packages,
which include toilet tank displacement devices and shower head flow restrictors,
were made available to essentially all households within Sweetwater Authority’s
service area in 1977 as part of DWR’s pilot water conservation study. Sweetwater
Authority offered retrofit devices, which included low-flow showerheads, toilet tank
displacement kits, and faucet aerators to its customers from 1991 through 2003.
By 1999, Sweetwater Authority had distributed 20,833 low-flow showerheads.
SDCWA and its member agencies distributed over 550,000 showerheads
between 1991 and 2002. Since January 1, 1994, showerheads manufactured in
the United States must be in compliance with 2.5 GPM maximum flow. Data
gathered from the Residential Survey Program (BMP 1) showed 80 to 90 percent
saturation of low-flow showerheads in homes surveyed. Since 2002, customers
have had access to a limited number of pre-purchase vouchers and/or after-
purchase rebates for installing water efficient toilets, washers, and other
appliances through the through programs administered by SDCWA and
Metropolitan.
High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Program– Since 2000, Sweetwater
Authority has participated in SDCWA’s rebate program. New technology in
washing machine design provides for more efficient water use and savings.
Residential and commercial consumers have taken advantage of the up to $185
rebates to replace their standard top-loading washers with low-water use, energy-
efficient models. Prior to March 10, 2004, high-efficiency washers had water
efficiency factor values of 9.5 or less. With greater availability of ultra -high
efficiency washers, rebates are now limited to machines with water efficiency
factor values of 5.0 or less. The water efficiency factor is determined by the
amount of water it takes to wash a cubic foot of laundry. The lower the water
efficiency factor, the greater the water efficiency of the clothes washer.
Residential ULFT Replacement Program– Since 1991, Sweetwater Authority
has participated in SDCWA’s Ultra Low Flow and High Efficiency Toilet voucher
and/or rebate programs. The current program offers rebates to multi -family
residential consumers who have purchased water efficient devices to replace
older, less efficient units.
Since 1992, toilets manufactured in the United States must comply with a 1.6
gallons per flush (gpf) maximum flow. Toilets with consistently lower water use
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 19
continue to be developed. Beginning in 2008, rebates are only available for high
efficiency and dual flush toilets to encourage customers to install toilets that have
met more rigorous water efficiency standards.
Programmatic: Landscape
Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives– From 1991 to
2004, large landscape (defined as landscape with one acre or more) irrigation
surveys were available to consumers at no charge through the Professional
Assistance for Landscape Management (PALM) program, sponsored by SDCWA.
Using methodology developed by the Irrigation Training and Research Center at
California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, the surveyor performs
catch can tests, makes numerous soil and plant observations, and calculates ETo
based irrigation schedule.
Beginning in 2005, residential and commercial consumers with large landscapes
(initially defined as over 2,000 square feet) receive the following services at no
charge through the Smart Landscape program, sponsored by Sweetwater
Authority, SDCWA, Metropolitan, and DWR:
Landscape Irrigation Audits. Audits are available at no charge to residential
and commercial consumers with a minimum of 1 acre of irrigated landscaping.
Site audits include a review of irrigation conditions, watering sche dule, and
sprinkler distribution uniformity, by a trained technician. Landscape area
measurement and water use recommendations are provided.
Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers. Rebates are available to residential and
commercial consumers with irrigated landscaping for weather-based irrigation
controllers to retrofit old timers.
Rotating Irrigation Nozzles. Rebates are available for rotating irrigation
nozzles. Rebates are only available for devices listed on the Qualified Product
List, maintained by Metropolitan. No site size minimum applies to this incentive
program; however the current rotating nozzle rebate is only available in
quantities of 25 or greater per eligible customer.
Irrigation System Upgrade Grants. Grants up to $2,500 per irrigated acre, up
to $5,000 for commercial sites and $10,000 for public sites, in matching funds
are available through the Commercial Landscape Incentive Program. Sites
must have a minimum of one acre of irrigated landscape, and be currently
over-irrigated to qualify.
Water Budgets. A voluntary program for consumers with dedicated irrigation
meters was developed by SDCWA for member agencies. Using a custom
software application, water use data is converted into web -accessible water
budgets. Each billing cycle, participating consumer water use can be charted
against previous use to calculate landscape water needs. Water budgets can
help consumers determine the right amount of water required to maintain
healthy landscaped areas, given weather conditions. Water budgets may
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 20
decrease outside water use by 20 percent. This software application is
currently being transitioned SDCWA to the member agencies.
Water Savings Performance Program. Until the program ended in 2010,
Metropolitan provided $195 per acre foot of water saved or about $3 per 1,000
gallons saved to sites within Sweetwater Authority’s service area. The
incentive was based on the potential for savings over 5 years. Eligible project
costs included labor, hardware and up to one year of water management fees.
Synthetic Turf. Synthetic Turf is becoming increasingly popular for sports
fields, golf courses, parks, and public spaces, as well as residential properties.
For a limited period, a 50¢ per square foot incentive was available for synthetic
turf.
Programmatic: Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII)
Accounts– Sweetwater Authority participates in the Metropolitan’s Save Water,
Save a Buck program which offers rebates to consumers for water-efficient
devices. A limited number of rebates are available for commercial plumbing
fixtures (high efficiency toilets, high efficiency ultra low-flow and waterless
urinals), cleaning equipment (single and multi-load commercial clothes washers
and water brooms) water efficient medical equipment (X-ray processors, dry
vacuum pumps, and steam sterilizer retrofits), food service equipment
(connectionless food steamers, air cooled ice machines, and spray valves used
for pre-rinsing dishes in commercial kitchens), and cooling tower conductivity
controllers. New rebates are added to the program, and rebate values are
adjusted as water savings potentials are validated. The rebates reduce the costs
for businesses, and the equipment produces long-term savings in water, sewer,
and energy costs.
As more and better data are collected over time, the BMPs and their associated
demand management measures are refined and revised based upon the most
objective criteria available. The CUWCC MOU sets agency-specific
implementation schedules and coverage goals based on standardized criteria,
including signatory date and base year data. Per the CUWCC, compliance with
the BMP water saving goals can be accomplished in one of three ways including:
accomplishing the specific measures liste d in each BMP; accomplishing a set of
measures which achieves equal or greater water savings; and accomplishing set
water savings goals as measured in gallons per capita per day consumption. As a
BMP signatory, Sweetwater Authority may elect to adopt additional or alternative
conservation measures, in part or in any combination provided that the
demonstrated water savings in the selected activities are equal to or greater than
the water savings that would be achieved by the stated BMP measures.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 21
5.2 Existing and Projected Supplies
Water used in Sweetwater's service area comes from various sources. These
sources include local groundwater, a brackish groundwater desalination facility,
surface water, and imported water from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project. The imported water is delivered by CWA, either purchased from, or wheeled
by Metropolitan, and is then purchased by Sweetwater. Since 1955, local sources
have met 45 percent of the water needs within Sweetwater’s service area, while the
55 percent balance has been met with imported water. The percentage of local to
imported water varies greatly with time due to local rainfall amounts. Historic and
projected local and imported water deliveries from CWA to Sweetwater are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6
Historic and Normal Water Year Projected Sweetwater Supplies
5.2.1 Local Supply
5.2.1.1 Surface Water Sources
Sweetwater owns and operates two storage reservoirs known as Sweetwater
Reservoir and Loveland Reservoir, which were constructed in 1888 and 1945
respectively. Sweetwater Reservoir has an approximate capacity of 28,079 acre -feet,
and Loveland Reservoir capacity is 25,387 acre-feet, for a combined capacity of
53,466 acre-feet. The watershed for the Sweetwater River is approximately
230 square miles. Sweetwater Reservoir is downstream of Loveland Reservoir and
has a treatment plant capable of producing 30 mil lion gallons of water per day
(MGD). Local supply from Sweetwater Reservoir varies from zero to 100 percent
depending on the local runoff conditions.
Fiscal Year
Ending
Total Local
Supply
(acre-feet)
Local Supply (acre-feet)
Reservoirs National City
Wells
Reynolds
Desal. Facility
1980 18,700 17,392 1,308 ---
1985 21,271 20,052 1,219 ---
1990 1,853 --- 1,853 ---
1995 17,247 15,855 1,392 ---
2000 20,319 16,302 1,899 2,118
2005 12,228 8,449 1,793 1,986
2010 6,251 901 2,174 3,176
2015 13,200 7,400 2,200 3,600
2020 18,400 7,400 2,200 8,800
2025 18,400 7,400 2,200 8,800
2030 18,400 7,400 2,200 8,800
2035 18,400 7,400 2,200 8,800
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 22
During wet years when Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs are at or near full
capacity, they are capable of providing up to a two-year supply to Sweetwater
customers.
5.2.1.2 Groundwater Sources
Sweetwater produces groundwater from the Sweetwater Valley Groundwater Basin
identified in the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin
118 as Basin Number 9-17. Sweetwater adopted an interim groundwater
management plan that governs groundwater management until a subsequent
groundwater management plan can be prepared in accordance with Water Code
Section 10750 (AB3030). The interim groundwater managem ent plan is included as
Appendix D.
The Sweetwater Valley Groundwater Basin underlies an alluvial valley that empties
into the San Diego Bay and is bounded on the east by the impermeable Santiago
Peak volcanic rocks. The north and south are Pliocene and P leistocene semi-
permeable terrestrial deposits, which constitute valley walls. The western boundary is
San Diego Bay. Basin recharge is derived from seasonal runoff from precipitation,
discharge from the Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs, and underflow from the
reservoirs.
Two water-bearing formations in the Basin are the Quaternary Alluvium and the San
Diego Formation. In 1997, CWA estimated a groundwater storage capacity of 13,000
acre-feet in the Quaternary Alluvium, and about 960,000 in the San Diego Formation.
The Sweetwater Valley Groundwater Basin is not an adjudicated basin, therefore,
there has never been any restriction on the rate of extraction since groundwater
production began. However, the City of San Diego has filed a lawsuit challenging the
Environmental Impact Report for the expansion project Sweetwater has proposed at
the Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater Desalination Facility (Reynolds Facility). As a
point of reference, Sweetwater Valley Groundwater Basin has not been identified in
DWR Bulletin 118 as in overdraft.
Sweetwater operates the National City Wells, which produce potable groundwater
(Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] approximately 600 mg/l) and the Reynolds Facility that
produces drinking water from brackish groundwater (TDS between 2,000 and 2,500
mg/l). Both well fields pump from the San Diego Formation.
The National City Wells consist of three wells: Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Well Nos. 3 and 4
operate daily, while the oldest well, No. 2, serves as a backup. Sweetwater has
produced an average of 1,790 acre-feet per year from the National City Wells from
1954 to 2010.
The Desalination Facility commenced operation in 1999. The facility was designed to
take groundwater from four alluvial wells and five deep San Diego Formation wells,
located on the north side of the Sweetwater River. A sixth San Diego Formation has
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 23
been constructed. The facility removes the TDS from the brackish groundwater using
reverse osmosis technology (R/O). Currently, the alluvial wells are not operated for
the following reasons: 1) summertime vegetative distress in the Sweetwater River,
and 2) because of surface water influence on the relatively shallow alluvial formation,
and the R/O membranes not being approved for surface water treatment by the
California Department of Public Health. Groundwater production for the past eight
years is included in Table 7.
Table 7
Groundwater Production 2004 through 2010
Phase I of the Desalination Facility was designed to produce four MGD of drinking
water. The facility was constructed with space to accommodate a Phase 2 expansion
to produce up to eight MGD. Currently, Sweetwater is in the design phase to expand
the facility to a maximum 10 MGD capacity with an average production of 8 MGD.
Construction should be completed by 2017. Additionally, Sweetwater is currently
participating in studies with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to evaluate
the San Diego Formation Aquifer, and to make safe use of the available yield from
the aquifer.
5.2.1.3 Water Recycling
Water Recycling
Sweetwater does not produce or distribute recycled water. Several potential changes
in the service area could have significant impacts on the future potable water
demands. These include:
The previously planned construction of a new LSP Southbay, LLC Energy Power
Plant with up to 5 MGD of recycled water demand. However, it does not appear
that this project will move forward.
Fiscal Year
Ending
Total GW
Produced
(acre-feet)
Source (acre-feet)
NC Wells Desalination
Facility
2004 3,637 1,595 2,042
2005 3,779 1,793 1,986
2006 3,941 1,670 2,271
2007 5,398 2,161 3,237
2008 5,887 2,188 3,699
2009 5,399 1,945 3,454
2010 5,351 2,175 3,176
2011 5,627 2,113 3,514
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 24
The development of the Chula Vista Bayfront. This planned project will cover
approximately 550 acres along San Diego Bay. The land uses being considered
include parks and open space. This development will increase the demand for
potable water.
Due to these developments, Sweetwater completed a master plan for the distribution
of recycled water within its service area. Additionally, Sweetwater has participated in
studies with CWA, Otay Water District (Otay) and the City of Chula Vista to analyze
potential water recycling plant locations within Sweetwater’s service area.
Due to uncertainties surrounding these new developments, the implementation of
recycled water service within Sweetwater’s service area is unknown; therefore, the
use of recycled water has not been considered in the preparation of this WSA.
However, this section provides a summary of the results of the master planning effort
and the plant siting study now underway.
5.2.1.4 Sweetwater’s Recycled Water Master Plan
Sweetwater’s Recycled Water Master Plan evaluated 8 recycled water system
alternatives with demands ranging from 4,300 acre -feet per year to 5,470 acre-feet
per year. Recycled water sources included both a new recycled water plant that
would be constructed by Sweetwater and the City of Chula Vista, and a supply from
the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Facility. A preferred alternative
was identified that included demands of 4,300 acre -feet per year and a supply from
the South Bay Water Reclamation Facility. However, approximately 2,700 acre -feet
per year is related to the development of a new water-cooled power plant that is
unlikely to be constructed. At this time, it is unclear if the power plant will be
developed or if it will be air or water-cooled. Without the development of the water-
cooled plant, it is likely that development of a recycled water system within
Sweetwater’s service area would be cost prohibitive.
5.2.1.5 Membrane Bioreactor Studies
Sweetwater participated in CWA’s Membrane Bioreactor Study. Recent technology
advancements have made satellite treatment plants utilizing membrane bioreactor
(MBR) technology a feasible cost effective alternative to traditional centralized
wastewater treatment plants. The ability of MBR technology to comply with strict
effluent requirements, operate reliably with minimal operator attendance, and occupy
far less space than traditional systems, which allows it to be easily sited close to the
recycled water consumers. The study includes evaluation of “scalping” plants taking
raw sewage from the City of Chula Vista by intercepting existing regional sewer lines,
treating it locally through a miniature version of a wastewater treatment plant and
putting the residuals back in the sewer downstream of the withdrawal point.
A second MBR Study was a collaborative project involving Otay Water District (Otay)
and the City of Chula Vista (City), with Sweetwater as the Lead Agency. The intent
was to determine if an MBR Rec ycled Water Treatment Plant (MBR Plant) is feasible
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 25
in order to provide recycled water to both, or either, Sweetwater and Otay, as well as
to determine if the City can find an alternative to acquiring needed wastewater
capacity from the City of San Diego's Metropolitan Wastewater System (Metro
System).
The results of the study showed the cost of installing a recycled water distribution
system in Sweetwater’s service area is prohibitively expensive. Therefore,
Sweetwater has determined that it will not par ticipate in any near-term studies
regarding an MBR Plant to serve recycled water in its service area. However, it may
appear to be feasible for Otay and the City of Chula Vista.
5.2.2 Imported Supply
Sweetwater represents two (City of Chula Vista and South Bay Irrigation District) of
the 24 member agencies of CWA. Member agency status entitles Sweetwater to
directly purchase water from CWA on a wholesale basis. One hundred percent of
Sweetwater's imported water is purchased from CWA, a member agency of
Metropolitan. The statutory relationships between CWA and its member agencies,
and Metropolitan and its member agencies, respectively, establish the scope of
Sweetwater’s entitlements to water from these two agencies. The historical quantities
of water purchased from CWA by Sweetwater are shown on Table 8.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 26
Table 8
Historic Sweetwater Imported Supplies
CWA was organized on June 9, 1944 under the County Water Authority Act for the
sole purpose of importing Colorado River Water into San Diego County. The
imported water, now a combination of Colorado River water and State Project water,
is sold wholesale to the 24 member agencies of CWA. The member agencies are
autonomous and their City Councils or Boards of Directors set local policies and
pricing structures.
Imported water delivered by CWA is either purchased from or wheeled by
Metropolitan from Metropolitan facilities, located just south of the San Diego/
Riverside county line. Metropolitan is a public agency organized in 1928 by a vote of
the electorates of 13 Southern California cities. Since its formation, Metropolitan has
Fiscal Year
Ending
Total Imported
Water
(acre-feet)
Source
(acre-feet)
Untreated Treated
1985 4,634 --- 4,634
1986 20,842 --- 20,842
1987 16,384 --- 16,384
1988 20,514 --- 20,514
1989 19,519 --- 19,519
1990 24,019 --- 24,019
1991 20,508 --- 20,508
1992 14,722 --- 14,722
1993 6,188 --- 6,188
1994 1,387 --- 1,387
1995 5,045 --- 5,045
1996 1,589 --- 1,589
1997 14,230 --- 14,230
1998 8,452 --- 8,452
1999 10 --- 10
2000 5,520 5,429 91
2001 14,841 14,381 47
2002 19,551 19,408 143
2003 20,271 20,226 45
2004 20,526 19,456 1,070
2005 11,342 11,234 108
2006 7,723 7,723 ---
2007 12,102 11,987 115
2008 16,658 16,650 8
2009 12,864 11,312 1,552
2010 14,548 11,375 3,173
2011 7,029 6,377 652
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 27
grown to include 27 member agencies of which CWA is the largest. Metropolitan was
formed for the purpose of developing, storing, and distributing water to the residents
of Southern California.
5.2.2.1 Metropolitan’s 2010 Regional UWMP
Metropolitan’s 2010 Regional UWMP was adopted by the Metropolitan board of
directors on November 9, 2010. The 2010 Regional UWMP provides member
agencies, retail water utilities, cities, and counties within its service area with water
supply information for purposes of developing local UWMPs, water supply
assessments, and written verifications. As part of this process, Metropolitan also
uses SANDAG’s Regional Growth Forecast in calculating regional water demands for
the Water Authority’s service area. Metropolitan incorporated SANDAG’s 2050
Regional Growth Forecast into the 2010 Regional UWMP, which included demands
for the City’s WSP. Since the last Regional UWMP update in 2005, conditions in the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta have changed significantly, reducing exports from
Northern California. Metropolitan has described the supply reliability risks in its 2010
Regional UWMP update. The Regional UWMP also summarizes Metropolitan’s
implementation plans and continued progress in developing a diversified resource
mix that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. Copies of Metropolitan’s
2010 Regional UWMP are available at Metropolitan’s Administration Office or online
at: www.mwdh2o.com.
5.2.2.2 San Diego County Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP
On June 23, 2011, the CWA’s Board of Directors approved the CWA’s 2010 UWMP
for distribution to member agencies, the County of San Diego, and cities within the
county. The purpose of the report is to provide a statement regarding the CWA’s
supplies and implementation of the CWA plans and programs to meet the future
water supply requirements of its member agencies. The 2010 UWMP contains
documentation on the CWA/Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and
Transfer Agreement, All American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining Projects, and a
planned seawater desalination facility at the Encina Power Station. The
documentation included in the 2010 UWMP was prepared for use by the CWA’s
member agencies in preparation of local UWMP, water supply assessments, and
written verifications required under state law. Copies of the CWA’s 2010 UWMP are
available at the CWA’s website: www.sdcwa.org.
In its 2010 UWMP, CWA included a traditional scenario planning process, which
assesses potential risks associated with implementation of its projected resource mix,
and that also identifies management strategies to help deal with the related
uncertainties. Potential risks include impacts from drought, limited supply
development, climate change, and demographic shift. Under the demographic shift
scenario, land-use development approval would differ from that identified in the cities’
and county general plans. In part to deal with this uncertainty associated with land -
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 28
use approvals occurring during the 2010 UWMP planning horizon, an additional
demand increment, termed Accelerated Forecasted Growth, has been included in the
CWA’s regional total demand forecast included in the 2010 UWMP.
5.3 Dry Year Demand Assessment
The dry year demand assessment is shown in Table 9 and includes demands during
single and multiple dry water years. The estimated demands for multiple dry years
are reflective of years 2026, 2027, and 2028. No extraordinary conservation
measures, beyond BMP implementation, are reflected in the demand projections.
*Source: Weather-Related Water Demand Variability in Metropolitan Water District Service Area, 09/1990
Table 9
Projected Water Demand during Normal, Single and Multiple Dry-Years
(acre-feet per year)
Multiple Dry Water Years
Normal
Water Year
(2025)
Single Dry
Water Year
(2025)
Year 1
(2026)
Year 2
(2027)
Year 3
(2028)
Total Demand 24,452 24,452 24,719 24,986 25,253
5.4 Dry Year Supply Assessment
Probability estimates for usable runoff were calculated using the hydrologic data for
the period between 1926 and 2010 within the Sweetwater River Watershed,
excluding that runoff spilled from the Sweetwater Dam to San Diego Bay. Based on
this data the historical amount of useable runoff for normal, single and multiple dry
years were determined. The normal water year for local production from Sweetwater
Reservoir is based on the average since 1960, the single dry year is the year with the
lowest run-off (1961), and the multiple dry year period is the lowest average runoff for
a consecutive three-year period (1959 through 1961). The National City Wells and
the Desalination Facility are relatively fixed supplies that are not weather dependent;
therefore, the production from these sources has not been reduced during a drought
event. Table 10 shows the estimated supply from local sources.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 29
Table 10
Local Projected Water Supply during Normal, Single, and Multiple Dry Years
(acre-feet per year)
Supply Source
Normal
Water
Year
Single Dry
Water Year
Multiple Dry Year Period
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Sweetwater
Reservoir 7,400 350 830 830 830
National City Wells 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
Reynolds
Desalination 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800
Total Local
Supplies 18,400 11,350 11,830 11,830 11,830
Section 6 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies
Sweetwater is committed to developing local resources within and outside its service
area to offset the region’s need for imported water from CWA. Within its service area,
Sweetwater is in the process of expanding its Reynolds Desalination Facility, which
reclaims brackish groundwater from the underlying San Diego Formation.
Sweetwater supports the development of ocean desalination by supp orting the
Poseidon Resources Desalination Project in Carlsbad. Sweetwater has studied the
development of recycled water in its service area, and concluded that it is
prohibitively expensive at this time. However, Sweetwater continues to support other
agencies that are developing this very important local resource.
Sweetwater, as with other agencies in the region, continues to rely on imported water
from CWA and Metropolitan to bridge the gap between its available local supply and
current and future demands within its service area. Metropolitan’s 2010 Regional
UWMP utilized SANDAG’s most recent 2050 Regional Growth Forecast in calculating
regional water demands for CWA’s service area. Their 2010 Regional UWMP also
identifies implementation plans to develop a reliable resource mix that enables the
region to meet its water supply needs. CWA’s 2010 UWMP also utilized SANDAG’s
most recent 2050 Regional growth forecast in calculating demands for its service
area and identifies projects and programs to help ensure that the existing and
planned water users within Sweetwater’s service area have an adequate supply.
CWA’s 2010 UWMP also includes scenario planning to manage uncertainties
associated with providing supply reliability. Implementation of these strategies by
Metropolitan, CWA, and local water agencies will assure adequate supply to support
growth and redevelopment within the region. If CWA and member agency supplies
are developed as planned, along with implementation of Metropolitan’s 2010
Regional UWMP, shortages are not anticipated within CWA’s service area through
2035. It should be noted that programs in the updated CWA and Metropolitan
planning documents require future discretionary decisions by their respective board
of directors. Until these programs are fully implemented to manage current changed
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 30
conditions and other uncertainties, the San Diego region will remain susceptible to
potential shortages. Metropolitan, CWA, and Sweetwater do have shortage response
plans in place to manage any potential shortages. The plans include shortage
response actions, such as dry-year storage withdrawals, voluntary and mandatory
water use restrictions, and outreach. Sweetwater is currently in Level 1 of its Drought
Response Plan.
Table 11 shows the forecasted water demands compared with projected supplies
within Sweetwater’s service area. This demonstrates that with implementation of the
projects and strategies discussed in MWD and CWA’s planning documents and
implementation of new strategies being developed, there will be adequate water
supplies to serve the proposed Project along with existing and future uses.
Table 11
Projected Water Supply and Demand for
Normal Years
(acre-feet per year)
Supply
Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported
Water 11,342 14,543 8,754 4,700 6,052 7,387 8,837
Sweetwater
Reservoir 8,449 901 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400
National
City Wells 1,793 2,175 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
Reynolds
Desalination 1,986 3,176 3,600 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800
Total
Available
Supply
23,570 20,795 21,954 23,100 24,452 25,787 27,237
Total
Projected
Demand
23,570 20,795 21,954 23,100 24,452 25,787 27,237
The normal, single, and multiple dry-year scenarios are shown in Table 12, and
demonstrate that with implementation of the projects and strategies discussed in
MWD and CWA’s planning documents, and implementation of new strategies being
developed, supplies will be adequate to meet future demands in dry-year periods.
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 31
Table 12
Projected Water Supply and Demand during
Normal, Single, and Multiple Dry-Years
(acre-feet per year)
Multiple Dry Water Years
Supply Type
Normal
Water Year
(2025)
Single Dry
Water Year
(2025)
Year 1
(2026)
Year 2
(2027)
Year 3
(2028)
Imported Water 6,052 13,102 12,889 13,156 13,423
Sweetwater
Reservoir 7,400 350 830 830 830
National City Wells 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
Reynolds
Desalination 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800
Total Supplies
Available 24,452 24,452 24,719 24,986 25,253
Total Projected
Demand 24,452 24,452 24,719 24,986 25,253
This WSA Report demonstrates and verifies that with development of the resources
identified, there will be sufficient water supplies, over a 20 -year planning horizon, to
meet the projected demands of the proposed Project, and the existing and planned
development projects within Sweetwater’s service area.
These findings further verify that there will be sufficient water supply to serve the
proposed Project, including existing and other planned projects in both normal and
dry year forecasts. However, while Sweetwater is developing new local water
supplies, and Metropolitan retains its conclusion of available surplus supplies,
Sweetwater advises the City of Chula Vista that given the current water supply
issues, including: a)drought conditions in California and the Colorado River Basin,
b)legal and regulatory issues involving utilization of the San Francisco Bay Delta to
convey California State Project Water to Southern California, Sweetwater cannot
guarantee that, at some time in the future, Metropolitan may not project a supply of
surplus water required to serve the project. Finally, as noted in Section 5.1.4, BMP 13
– Water Waste Prohibition, there are four drought levels. Under Drought levels 3 and
4, Sweetwater’s Drought Response Plan states that no new services will be provided
with some exceptions. Refer to Appendix C for further discussion.
Finally, in the letter from the City of Chula Vista, dated November 2, 2011, requesting
the WSA, the city also requested the Authority to confirm if the existing water delivery
facilities are adequate to serve the future water needs of the area and the required
fire flow of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Sheet 2 of 3 in Appendix E indicates that
the future water demands of the proposed district can be met by the Authority’s
Sweetwater Authority
Water Supply Assessment
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
February 2012 32
existing water delivery system with a pressure in excess of 70 pounds per square
inch (psi) (minimum of 40 psi is required for new customers). Also, Sheet 3 of 3 in
Appendix E indicates that the required fire flow of 4,000 gpm (near the intersection of
Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard) can be met by the existing water delivery
system.
I:\engr\Gen\City of Chula Vista WSA for Palomar Gateway District SP\Water Supply Assessment - Palomar Gateway District
Specific Plan - final 2-22-12.docx
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Agency:Sweetwater Authority District Name: Sweetwtaer Authority CUWCC Unit #: 213
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
y y
Retail
Primary Contact Sue Mosburg Telephone Email: smosburg@sweetwater.org
Compliance Option Chosen By Reporting Agency:
(Traditional, Flex Track or GPCD)
GPCD if used: GPCD in 2010 101
GPCD Target for 2018 96
Year Report Target
Not on Track if 2010 GPCD is > than target
(619)-420-1413
Highest Acceptable
Bound
% Base GPCD % Base GPCD GPCD in 2010 101
2010 1 96.4% 113 100% 118
2012 2 92.8% 109 96% 113 118
2014 3 89.2% 105 93% 109
2016 4 85.6% 101 89% 105 On Track
2018 5 82.0% 96 82% 96
Highest
Acceptable GPCD
for 2010
Agency:Sweetwater Authority District Name: Sweetwtaer Authority CUWCC Unit #: 213
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Foundational BMPs
BMP 1.1 Operational Practices
2009 2010
Name Doug Roberts Roberts
Title Water Conservation Coordinator Water Conservation Coordinator
Email droberts@sweetwater.org
On Track On Track
2. Water waste prevention documentation
Descriptive File
Doug 1.Conservation Coordinator
provided with necessary
resources to implement BMPs?
On Track if any one of the 6 ordinance actions done, plus
documentation or links provided
Conservation Coordinator provided with necessary resources to
implement BMPs?
Descriptive File 2010
URL
URL 2010
Describe Ordinance Terms
On Track On Track
Conservation Specialist with 15+ years conservation program experience, Communications staff, field
technical staff, and support from Customer Service Lead (high bill investigations/direct customer
assistance). Satffing expense only for Coordinator, Speci
http://www.ci.national-city.ca.us/ , http://www.ci.chula-vista.ca.us/ ,
http://sdpublic.sdcounty.ca.gov
Conservation Specialist with 15+ years conservation program experience, Communications staff, field
technical staff, and support from Customer Service Lead (high bill investigations/direct customer
assistance). Satffing expense only for Coordinator, Speci
Conservation Specialist with 15+ years conservation program
experience, Communications staff, field technical staff, and support from Describe Ordinance Terms 2010
On Track On Track
Agency:Sweetwater Authority District Name: Sweetwtaer Authority CUWCC Unit #: 213
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
BMP 1.2 Water Loss Control
2009
Complete a prescreening Audit yes On Track On Track if Yes
Metered Sales 21,906
Verifiable Other Uses 303
Total Supply 22,691
0.98 On Track On Track if =>.89, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track On Track if Yes
(Metered Sales + System uses)/
Total Supply >0.89
If ratio is less than 0.9, complete a full
scale Audit in 2009?
Verify Data with Records on File?Yes On Track On Track if Yes
Operate a system Leak Detection Program?Yes On Track On Track if Yes
2010
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
AWWA file provided to CUWCC? Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
AWWA Water Audit Validity Score? 86 Info only until 2012
yes
Compile Standard Water Audit using
AWWA Software?
Completed Training in AWWA Audit
Method?yes
Info only until 2012
Yes
Complete Component Analysis? No Info only until 2012
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Info only until 2012
Repaired all leaks and breaks to the
extent cost effective?
Locate and repair unreported leaks to
the extent cost effective.
Method?
Maintain a record-keeping system for the repair of reported
leaks, including time of report, leak location, type of leaking
pipe segment or fitting, and leak running time from report to
Completed Training in Component
Analysis Process?
Provided 7 types of Water Loss Control Info
Leaks
Repaired
Miles
Surveyed
Press
Reduction
Water
Saved
00Off0
Cost of InterventionsValue Apparent
LossesValue Real Losses
pipe segment or fitting, and leak running time from report to
repair.
Info only until 2012
-$ -$ -$
Agency:Sweetwater Authority District Name: Sweetwtaer Authority CUWCC Unit #: 213
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
2009 2010
2008 0 On Track 0 On Track On Track if no unmetered accounts
Yes On Track Yes On Track
Numbered Unmetered Accounts
Metered Accounts billed by volume of Volumetric billing required for all connections on same
If signed MOU prior to 31 Dec 1997, On Track if all connections
metered; If signed after 31 Dec 1997, complete meter
installations by 1 July 2012 or within 6 yrs of signing and 20%
biannual reduction of unmetered connections.
1.3 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT
OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS
Exemption or 'At least as Effective As'
accepted by CUWCC
2,268 2,341 Info only
No No Required by 2012
Feasibility Study provided to CUWCC? No No On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if NoCompleted a written plan, policy or program
to test repair and replace meters
Number of CII accounts with
Mixed Use meters
Conducted a feasibility study to assess
merits of a program to provide incentives to
switch mixed-use accounts to dedicated
landscape meters?
use Volumetric billing required for all connections on same
schedule as metering
to test, repair and replace meters
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Agency:Sweetwater Authority District Name: Sweetwater Authority CUWCC Unit #: 213
Retail Coverage Report Date:
Primary Contact Sue Mosburg Email: smosburg@sweetwater.org
June 20, 2011
OT kifI i Bl kUif
1.4 Retail Conservation Pricing
Metered Water Rate Structure
Customer Class 2009 Rate Type Conserving Rate? Customer Class 2010 Rate Type Conserving Rate?
Single-Family Increasing Block Yes Single-Family Increasing Block Yes
Multi-Family Uniform Yes Multi-Family Uniform Yes
Commercial Uniform Yes Commercial Uniform Yes
Industrial Uniform Yes Industrial Uniform Yes
June 1, 2011
June 1, 2011
Date 2009 data received
Date 2010 data received
On Track if: Increasing Block, Uniform,
Allocation, Standby Service; Not on Track if
otherwise
Institutional Uniform Yes Institutional Uniform Yes
Agricultural Uniform Yes Agricultural Uniform Yes
Dedicated Irrigation Uniform Yes Dedicated Irrigation Uniform Yes
On Track On Track
Info onlyYear Volumetric Rates began for Agencies with some Unmetered
Accounts Agencies with Partially Metered Service Areas: If signed MOU prior to 31 Dec. 1997, implementation starts no later than
1July 2010. If signed MOU after 31 Dec. 1997, implementation starts no later than 1July 2013, or within seven years of yg ,p y, y
signing the MOU,
Agency:Sweetwater Authority District Name: Sweetwater Authority CUWCC Unit #: 213
Retail Coverage Report Date:June 20, 2011
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Adequacy of Volumetric Rates) for Agencies with No Unmetered Accounts
Agency Choices for rates:
Single-Family Single-Family
Multi Family Uniform Multi Family
Customer Class 2009 Rate Type 2010 Rate Type2009 Volumetric
Revenues $1000s
2010 Volumetric
Revenues $1000s
8 231$
10,567$
9 153$
Increasing Block 10,395$
Multi-Family Uniform Multi-Family
Commercial Uniform Commercial
Industrial Uniform Industrial
Institutional Uniform Institutional
Agricultural Uniform Agricultural
Dedicated Irrigation Uniform Dedicated Irrigation
A) Agencies signing
MOU prior to 13
June2007,
implementation starts 1
July2007: On Track if (V
/ (V + M) ≥ 70% x .8 =
56% for 2009 and
70%x0.90 = 63% for
2010; Not on track if (V /
4,639$
495$
1,713$
26$
5,122$
469$
1,902$
8,231$
31$
2,707$
9,153$
2,306$
Total Revenue Commodity Charges (V):
Total Revenue Fixed Charges (M):9,840$
Calculate: V / (V + M):74% 71% B) Use Canadian model.
On Track On Track
No No
On Track On Track
2010; Not on track if (V /
(V + M)) < 70%;27,806$ 29,951$
Agencies signing MOU
after 13June2007,
implementation starts
July 1 of year following
Canadian Water & Wastewater Rate Design Model
Used and Provided to CUWCC
12,183$
On Track On Track
Wastewater Rates 2009 2010
Does Agency Provide Sewer Service?No No
yy g
signing.
Used and Provided to CUWCC
If Canadian Model is used, was 1 year or 3 year
period applied?
If 'No', then wastewater rate info not
required.
California Urban Water Conservation Council cuwcc.org MOU Coverage Report 2009-2010
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
BMP 2. EDUCATION PROGRAMS
BMP 2.1 Public Outreach Actions Implemented and Reported to CUWCC
2009 2010
13 9
96
1) Contacts with the public (minimum = 4
times per year)
2) Water supplier contacts with media (minimum = 4
times per year, i.e., at least quarterly).
Yes Yes
Newsletter articles on conservation
Newsletter articles on conservation
General water conservation information
Website
News releases
All 6 action types
implemented and
reported to CUWCC to
be 'On Track')
Newsletter articles on conservation
Newsletter articles on conservation
py q y)
3) An actively maintained website that is updated
regularly (minimum = 4 times per year, i.e., at least
quarterly).
4) Description of materials used to meet minimum
requirement.
General water conservation information
Website
News releasesNews releases
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
Newspaper contacts
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
5) Annual budget for public outreach program.140,000$
6) Description of all other outreach programs
Newspaper contacts
Description is too large for text area. Data will
be stored in the BMP Reporting database
84,000$
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
Description is too large for text area. Data will
be stored in the BMP Reporting database when
News releases
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
OnTrack OnTrack
when online. online.
California Urban Water Conservation Council cuwcc.org MOU Coverage Report 2009-2010
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
2.2 School Education Programs Implemented and Reported to CUWCC
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
2009 2010
Yes Yes
Name of Wholesale Supplier?
Yes/ No
Children's books,activity books,
games, pamphlets, model & kits,
tf til
San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA), Metropolitan Water
Does a wholesale agency implement School Education
Programs for this unility's benefit?
Children's books,activity books, games,
pamphlets, model & kits, posters, reference
til
1) Curriculum materials developed and/or provided by
agency
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA),
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
posters, reference materials materials
Yes Yes
3) Materials Distributed to K-6?Yes Yes
Describe K-6 Materials
2) Materials meet state education framework
requirements and are grade-level appropriate?
All 5 actions types implemented
and reported to CUWCC to be
'On Track'
Water for You; Let's Learn About Water;
Respecting the Water Cycle; Using Water
Wisely
Water for You; Let's Learn About
Water; Respecting the Water Cycle;
Using Water Wisely
Describe materials to meet
minimum requirements
Materials distributed to 7-12 students? No No Info Only
4) Annual budget for school education program.26,000$ 25,000$
5) Description of all other water supplier education
programs
School assembly programs, classroom
presentations, materials, poster contest, plant
tours
School assembly programs,
classroom presentations, materials,
poster contest, plant tours
See Wholesale Report See Wholesale Report
On Track On Track
Appendix B
Mobility Study
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan
Final Mobility Study
April 27, 2012
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan – Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
i
REPORT INFORMATION
Project: Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan – Mobility Study
Chula Vista, CA
Date: April 27, 2012
LLG Ref.: 3-11-2023
Prepared For: City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Prepared By: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800
858.300.8810
www.llgengineers.com
Prepared by:
Walter B. Musial, P.E., Associate Principal
Shankar Ramakrishnan, P.E., Transportation Engineer III
Sasha Jovanovic, GIS Specialist
Under the supervision of:
John Boarman, P.E., Principal
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan – Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2
General Plan Vision ..................................................................................................................... 2
Market Absorption ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Study Objectives and Guiding Principles ................................................................................ 6
Study Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6
Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.0 Non-Motorized Travel Conditions ........................................................................................... 7
Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 7
Planned Improvements – City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan ............................ 10
Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 13
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 13
Planned Improvements – City of Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan ................................. 13
Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions .............................................................................................. 15
Transit Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 17
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 17
Planned Improvements ...................................................................................................... 17
5.0 Motorized Travel Conditions .................................................................................................. 20
Roadway Network ..................................................................................................................... 20
Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 21
Existing Operations .................................................................................................................... 24
Significance Criteria .................................................................................................................. 26
Short-Term (Study Horizon Year 0 To 4) .................................................................................. 26
Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 26
Street Links/Segments ...................................................................................................... 26
Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 28
Existing + Project Operations .................................................................................................... 31
Year 2020 Traffic Volumes and Operations .............................................................................. 35
Year 2030 Traffic Volumes & Operations................................................................................. 40
Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 45
Significant Impacts ........................................................................................................... 45
Intersection Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 45
Street Segment Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 47
Long-Term Motorized Travel Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ....................... 49
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan – Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
iii
6.0 Mobility Plan ............................................................................................................................ 54
Multi-Modal Recommendations ................................................................................................ 54
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan – Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
iv
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. City of Chula Vista General Plan Vision and Market Absorption Study for PGD
B. City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan Excerpts
C. City of Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan Excerpts
D. Year 2050 RTP and I-5 South Multi-Modal Corridor Study Excerpts
E. Traffic Count Sheets and Data Validation
F. Existing and Existing + Project Intersection Calculation Sheets
G. Trolley Delay Factor Methodology
H. City of Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table
I. Traffic Growth Factor Calculations
J. Year 2020 Intersection Calculation Sheets
K. Year 2030 Intersection Calculation Sheets
L. Motorized Facilities Improvement Calculation Sheets
M. Walkable and Living Communities Institute Inc. Report on PGD
N. Case Studies
a. Passive Transit Signal Priority Case Study
b. Colored Bike Lane Treatments
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan – Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
v
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
Figure 1 Project Location Map .......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 Project Land Use Map ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3 Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Proposed Master Plan ................................................. 12
Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Proposed Master Plan ..................................................... 14
Figure 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 6 Existing Transit Network and Planned Improvements ..................................................... 19
Figure 7 Existing Roadway Conditions and Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 23
Figure 8 Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 30
Figure 9 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 34
Figure 10 Year 2020 Roadway Conditions & Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 39
Figure 11 Year 2030 Roadway Conditions & Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 44
Figure 12 Mobility Plan .................................................................................................................... 58
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
Table 1 Palomar Gateway Existing and Projected Land Uses .............................................................. 3
Table 2 Existing Intersection Operations ............................................................................................ 24
Table 3 Existing Street Segment Operations ...................................................................................... 25
Table 4 Palomar Gateway Trip Generation ........................................................................................ 29
Table 5 Existing + Project Intersection Operations ............................................................................ 32
Table 6 Existing + Project Street Segment Operations ....................................................................... 33
Table 7 Year 2020 Intersection Operations ........................................................................................ 36
Table 8 Year 2020 Street Segment Operations ................................................................................... 38
Table 9 Year 2030 Intersection Operations ........................................................................................ 41
Table 10 Year 2030 Street Segment Operations ................................................................................. 43
Table 11 Intersection Operations with Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 46
Table 12 Street Segment Operations With Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 48
Table 13 Intersection Operations with Improvements ........................................................................ 50
Table 14 Street Segment Operations with Improvements .................................................................. 53
Table 15 Palomar Gateway District Mobility Plan ............................................................................. 56
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
1
PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
MOBILITY STUDY
City of Chula Vista, California
April 27, 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Palomar Gateway District (PGD) is one of five planning districts contained within the
Southwest Area Plan in the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan. The PGD is considered the major
southern gateway to the City via the Palomar Street/ I-5 interchange and the Palomar Street trolley
station. The PGD currently serves a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, retail and
industrial.
According to the City of Chula Vista 2005 General Plan, the PGD was identified as a district where
more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment is proposed to occur. The General
Plan vision for the district includes a mixed-use Transit Focus Area (TFA), high-density residential,
commercial retail and a neighborhood park. SANDAG also designated the District as a Smart
Growth Community Center. The goal is to revitalize the District through mixed-use density, Smart
Growth design, and Transit Oriented Development (TOD); all of which promote mobility through
active transportation and maximize the current transportation infrastructure. Active Transportation
encourages safe, convenient and fun bicycling, walking and public transit to achieve a measurable
shift from environmentally harmful and sedentary travel.
Based on the goals and vision of the PGD, the following Mobility Study was prepared. The Mobility
Study was developed to analyze mobility conditions (motorized and non-motorized) to
accommodate expected growth and the City’s vision of a vibrant, multi-use PGD. The Mobility
Study reviews the current and future transportation system across all modes of travel (i.e.
pedestrians, bikes, autos and transit) and user abilities (children, elderly and disabled). The study
departs from the traditional traffic impact studies and address mobility with a focus on
moving people, not cars.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palomar Gateway District (PGD) is ideally situated for one of Chula Vista’s in-fill Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) villages. The PGD is bounded by Walnut Avenue/ Frontage Road to
the west, Oxford Street to the north, Trolley Center to the east and Anita Street to the south.
The project site is ideally located for Smart Growth development with regional and local access
provided by I-5 and Palomar Street respectively with the Palomar Street Transit Center served by the
Trolley Blue Line. The Blue Line is the most heavily traveled corridor in San Diego with more than
10,000 average daily boardings. Per the SANDAG “State of Commute 2010 Report”, the highest
ranking transit route by ridership in the San Diego County is the Blue Line Trolley, which totaled
20 million passengers in Year 2009. By comparison, all other light rail service (Orange Line, Green
Line trolley services and Sprinter) combined totaled 18 million passengers or 91.5% of the Blue Line
passenger count. The Orange and Green Line trolley services each carried approximately 8 million
passengers (Year 2009 data) and ranked 2nd and 3rd in transit ridership in San Diego County.
General Plan Vision
According to the City of Chula Vista 2005 General Plan, the PGD was identified as a district where
more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment is proposed to occur. There are
four General Plan land use designations within the Palomar Gateway District. The General Plan
describes these land use designations as follows:
High Residential: The High Residential designation is intended for multi-family units,
such as apartment and condominium-type dwellings in multiple-story buildings, with
densities ranging from 18 to 27 dwelling units per gross acre. At an average of 2.5
persons per unit, population density in this designation would range from 45 to 67
persons per acre.
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area: The Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation is
intended within approximately ¼ mile of the existing Palomar Trolley Station, and is
intended for the highest intensity mixed use residential environment. This designation
allows a mix of residential, office, and retail uses in an area that is pedestrian-friendly
and has a strong linkage to provision of mass transit. District-wide gross residential
density within this designation is an average of 40 dwelling units per acre.
Retail Commercial: The Retail Commercial designation (a small area located along
Industrial Boulevard at Anita Street) is intended to allow a range of neighborhood and
community retail shopping and services. This category may include limited thoroughfare
retail and automobile-oriented services.
Parks and Recreation: The Parks and Recreation designation is intended for parks; sports
fields; playgrounds; golf courses; and other passive and active recreation uses. The
designation may also include community centers and urban parks.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
3
Based on coordination with City staff and pursuant to recent City council direction, a portion of the
office land use in the Transit Focus Area may be developed with a College/ Institution use. This use
has been suggested on the 4.8 acre property at the southwest corner of Palomar Street/ Industrial
Boulevard intersection; however, no detailed plans or project has been proposed.
The PGD is divided into four (4) sub-districts:
MU–1: Palomar Transit Plaza / Transit Focus Area
MU–2: Mixed-use corridor
PRV: Palomar Residential Village/ Residential High
PRNC: Palomar Residential Retail Cluster / Commercial Retail
In addition to these sub-districts, a neighborhood park within the Specific Plan Area is also
envisioned whose location is not yet finalized. Initial discussions on a planning level are focused on
the SDGE parcel, south of the existing Palomar transit station.
Market Absorption
The land use intensities in the City of Chula Vista General Plan have been reduced based on findings
from the Year 2011 market absorption study. No changes to the land use types were proposed. The
updated land use quantities are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
PALOMAR GATEWAY EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USES
Land Uses Existing
Development
Projected
Additional
Development
Total
Estimated
Buildout
Projected Buildout
by sub-district
MU-1
(3.5 ac)
MU-2
(31.5 ac)
PRV
(43.5 ac)
PNRC
(1.5 ac)
Residential (DU) 400 1,300 1,700 150 450 700 –
Retail (SF) 200,000 100,000 300,000 10,000 85,000 – 5,000
Office (SF) – 50,000 50,000 5,000 40,000 – 5,000
Industrial (SF) 30,000 – – – – – –
Footnotes:
a. Land use quantities and densities provided by City of Chula Vista.
Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 shows the project land use map. Appendix A
contains the City of Chula Vista General Plan Vision and market absorption study for PGD.
SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO
POWAY
CHULA VISTA
CARLSBAD
OCEANSIDE
VISTA
ESCONDIDO
SANTEE
SAN MARCOS
ENCINITAS
EL CAJON
CORONADO
LA MESA
NATIONALCITY
LEMON GROVE
IMPERIALBEACH
SOLANABEACH
DEL MAR
0 42 Miles
56
163
5
805
15
78
52
54
94
5
9415
15
125
125
125
5
805
905
67
8
8
75
15
P A C I F I CO C E A N
Project Location Map
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 1
Project Land Use Map
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 2
Sub-Districts
MU-1
MU-2
PRV
PNRC
Palomar Transit Plaza
Mixed-Use Corridor
Palomar Residential Village
Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster
Source: City of Chula Vista
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
6
3.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Study Objectives
The Mobility study’s objective is to analyze existing and future mobility conditions in PGD and
provide recommendations to revitalize the District through mixed-use density, Smart Growth design,
and Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
The intent of the study is to present a Mobility Plan containing strategies, regulations and design
parameters, to be implemented as individual projects are constructed in the District. Over time, the
District will be transformed from its underutilized/lower-density setting into a vibrant and cohesive
higher-density, multi-modal transit-oriented community.
Guiding Principles
The review of mobility across all modes of transportation can be challenging due to existing
constraints, competing interests of travel modes, and the complexity of planning for a 80-acre site.
To achieve the above objectives, the following key principles were developed:
Principle A: Balance all modes of transportation giving equal importance to motorized (autos)
travel and non-motorized travel (pedestrians, bicycles and transit). Promote Complete
Streets concepts in accordance with the Assembly Bill (AB) 1358.
The “California Complete Streets Act of 2008” (AB 1358) was passed into law on September 30,
2008. Commencing January 1, 2011, the bill requires, “that the legislative body of a city or county,
upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify the circulation
element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users
of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children,
persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation,
in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. By
requiring new duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program”.
Implementing Complete Streets also supports California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(AB 32) and Senate Bill 375.
Principle B: Explore efficient, flexible, creative and context sensitive solutions.
Principle C: Ensure safety for all users without compromise.
Principle D: Recognize that the best overall mobility solution may decrease operations for a
particular mode of travel.
Principle E: Prioritize transportation recommendations for both motorized and non-motorized
travel based on a tiered ranking system.
LINSCOTT, LAW
4.0
The follo
and trans
Pedestr
Existing C
The follo
area at s
include th
intersecti
noted.
Palomar
includes
I-5 over
sidewalk
sidewalk
interactio
I-5. The
among
interchan
volumes
and the C
on the
which id
to enhanc
Palomar
speed and
W & GREENSPAN, engi
NON-MOTO
owing sectio
sit users.
ian Facilitie
Conditions
owing discus
street segme
he provision
ions level, t
Street betw
a sidewalk
rcrossing on
k only on th
k on the brid
on between t
Palomar S
the impro
nges in Ch
and levels o
City of Chul
I-5 South
dentifies an o
ce pedestrian
Street betwe
d detection s
ineers
ORIZED TRA
on details the
es
ssion provid
ents and inte
n of contiguo
the provisio
ween Bay B
only on the
n Palomar S
he south sid
dge, there is
the east side
Street interch
ovements n
hula Vista
of service. C
la Vista are
Multimodal
overcrossing
n activity an
een I-5 and
skills are exp
AVEL COND
e existing co
des a descrip
ersections. T
ous sidewalk
on of adequ
Boulevard an
e north side
Street inclu
de. With onl
limited pede
e and west s
hange ranks
needed for
based on
Caltrans, SAN
currently w
l Corridor
g with additi
nd interaction
Transit Cen
posed furthe
7
DITIONS
onditions and
ption of the
The key fea
ks and their
ate ADA ac
nd I-5
e. The
udes a
ly one
estrian
side of
s high
r I-5
traffic
NDAG
working
Study,
ional lanes a
n.
nter Place inc
er.
d the challen
existing ped
atures identi
connectivity
ccessible cu
and proposed
cludes 6-foo
roadway
provided
pedestri
location
travel la
lots, com
the driv
Center
Pedestri
station
right-tur
children
Pa
N:\2
nges faced b
destrian cond
ified at the
y to adjacent
urb ramps a
d 6-foot side
ot sidewalks
y. Even tho
d, the lack o
ians to cro
ns such as
anes, or in th
mpromising
veway leadi
Parking lo
ians heading
face high-
rning traffic
n and othe
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
by pedestrian
ditions in th
street segm
t intersection
and crosswa
ewalks on b
on both sid
ough sidew
of crosswalk
oss at unc
driveways
he middle of
safety. For
ing into the
t is 60 fe
g toward th
-volume hi
c. Older ped
r people t
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
n, bicycle
he project
ment level
ns. At the
alks were
oth sides
des of the
walks are
ks forces
ontrolled
and on
f parking
instance:
e Transit
et wide.
he transit
gh-speed
destrians,
that lack
LINSCOTT, LAW
City staff
to Moss S
Industria
Street pr
standards
given th
sidewalk
to/from
convenie
Boulevar
not inclu
Industria
a sidewal
Ada Stre
Road. Th
Dorothy
dedicated
Anita Str
the south
a sidewal
Frontage
Frontage
only side
Walnut A
sac. Waln
on the ea
W & GREENSPAN, engi
ff has submit
Street but th
al Boulevard
rovides goo
s width sidew
he proximit
ks also incl
the transi
ent access
rd between A
ude sidewal
al Boulevard
lk only on th
et and Doro
he adjacent
Street inclu
d walking sp
reet also con
h side, which
lk.
e Road is 2-l
e Road does
ewalks availa
Avenue is 2-
nut Avenue
ast side and c
ineers
tted grant ap
hese applicati
, south of Pa
od pedestria
walks on bo
ty of the
lude stairca
it center
for all use
Ada Street a
ks on both
d, south of A
he west side
thy Street ar
land uses o
des sidewalk
pace for resid
nnects Indus
h serves the b
lane undivid
not include
able on the e
lane undivid
provides sid
commercial r
pplications to
ions have be
alomar Stree
an circulati
oth sides of t
transit cent
se and cur
platform p
er types. I
and Anita St
sides of th
Anita Street,
that provide
re east-west
on Ada Stre
ks on both s
dents.
strial Boulev
businesses.
ded north-so
e sidewalks o
east side are
ded north-so
dewalks on b
retail establi
8
Industrial
currently d
fronting t
concerning
Elementar
There are
to provid
improvem
Street and
o complete i
een unsucces
et to Ada
ion with
the street
ter. The
rb ramps
providing
Industrial
treet does
he street.
includes
es access to t
roadways co
eet and Dor
sides of the r
vard and Fro
The north si
uth roadway
on the west
north of Ad
uth north of
both sides o
ishments on
Boulevard
does not inc
the railroad
g, given th
ry School.
planned imp
de curb, gu
ments on Indu
Palomar Str
improvemen
ssful.
the business
onnecting In
rothy Street
roadway pro
ontage Road
ide fronting
y connecting
side and fo
da Street for a
f Palomar Str
of the roadw
the west sid
Pa
N:\2
d, north o
clude a sidew
d tracks. T
e proximity
provements
utter, sidew
ustrial Boule
reet. Over th
nts on the ea
es.
ndustrial Bou
are residen
oviding good
but include
residential u
g Palomar S
or majority o
approximate
reet that term
ay that serve
de.
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
of Palomar
walk on the
This is par
y of the Ha
in Fiscal Y
walk and b
evard betwe
he past sever
ast side from
ulevard and
ntial. Ada St
d mobility an
s a sidewalk
uses does no
treet to Anit
on the east s
ely 350 feet.
minates into
e the residen
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
r Street,
east side
rticularly
arborside
Year 2012
ike lane
een Moss
ral years,
m L Street
Frontage
treet and
nd a safe
k only on
ot include
ta Street.
side. The
a cul-de-
ntial uses
LINSCOTT, LAW
Trenton A
de-sac. T
uses.
The follo
The Pa
intersecti
ramps an
crossings
the stree
intersecti
Even tho
the inter
sidewalk
intersecti
from jayw
Gas stati
quadrant
The Pa
intersecti
ADA ac
on field o
right-turn
pedestria
movemen
speeds an
Multi-Mo
by squari
The Palo
was rece
enhanced
fence to
parkways
Gateway
Incentive
with the
influence
provide
street en
W & GREENSPAN, engi
Avenue is 2
Trenton Ave
owing are the
alomar Str
ion includes
nd crosswal
s. However,
t segments,
ion currently
ough pedestr
rsection leve
ks on the s
ions are also
walking at m
on project is
.
alomar St
ion affords g
cessible cur
observations
n is current
an crossing
nts generally
nd longer c
odal Corrido
ing-up the in
omar Street/I
ntly upgrade
d crosswalk
o discourag
s as a pa
y Enhancem
e Program
Palomar Tra
e area for t
inviting, w
vironments
ineers
2-lane undiv
enue provide
e existing pe
reet/I-5 So
s adequate A
lks to help
with regard
the eastbou
y does not
rian connec
el, it must
treet segme
o provided to
mid-block lo
s proposing
treet/I-5 N
good pedest
rb ramps an
s, it was note
tly a “free”
. Pedestrian
y are not fav
rossing dist
or Study add
ntersection.
Industrial B
ed to includ
k paving, s
ge jaywalk
art of the
ment proje
(SGIP). Th
ansit Center
the PGD an
well-planned
to promote
ided north-s
es sidewalks
edestrian con
outhbound
ADA accessi
facilitate pe
ds to connec
und approac
include a s
ctivity is ade
be ensured
ents leading
o prevent pe
cations. The
street impro
Northbound
trian feature
nd crosswalk
ed that the w
” movemen
n crossings
vorable given
ances. The
dresses this d
oulevard int
e landscape
sidewalks, c
king, and
SANDAG
ect Smart
his intersecti
serves as th
nd it is imp
d, pedestria
a vibrant p
9
south north o
s on both si
nditions at th
Ramps
ible curb
edestrian
ctivity to
ch of the
sidewalk.
equate at
that the
g to/from
edestrians
e Palomar
ovements on
Ramps
s such as
ks. Based
westbound
nt with a
s at free
n the high
I-5 South
deficiency
tersection
medians,
chain-link
tree-lined
Palomar
Growth
ion along
he primary
portant to
an-friendly
pedestrian-
of Palomar
ides of the
he study area
Palomar Str
Pa
N:\2
Street that te
roadway se
a intersection
reet, west of
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
erminates in
erving the re
ns:
f I-5 at the s
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
nto a cul-
esidential
outhwest
LINSCOTT, LAW
oriented
The Palo
also serv
the neigh
its inter
intersecti
the inter
northeast
direct co
southeast
northwes
placed o
users. Th
markings
The Indu
recently u
SANDAG
Smart G
intersecti
as crossw
markers
However
street seg
sidewalk
The Indu
intersecti
connectiv
observati
Street. M
connectio
Planned I
LLG rev
existing m
Plan also
provides
following
W & GREENSPAN, engi
community
omar Street/T
ves as one of
hboring com
raction wi
ion affords c
rsection. Ho
t corner is “
onvenient ac
t corner. Ad
st corner has
on grass ma
he intersect
s on the othe
ustrial Boule
upgraded to
G Palomar
Growth Inc
ion affords d
walks (splitte
to help d
r, the interse
gment south
ks.
ustrial Boule
ion currently
vity across t
ions, it was n
MTS plans t
ons in FY 20
Improvemen
viewed the C
missing side
o includes a
High Priori
g facilities w
ineers
that encoura
Transit Cent
f the pedestr
mmercial/reta
th the tra
curb ramps
owever, the
“skewed” an
ccess with th
dditionally, t
s degraded an
aking it inc
ion includes
er legs.
evard/Ada S
include a ro
Gateway E
centive Pro
desirable pe
er islands) a
driver visib
ection is po
of Ada Stre
evard/Anita
y does not in
he rail road
noted that th
to upgrade t
012/2013.
ts – City of C
City of Chu
ewalks and c
“Needs Ass
ity Project A
within the Pa
ages people t
ter Place inte
rian generato
ail opportun
ansit cente
at all the co
e curb ramp
nd does not
he curb ram
the curb ram
nd the push-
convenient f
s a marked
treet interse
oundabout as
Enhancemen
ogram (SGI
destrian feat
and flashing
bility at n
orly connec
eet, which in
Street inters
nclude sidew
tracks from
he there were
the Anita S
Chula Vista P
ula Vista Pe
curb ramps
essment” an
Areas within
alomar Gatew
10
to walk.
ersection
ors given
nities and
er. This
orners of
p at the
t provide
mp at the
mp at the
-button is
for ADA
d crosswalk
ction was
s a part of
nt project
IP). This
tures such
crosswalk
night, etc.
cted to the
ncludes no
section form
walks on Ind
Industrial B
e truck turni
treet rail cr
Pedestrian Ma
edestrian Ma
on segment
nd based on
the City of
way District
only on th
ms the south
dustrial Bou
Boulevard to
ng issues fro
rossing to im
aster Plan
aster Plan, w
s and interse
findings from
f Chula Vista
as High Prio
Pa
N:\2
he southside
hern boundar
ulevard. Ther
o Anita Stree
om Industria
mprove road
which provi
ections resp
m this asses
a. The Maste
ority location
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
e with no c
ry of the PG
re is poor p
et. Based on
al Boulevard
dway and p
ides an inve
ectively. Th
sment, the d
er Plan iden
ns:
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
crosswalk
GD. This
edestrian
our field
d to Anita
edestrian
entory of
he Master
document
ntifies the
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
11
Rank #3: Palomar Street between Bay Boulevard to Orange Avenue
Rank #4: Industrial Boulevard between L Street and Anita Street.
In addition to the recommendations outlined in the Pedestrian Master Plan, MTS plans to upgrade
the Anita Street rail crossing to improve roadway and pedestrian connections in FY 2012/2013.
Figure 3 shows the existing pedestrian network and improvements proposed by the Pedestrian
Master Plan. Appendix B contains the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan excerpts.
Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Proposed Master Plan
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 3
5
Anita Street
Naples St
r
e
e
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Ba
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ba
y
s
h
o
r
e
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
Frontage Road
Ada Street
Dorothy Street
Pedestrian Network
Existing Sidewalk
Proposed Sidewalk
(High Priority Project*)
* Proposed by Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan (2010)
Palomar Street
O
range Avenue
Oxford Str
e
e
t
Moss Stre
e
t
MTS plans to upgrade pedestrian
crossing areas in FY 2012 / 2013
1
1
LINSCOTT, LAW
Bicycle
Existing C
The follo
Palomar
Palomar
Boulevar
Dedicate
Industria
is provid
Street an
Planned I
The City
well as
following
Figure 4
Plan. App
W & GREENSPAN, engi
Facilities
Conditions
owing sectio
Gateway Di
Street curr
rd. A Class
ed bike lanes
al Boulevard
ded between
d turns into
Improvemen
y of Chula V
future plann
g facilities w
Palomar S
bike lanes
Palomar S
bike route
Naples St
Oxford St
Industrial
route to C
4 shows the e
pendix C co
ineers
on provides
istrict.
rently afford
s III bike r
s are provide
d currently af
Palomar Str
a Class III b
ts – City of C
Vista Bicycle
ned facilitie
within the Pa
Street – Wal
s.
Street – Indu
e.
treet – Indus
treet – Indus
l Boulevard
Class II bike
existing bike
ontains the C
an existing
ds a Class
route is pro
ed at the Palo
ffords a Clas
reet and Ada
bike route.
Chula Vista B
Master Pla
es. The City
alomar Gatew
lnut Avenue
ustrial Boule
trial Boulev
strial Boulev
– L Street to
lanes.
eway networ
City of Chula
13
g conditions
II bike lan
ovided betw
omar Street/
ss III bike ro
a Street. The
Bicycle Maste
an provides a
y of Chula
way District:
e to Industri
evard to Ora
ard to Broad
vard to Broad
o Anita Stre
rk and the im
a Vista Bicyc
assessment
ne between
ween Indust
Industrial B
oute in the p
e Class II bik
er Plan
a description
a Vista Bicy
:
al Boulevard
ange Avenue
dway: Includ
dway: Includ
eet: Upgrade
mprovements
cle Master P
Pa
N:\2
t of bicycle
Walnut Av
trial Boulev
Boulevard int
project area.
ke lane term
n of existing
ycle Master
d: Maintain
e: Maintain t
de a Class III
de a Class II
e from the ex
s proposed b
Plan excerpts
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
facilities w
venue and I
vard and Br
tersection.
A Class II b
minates, sout
g bicycle fac
r Plan ident
the existing
the existing
I bike route.
II bike route.
xisting Class
by the Bicycl
s.
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
within the
Industrial
roadway.
bike lane
th of Ada
cilities as
tifies the
g Class II
Class III
.
s III bike
le Master
Existing Bicycle Facilities and Proposed Master Plan
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 4
Palomar Street
5
Anita Street
Oxford Str
e
e
t
Naples St
r
e
e
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Ba
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ba
y
s
h
o
r
e
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
Frontage Road
Ada Street
Dorothy Street
O
range Avenue
Bicycle Network
Bicycle Path (Class 1)
Bicycle Lane (Class 2)
Bicycle Route (Class 3)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
*
* Proposed by Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan (2011)
and San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan (2011)
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
15
Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
LLG also researched and identified the pedestrian and bicycle collisions in the project study area
between Year 2002 and 2007 from the California Highway Patrol – Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (2011). Based on our review, there were multiple pedestrian collisions at the
Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard intersection. This is considered a high risk location given the
at-grade trolley crossing conflicts associated with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Figure 5 presents the pedestrian and bicycle collision data.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2002 - 2007)
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 5
5
Anita Street
Oxford Str
e
e
t
Naples St
r
e
e
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Ba
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ba
y
s
h
o
r
e
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
Frontage Road
Ada Street
Dorothy Street
O
range Avenue
Palomar Street
Pedestrian Collisions
3 Collisions
2 Collisions
1 Collision
1 Collision
Bicycle Collisions
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
17
Transit Facilities
Existing Conditions
The Palomar Transit Center, located at the southeast quadrant of the Palomar Street / Industrial
Boulevard intersection, provides both regional and local transit facilities through the San Diego
Trolley Blue Line and MTS bus services, respectively.
Buses – Local transit service is provided by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) bus service. The
routes serving the transit center and the Palomar Gateway District include 701, 704, and 712. These
transit routes provide service to/from Southwestern College and the trolley station on E Street and H
Street.
Trolley Blue Line – Regional transit service to the PGD is provided by the Trolley Blue Line, which
connects the District to Downtown San Diego / Old Town to the north and to San Ysidro / Mexican
border to the south. The Blue line is considered the most heavily traveled corridor with more than
10,000 average daily boarding’s and alightings. The weekday headways are approximately between
7 and 15 minutes and the weekend headways are around 15 minutes.
Planned Improvements
Buses – The City of Chula Vista is currently working on a Federal ARRA Grant titled “Seniors,
Sidewalks and the Centennial”. This grant focuses on the needs of the senior community in western
Chula Vista. The final report will be completed in January 2012 and includes discussion on
encouraging shade structures (sun sensitivity) for bus stops that are in close proximity to senior
centers and shopping centers.
Trolley Blue Line – SANDAG and MTS are currently working on a project that upgrades the Trolley
Blue Line. The project proposes to introduce new sleek low-floor trolley cars to the region. The
project proposes to raise 33 station platforms to accommodate the easy access vehicles. The project
aims at increasing system efficiency and reliability which include level ramp boarding, eliminating
the need for mechanical lifts for people using mobility devices making operations much faster.
Additionally, in conversations with MTS, City staff have indicated an additional LRT car from the
current 3-car to 4-car LRT for the Blue Line service. The planning for this improvement is in the
preliminary stages as the trolley blocks in Downtown San Diego are currently tight and unable to
accommodate an additional LRT car. Hence to accommodate the demand, headway reductions in the
day are being considered as a short- term solution.
In the long-term, the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan includes the I-5 South Multi-Modal
Corridor Study, which analyzes a variety of conceptual alternatives for multimodal improvements
along I‐5 between State Route (SR) 54 and Main Street within the City of Chula Vista. The study
focuses on multi-modal improvements such as transit, freight rail, bicycle, and pedestrian modes
between SR-54 and Main Street.
LINSCOTT, LAW
As a par
associate
including
at the Pa
The at‐g
activities
The I-5
conducte
alignmen
separated
Palomar
were co
Palomar
for grade
trolley cr
The prop
Street, an
the regi
separatio
Constrain
practical
SANDAG
benefit to
this corri
I-5 South
track for
future fre
Based on
recomme
A new S
tracks.
Figure 6
excerpts
W & GREENSPAN, engi
rt of I-5 Sou
ed conflicts o
g Palomar St
alomar Stree
grade rail cr
s, and to the
South Mul
ed a detailed
nt alternativ
d structures
Street. Gr
onsidered as
Street, E an
e separated
rossing ranks
posed grade
nd Palomar
ional prior
on projects in
ned Plan to
alternative f
G in prelimi
o ridership i
idor to inter
h Multi-Mod
r Express Tr
eight operati
n discussion
ends freight
ANDAG M
6 shows the
from the 20
ineers
uth Multi-M
of at-grade t
treet. As the
t at‐grade ra
rossings also
general publ
lti-Modal C
d assessmen
ves which i
at E Street,
rade separa
s SANDAG
nd H as pri
crossings. P
s (#4) in this
separations
Street are al
rity list fo
n SANDAG
be complete
for improvin
inary studies
in this corrid
change carg
dal Corridor
rolley opera
ions.
ns with City
to be at-grad
MTS study is
existing tra
50 RTP and
Modal Corrid
trolley crossi
e frequency o
ail crossing d
o create pot
lic.
Corridor stu
nt of four r
include gra
, H Street a
ated structur
G has rank
ority locatio
Palomar Stre
s list.
at E Street,
lso included
or rail gra
G’s 2050 Re
ed by Year 2
ng traffic and
s, has identif
dor. In addit
go with Mex
r study evalu
ations, as we
y of Chula V
de. The proje
underway t
ansit network
I-5 South M
18
dor study, th
ings with ve
of the trolley
decreases du
tential safety
dy
rail
ade
and
res
ked
ons
eet
, H
on
ade
gional Tran
2020. Elimin
d transit oper
fied that Exp
tion to passe
xico and serv
uated alignm
ell as maint
Vista staff,
ect also reco
to determine
k and planne
Multi-Modal
he increasing
ehicular traff
y increases w
ue to the inc
y risks to ra
sportation P
nating the at
rations.
press Trolley
enger operat
ve local indu
ment alternat
taining or in
the I-5 Sou
ommends spl
e the split gr
ed improvem
Corridor Stu
Pa
N:\2
g demand fo
fic in this co
with demand
creased cros
ail workers
Plan (2050 R
t‐grade rail c
y operations
tions, freight
ustries along
tives for add
ncreasing cu
uth Multi-M
lit grades for
ade (under o
ments. Appe
udy.
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
or the Blue L
orridor was r
d, the level o
sing arm do
during mai
RTP) in the
crossings wo
s could be a
t operations
g the alignm
ding a third
urrently plan
Modal Corrid
r the light ra
or over) for
endix D con
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
Line and
reviewed,
of service
own time.
intenance
Revenue
ould be a
potential
also use
ment. The
mainline
nned and
dor study
ail tracks.
light-rail
ntains the
Existing Transit Network and Planned Improvements
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 6
5
Anita Street
Oxford Str
e
e
t
Naples St
r
e
e
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Ba
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
Ada Street
Dorothy Street
Transit Network
Blue Line Trolley
Bus Line
Palomar Street
O
range Avenue
Palomar Trolley Station
701
704
712
704
712
712
704
704
704
BLUE
LINE
BLUE
LINE
701
701
932
932
701
704
712
932
Future Express Trolley
Limited Service Bus Route
Route
Transit Center
Bus Stop
XXX
Grade Separation for Trolley
Station Retrofit to Conform
With To-Be Purchased
Low-Floor Trolley Cars
Future Express Trolley
LINSCOTT, LAW
5.0
Roadwa
Palomar
roadways
classifica
intersecti
The land
I-5 and B
Arco gas
Industria
and safe
enhanced
tree-lined
Ada Str
roadway
Circulati
currently
This east
sidewalk
allowed
uses on
residentia
of multi-
also vaca
have po
There ha
Townhom
“roundab
W & GREENSPAN, engi
MOTORIZE
ay Network
Gateway D
s in the proje
ation, physic
ion and inclu
d uses on Pal
Broadway. B
s station on
al Boulevard
ty improvem
d paving at t
d parkways,
reet is an
in the
on Plan –
y constructe
t-west stree
ks, curbs an
on both side
Ada Stree
al developm
- and single
ant and und
otential for
as been sig
mes (18 uni
bout” was re
ineers
D TRAVEL
istrict is reg
ect study are
cal characteri
udes an at-gr
lomar Street
Between I-5 a
the north s
d, the primar
ments in th
the intersect
including bi
unclassifie
City of C
– West. Ad
d as a 2-la
t is fully im
d gutters an
es of the str
et include
ments consist
e-family uni
derutilized p
additional
gnificant ne
its) and Trol
ecently cons
CONDITION
gionally acce
ea are descri
istics and ad
rade rail-roa
t include a v
and Industria
side, Paloma
ry land uses
his area hav
tion of Palom
ike lanes alo
ed east-we
Chula Vist
da Street
ane roadway
mproved wit
nd parking
reet. The lan
several ne
ting of a m
its. There a
parcels, whic
developmen
ew developm
lley Trestle
structed at t
20
NS
essed via Int
ibed briefly b
djacent land u
Palomar
Arterial
Chula V
is curren
the I-5 r
ramps an
between
speed lim
Palomar
quadrant
ad crossing a
variety of co
al Boulevard
ar Inn on th
s on Palomar
ve been com
mar Street a
ong Palomar
st
ta
is
y.
th
is
nd
ew
mix
are
ch
nt.
ment along
Apartments
the Ada Stre
terstate 5 an
below. The d
uses.
Street is
between I-5
ista Circulat
ntly construc
ramps, 5-lan
nd Walnut A
Walnut Av
mit is 35 mp
Transit Ce
t of the Palom
at this interse
ommercial an
d, the land u
he south sid
r Street are
mpleted, con
and Industria
and Industri
Ada Street
s (11 units).
eet/Industria
Pa
N:\2
nd Palomar
description i
classified
5 and Broad
tion Plan – W
cted as a 4-la
ne roadway
Avenue, and
enue and Br
ph and parkin
enter is loca
mar Street /
ection.
nd retail esta
uses on Palom
de and other
commercial
nsisting of l
al Boulevard
ial Boulevar
t such as t
As a part
al Boulevard
LLG R
alomar Gateway M
2023\Report\2023 report
Street. The
includes the
as a 6-lan
dway in the
West. Palom
ane roadway
between the
as a 6-lane
roadway. Th
ng is prohib
ated at the s
Industrial B
ablishments
mar Street in
r retail uses
l/retail. Rece
landscaped
d, and sidew
rd.
the Trolley
of calming
d intersectio
ef. 3-11-2023
Mobility Study
t_April 2012.docx
principal
roadway
ne Major
e City of
mar Street
y between
e I-5 NB
roadway
he posted
ited. The
southeast
Boulevard
between
nclude an
. East of
ent street
medians,
walks and
Terrace
traffic, a
on. These
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
21
improvements were part of the $2.1 million SANDAG Palomar Gateway Enhancement project
Smart Growth Improvement Program (SGIP).
Dorothy Street is an unclassified east-west roadway in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan –
West. Dorothy Street is currently constructed as a 2-lane undivided roadway connecting Frontage
Road to Industrial Boulevard. The adjacent land uses on Dorothy Street are residential units.
Industrial Boulevard is an unclassified north-south roadway in the City of Chula Vista Circulation
Plan – West. Industrial Boulevard is currently constructed as a 2-lane roadway north and south of
Palomar Street. Industrial Boulevard, north of Palomar Street, includes residential land uses on the
west side bounded by the railroad tracks on the east. The speed limit on Industrial Boulevard is 40
mph.
Walnut Avenue is an unclassified north-south roadway in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan –
West. Walnut Avenue, a 2-lane undivided roadway is currently built only on the north side of
Palomar Street terminating into a cul-de-sac. Walnut Avenue is characterized by a mixture of uses,
including residential, commercial, and industrial. Current uses include retail stores, an Arco gas
station, auto towing and storage yard, the Palomar Motel, office building, and residences north of
Palomar Street.
Frontage Road is an unclassified 2-lane undivided roadway and constitutes an extension of Anita
Street at the southerly end, as it extends along the western edge of the district parallel to I-5, and
connects to Palomar Street at the northerly-end. It is a narrow street without street improvements; an
asphalt curb serves as edge between the street and private property. Frontage Road provides access
to the industrial uses at the corner of Anita Street, and residential properties that front it.
Trenton Avenue is an unclassified north-south roadway in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan –
West. Trenton Avenue, a 2-lane undivided roadway is currently built on the north side of Palomar
Street terminating into a cul-de-sac. The adjacent land uses are residential.
Anita Street is an unclassified 2-lane undivided roadway and serves as interface between residential
uses on the north and commercial/industrial uses on the south side of the street. The north side is
predominantly residential, except for industrial development on the most westerly lot, adjacent to
I-5. There are no sidewalks, curbs, gutters on the north side of the street. Anita Street has an at-grade
rail crossing but pedestrian facilities across the rail tracks were observed to be deficient. MTS plans
to upgrade the Anita Street rail crossing to improve roadway and pedestrian connections in FY
2012/2013.
Traffic Volumes
Weekday peak hour intersection and bi-directional daily traffic counts on the street segments were
collected from several sources including City of Chula Vista counts, the Olson Bayvista Walk Traffic
Impact Study, and the Palomar Gas and Carwash Traffic Study. The sources contained counts
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
22
dating from 2005 to present. LLG conducted a count validation using a recent 2011 count at the
Industrial Boulevard/ Palomar Street intersection.
Comparing traffic volumes for every movement at this intersection, the 2005 count was found to be
generally higher than the 2011 count for both the AM and PM peak periods. As such, the 2005
counts for the study intersections were validated and used in this study. It was also decided to use the
recent 2011 count data at the Industrial Boulevard/ Palomar Street intersection since this represents
the most current data for one of the most critical intersections in this study. Slight adjustments were
made to balance the 2011 counts with the 2005 counts at the adjacent intersections. As a part of the
adjustments, the traffic volumes were always increased to be conservative.
Figure 7 contains the existing roadway conditions and traffic volumes. The traffic count data
validation worksheet is contained in Appendix E.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
24
Existing Operations
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study intersections under Existing conditions.
Table 2 and Appendix F report the intersection operations during peak hour conditions. Table 2
includes delays at the Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard intersection with the trolley crossing. All
intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of:
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street—LOS F–AM and PM peak periods
To confirm existing traffic operations, LLG conducted field visits at the project site. The intersection
operation at Walnut Avenue/ Palomar Street was validated as the intersection is currently
unsignalized and vehicles on Walnut Avenue experience excessive delay as they wait for gap on 6-
lane Palomar Street. Further excessive queues were also observed on Palomar Street during trolley
crossings, especially during disabled loading/ unloading maneuvers. To account for trolley delays, a
delay factor was developed and added to the overall intersection delay. Appendix G contains a
detailed description of this methodology.
TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing
Delaya LOSb
1. Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street TWSCc AM >100 F
PM >100 F
2. Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street
(at-grade trolley) Signal
AM 39.8e D
PM 44.4e D
3. Transit Center Place / Palomar Street Signal AM 10.3 B
PM 22.8 C
4. Trolley Center / Palomar Street Signal AM 8.0 A
PM 13.4 B
5. Broadway / Palomar Street Signal AM 22.5 C
PM 27.3 C
6. Ada Street / Industrial Boulevard Roundabout AM 0.18d A
PM 0.33d A
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. TWSC – Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection. Minor street left-turn
delays reported.
d. Synchro does not present vehicular delays at roundabouts. Therefore,
maximum volume to capacity ratio is reported.
e. 24 seconds of delay added to account for the trolley crossings at this
intersection. Appendix G contains further explanation of this
methodology.
SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
25
Existing street segment analyses were conducted for roadways in the study area. Table 3 reports
existing street segment operations on a daily basis.
During the arrival of the trolley, the gate closure time affects intersection capacity and thereby
reduces the street segment throughput. Hence, to account for trolley delays, the street segment
capacities on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard were reduced by 10%.
As seen in Table 3 all street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception
of Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue, which is calculated to operate at LOS E.
TABLE 3
EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Functional
Classification
Capacity
(LOS C)a ADTb V/C c LOS d
Palomar Street
I-5 to Walnut Avenue 5-Lane Major 35,000 41,000 1.171 E
Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard
(at-grade trolley 6-Lane Major 36,000e 39,000 1.083 D
Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Pl.
(at-grade trolley) 6-Lane Major 36,000e 39,200 1.089 D
Transit Center Pl. to Trolley Center 6-Lane Major 40,000 34,900 0.872 B
Trolley Center to Broadway 6-Lane Major 40,000 37,000 0.925 C
Industrial Boulevardf
North of Palomar Street
(at-grade trolley) 2-Lane Collector 10,500e 5,380 0.512 A
Palomar Street to Ada Street
(at-grade trolley) 2-Lane Collector 10,500e 6,340 0.603 A
Ada Street to Anita Street 2-Lane Collector 12,000 5,900 0.491 A
Footnotes:
a. Capacity based on City of Chula Vista’s roadway classification operating at LOS C shown in Appendix H.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Volume to Capacity.
d. Level of Service.
e. To account for the at-grade trolley crossing, segment capacity has been reduced by 10% .
f. Industrial Boulevard analyzed using the Class II Collector roadway classification.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
26
Significance Criteria
Traffic impacts will be defined as either project specific impacts or cumulative impacts. Project
specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition of project trips results in an identifiable
degradation in level of service on roadway facilities, triggering the need for specific project-related
improvement strategies. Cumulative impacts are those in which the project trips contribute to a poor
level of service, at a nominal level.
Criteria for determining whether the project results in either project specific or cumulative impacts
on roadway segments, or intersections are as follows:
Short-Term (Study Horizon Year 0 To 4)
For purposes of the short-term analysis roadway sections may be defined as either links or segments.
A link is typically that section of roadway between two adjacent Circulation Element intersections
and a segment is defined as that combination of contiguous links used in the Growth Management
Plan Traffic Monitoring Program. Analysis of roadway links under short-term conditions may
require a more detailed analysis using the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
methodology if the typical planning analysis using volume to capacity ratios on an individual link
indicates a potential impact to that link. The GMOC analysis uses the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) methodology of average travel speed based on actual measurements on the segments as
listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program.
Intersections
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
If the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio indicates LOS C or better, there is no
impact. If the planning analysis indicates LOS D, E or F, the GMOC method may be utilized. The
following criteria would then be utilized.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F for 1 hour (GMOC
method only)
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume
iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS
E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant
since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street
segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of
intersection LOS.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
27
Long-Term (Study Horizon Year 5 And Later)
Intersections
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
Use the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio methodology only. The GMOC analysis
methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of total segment volume.
iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS
E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant
since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street
segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of
intersection LOS.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above occurs at study horizon
year 10 or later, and is offsite and not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered cumulative.
Study year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13 years in the
future. Study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year 2010 and would be
8 years in the future. If the model year is less than 7 years in the future, study horizon year 10 would
be 13 years in the future.
In the event a project specific impact is identified per paragraph a. above at study horizon year 5 or
earlier and the impact is offsite and not adjacent to this project, but the property immediately
adjacent to the identified project specific impact is also proposed to be developed in approximately
the same time frame, an additional analysis may be required to determine whether or not the
identified project specific impact would still occur if the development of the adjacent property does
not take place. If the additional analysis concludes that the identified project specific impact is no
longer a project specific impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
28
Trip Generation
LLG reviewed the market absorption study for the Palomar Gateway District for land use types,
densities and location. LLG coordinated with City staff to validate this information and developed
the following trip generation table based on the prescribed land use type and densities.
Table 4 summarizes the trip generation for the project. The PGD offers mixed-use and transit
opportunities with planned pedestrian, bicycle connectivity and the adjacent Palomar Transit Center.
Mixed-use and transit adjustments were applied, where applicable and without deviation, per the
SANDAG Trip Generation Rates. Considering the project site is planned to be located within a dense
suburban setting with many modal choices available, such an approach is considered conservative.
The Palomar Gateway District is subdivided into the following 4 sub-districts:
MU–1: Palomar Transit Plaza / Transit Focus Area
MU–2: Mixed-Use Corridor
PRV: Palomar Residential Village/ Residential High
PNRC: Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster / Commercial Retail
Section 2.0 includes a discussion of these land uses. Figure 8 illustrates the project traffic volumes.
LIN
S
C
O
T
T
, LAW
& GRE
E
N
S
P
A
N
,
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
LL
G
R
e
f
.
3
-
1
1
-
2
0
2
3
Pa
l
o
m
a
r
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
N:
\
2
0
2
3
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
2
0
2
3
r
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
29
TAB
L
E
4
PAL
O
M
A
R
GAT
E
W
A
Y
TRI
P
GEN
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
Su
b
-
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
/
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
Tr
i
p
R
a
t
e
b A
D
T
c
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
%
o
f
AD
T
In
:
O
u
t
Sp
l
i
t
Vo
l
u
m
e
%
o
f
AD
T
In
:
O
u
t
Sp
l
i
t
Vo
l
u
m
e
In
O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
In
O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
MU
–
1
:
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
P
l
a
z
a
/
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
F
o
c
u
s
A
r
e
a
(
3
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
15
0
D
U
8
/
D
U
1
,
2
0
0
8
%
2
0
:
8
0
1
9
7
7
9
6
1
0
%
7
0
:
3
0
8
4
3
6
1
2
0
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
30
1
2
3
2
1
3
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
1,
1
7
0
1
8
7
5
9
3
8
2
3
5
1
1
7
Re
t
a
i
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
10
,
0
0
0
S
F
4
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
S
F
4
0
0
3
%
6
0
:
4
0
7
5
1
2
9
%
5
0
:
5
0
1
8
1
8
3
6
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
60
1
1
2
2
3
5
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
34
0
6
4
1
0
1
6
1
5
3
1
Of
f
i
c
e
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
5,
0
0
0
S
F
2
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
S
F
1
0
0
1
4
%
9
0
:
1
0
1
3
1
1
4
1
3
%
2
0
:
8
0
3
1
0
1
3
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
10
1
0
1
0
1
1
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
90
1
2
1
1
3
3
9
1
2
MU
–
2
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
(
3
1
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
45
0
D
U
8
/
D
U
3
,
6
0
0
8
%
2
0
:
8
0
5
8
2
3
0
2
8
8
1
0
%
7
0
:
3
0
2
5
2
1
0
8
3
6
0
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
11
0
2
7
9
8
3
1
1
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
3,
4
9
0
5
6
2
2
3
2
7
9
2
4
4
1
0
5
3
4
9
Re
t
a
i
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
85
,
0
0
0
S
F
d
4
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
S
F
3
,
4
0
0
3
%
6
0
:
4
0
6
1
4
1
1
0
2
9
%
5
0
:
5
0
1
5
3
1
5
3
3
0
6
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
51
0
9
6
1
5
2
3
2
3
4
6
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
2,
8
9
0
5
2
3
5
8
7
1
3
0
1
3
0
2
6
0
Of
f
i
c
e
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
40
,
0
0
0
S
F
2
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
S
F
8
0
0
1
4
%
9
0
:
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
%
2
0
:
8
0
2
1
8
3
1
0
4
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
30
4
0
4
1
3
4
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
77
0
9
7
1
1
1
0
8
2
0
8
0
1
0
0
PR
V
:
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
H
i
g
h
(
4
3
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
70
0
D
U
8
/
D
U
5
,
6
0
0
8
%
2
0
:
8
0
9
0
3
5
8
4
4
8
1
0
%
7
0
:
3
0
3
9
2
1
6
8
5
6
0
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
16
0
3
1
0
1
3
1
1
5
1
6
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
5,
4
4
0
8
7
3
4
8
4
3
5
3
8
1
1
6
3
5
4
4
PN
R
C
:
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
C
l
u
s
te
r
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
(
1
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
)
Re
t
a
i
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
5,
0
0
0
S
F
4
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
S
F
2
0
0
3
%
6
0
:
4
0
4
2
6
9
%
5
0
:
5
0
9
9
1
8
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
30
1
0
1
2
1
3
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
17
0
3
2
5
7
8
1
5
Of
f
i
c
e
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
5,
0
0
0
S
F
2
0
/
1
,
0
0
0
S
F
1
0
0
1
4
%
9
0
:
1
0
1
3
1
1
4
1
3
%
2
0
:
8
0
3
1
0
1
3
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
10
1
0
1
1
0
1
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
90
1
2
1
3
2
1
0
1
2
Fl
o
a
t
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
(
5
a
c
r
e
s
)
Ac
t
i
v
e
P
a
r
k
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
5
A
c
r
e
s
5
0
/
A
c
r
e
2
5
0
1
3
%
5
0
:
5
0
1
6
1
6
3
2
9
%
5
0
:
5
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
Pa
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
10
1
0
1
0
1
1
Ne
t
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
24
0
1
5
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
To
t
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
15
,
6
5
0
38
2
74
2
1,
1
2
4
94
6
60
7
1,
5
5
3
To
t
a
l
P
a
s
s
-
b
y
T
r
i
p
s
96
0
24
26
50
50
41
91
To
t
a
l
N
e
t
N
e
w
T
r
i
p
s
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
i
p
s
)
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
14
,
6
9
0
35
8
71
6
1,
0
7
4
89
6
56
6
1,
4
6
2
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
C
r
e
d
i
t
(
5
%
)
7
4
0
18
3
6
5
4
45
2
8
7
3
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
(
1
0
%
)
1
,
4
0
0
36
7
2
1
0
8
90
5
7
1
4
7
To
t
a
l
N
e
t
N
e
w
T
r
i
p
s
12
,
5
5
0
30
4
60
8
91
2
76
1
48
1
1,
2
4
2
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
s
:
a.
La
n
d
u
s
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
h
u
l
a
V
i
s
t
a
.
T
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
o
n
l
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
e
x
is
t
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
.
b.
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
SA
N
D
A
G
N
o
t
S
o
B
r
i
e
f
G
u
i
d
e
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
s
,
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
0
2
.
c.
AD
T
’
s
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
1
0
.
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
t
r
i
p
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
r
i
p
s
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
/
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
.
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
r
i
p
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
ne
t
n
e
w
t
r
i
p
s
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
s
u
b
s
e
t
of
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
t
r
i
p
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
S
A
N
D
A
G
r
a
t
e
s
.
A
p
a
s
s
-
b
y
r
a
t
e
o
f
3
%
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
1
5
%
f
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
l
,
4
%
f
o
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
6
%
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
s
w
as
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
n
e
t
n
e
w
t
r
i
p
s
.
d.
A
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
m
a
y
b
e
s
u
b
s
ti
t
u
t
e
d
b
y
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
/
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
2
4
t
r
i
p
s
p
e
r
1
0
0
0
S
F
.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
31
Existing + Project Operations
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study intersections under Existing + Project
conditions. Figure 8 illustrates the Existing + Project traffic volumes. Table 5 and Appendix F
report the intersection operations during peak hour conditions. All intersections are calculated to
operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the following:
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street—LOS F–AM and PM peak periods
Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street—LOS E–PM peak period
Based on City of Chula Vista’s significance criteria, significant project specific impacts are
identified at both these intersections.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
32
TABLE 5
EXISTING + PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Existing + Project Impact Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Δ f
1. Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street
AM >100 F >100 F 615
22.5%
Project
Specific
PM >100 F >100 F 826
19.8%
Project
Specific
2. Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street
(at-grade trolley)
AM 39.8 e D 45.2 e D 388
16.0% None
PM 44.4 e D 57.7 e E 541
14.5%
Project
Specific
3. Transit Center Place / Palomar Street
AM 10.3 B 14.5 B 407
18.9% None
PM 22.8 C 26.9 C 551
15.7% None
4. Trolley Center / Palomar Street
AM 7.4 A 7.8 A 257
13.9% None
PM 13.4 B 15.1 B 349
11.6% None
5. Broadway / Palomar Street
AM 22.5 C 23.5 C 259
8.7% None
PM 27.3 C 29.3 C 352
7.7% None
6. Ada Street / Industrial Boulevardd
AM 0.18d A 0.23d A 148
24.6% None
PM 0.33d A 0.34 d A 201
23.5% None
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. TWSC – Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection. Minor street left-turn delays reported.
d. Synchro does not present vehicular delays at roundabouts. Therefore, maximum volume
to capacity ratio is reported.
e. 24 seconds of delay added to account for the trolley crossings at this intersection.
Appendix G contains further explanation of this methodology.
f. “Δ” denotes the project-induced increase in trips entering the intersection (X% = percentage of total entering trips comprised of project trips)
Existing + Project Street segment analyses were conducted for the roadways in the study area. Table
6 reports the existing + project street segment operations on a daily basis. As seen in Table 6, the
following street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D, E or F:
Palomar Street: I-5 to Walnut Avenue —LOS F
Palomar Street: Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
Palomar Street: Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
33
Based on City of Chula Vista’s significance criteria, significant project specific impacts are
identified at all of the above street segments.
TABLE 6
EXISTING + PROJECT STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Capacity
(LOS C)a
Existing Existing + Project Impact
ADTb V/C c LOS d ADT V/C LOS Δ g
Palomar Street
I-5 to Walnut Avenue 35,000 41,000 1.171 E 47,903 1.369 F 6,903
14.4%
Project
Specific
Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 e 39,000 1.083 D 44,020 1.223 E 5,020
11.4%
Project
Specific
Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Pl.
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 e 39,200 1.089 D 42,212 1.173 E 3,012
7.1%
Project
Specific
Transit Center Pl. to Trolley Center 40,000 34,900 0.872 B 38,414 0.953 C 3,514
9.1% None
Trolley Center to Broadway 40,000 37,000 0.925 C 40,514 1.013 D 3,514
8.7% Noneh
Industrial Boulevard f
North of Palomar Street
(at-grade trolley) 10,500 e 5,380 0.512 A 6,635 0.632 A 1,255
18.9% None
Palomar Street to Ada Street
(at-grade trolley) 10,500 e 6,340 0.603 A 8,348 0.795 B 2,008
24.1% None
Ada Street to Anita Street 12,000 5,900 0.491 A 7,281 0.607 A 1,381
19.0% None
Footnotes:
a. Capacity based on City of Chula Vista’s roadway classification operating at LOS C shown in Appendix H.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Volume to Capacity.
d. Level of Service.
e. To account for the at-grade trolley crossing, segment capacity has been reduced by 10%.
f. Industrial Boulevard analyzed using the Class II Collector roadway classification.
g. “Δ” denotes the project-induced ADT increase (X% = the percentage of total ADT comprised of project trips)
h. No impact is calculated on this segment as the intersections adjacent to this segment are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
35
Year 2020 Traffic Volumes and Operations
The future transportation analyses were conducted for two horizon years, Year 2020 and Year 2030.
The following section discusses the traffic forecast volumes and traffic operations for each scenario.
The recommendations are provided at the end these sections.
To develop Year 2020 volumes, the Year 2030 volumes were derived from the SANDAG Southbay
traffic model (Baseline scenario). Year 2020 traffic volumes were then interpolated and developed
based on existing and Year 2030 traffic volumes. The growth factor calculations are attached in
Appendix I.
Based on the interpolated forecast ADT volumes, the Year 2020 peak hour volumes were calculated
based on the existing relationship between ADT and peak hour volumes. The forecast volumes were
also checked for consistency between intersections, where no driveways or roadways exist between
intersections, and were compared to existing volumes for accuracy.
The forecast volumes were also checked for growth progression in comparison to Existing and
Existing + Project traffic volumes. The near-term project traffic volumes assignment was conducted
manually and does not fully take into account the synergies between the different land uses and the
benefit of the adjacent Palomar Transit Center. By way of comparison, the forecast volumes were
developed based on a traffic model that provides trip matching based on various inputs such as
population, land uses, roadway network etc. and accounts for the mixed use and transit interaction
between the different uses. Therefore, some of the traffic volumes in the Existing + project traffic
volume may be calculated to be higher than the forecast volumes. This approach results in a
conservative near-term analysis.All future scenarios assumed 100% build-out of PGD’s prescribed
land uses. Figure 10 contains the Year 2020 forecast traffic volumes.
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study intersections under Year 2020
conditions. Table 7 reports the intersection operations during peak hour conditions. Appendix J
contains the calculation sheets. All intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the
exception of:
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street—LOS F–AM and PM peak periods
Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street (at-grade trolley)—LOS E–PM peak period
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
36
SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F
TABLE 7
YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Year 2020
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS
1. Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street AM >100 F >100 F
PM >100 F >100 F
2. Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street
(grade-separated trolley)
AM 15.8 B 20.2 C
PM 20.4 C 32.2 C
(at-grade trolley)c AM 39.8 D 50.2 D
PM 44.4 D 62.2 E
3. Transit Center Place / Palomar Street AM 10.3 B 11.4 B
PM 22.8 C 22.9 C
4. Trolley Center / Palomar Street AM 8.0 A 9.6 A
PM 13.4 B 14.6 B
5. Broadway / Palomar Street AM 22.5 C 23.4 C
PM 27.3 C 29.6 C
6. Ada Street / Industrial Boulevardd AM 0.18d A 0.23d A
PM 0.33d A 0.35d A
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. 24 and 30 seconds of delay added to the existing
and Year 2020 scenarios, respectively, to
account for the trolley crossing which occurs at
this intersection. Appendix G contains further
explanation of this methodology.
d. Synchro does not present vehicular delays at
roundabouts. Therefore, maximum volume to
capacity ratio is reported.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
37
Street segment analyses were conducted for roadways in the study area for the Year 2020 scenario.
Table 8 reports Year 2020 street segment operations on a daily basis. As seen in Table 8, all street
segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following:
Palomar Street: Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
Palomar Street: Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
Due to the conflicts of at-grade trolley with vehicular traffic in this corridor, poor street segment
operations are calculated in the Year 2020. As trolley and vehicular traffic demands increase with
time, operations on Palomar Street will continue to degrade.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
38
TABLE 8
YEAR 2020 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment
Buildout
Capacity
(LOS C)a
Existing Year 2020
ADTb V/C c LOS d ADT V/C LOS
Palomar Street
I-5 to Walnut Avenue 40,000e 41,000 1.171 E 44,000 1.100 D
Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard
(grade-separated trolley) 40,000 39,000 0.975 C 42,000 1.050 D
(at-grade trolley) 36,000e 39,000 1.083 D 42,000 1.200 E
Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Pl.
(grade-separated trolley) 40,000 39,200 0.980 C 42,250 1.056 D
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 39,200 1.089 D 42,250 1.207 E
Transit Center Pl. to Trolley Center 40,000 34,900 0.872 B 36,600 0.915 C
Trolley Center to Broadway 40,000 37,000 0.925 C 38,750 0.968 C
Industrial Boulevard
North of Palomar Street
(grade-separated trolley) 12,000g 5,380 0.448 A 9,640 0.803 B
(at-grade trolley) 10,500 5,380 0.512 A 9,640 0.918 C
Palomar Street to Ada Street
(grade-separated trolley) 12,000g 6,340 0.528 A 8,670 0.722 A
(at-grade trolley) 10,500 6,340 0.603 A 8,670 0.825 B
Ada Street to Anita Street 12,000f 5,900 0.491 A 8,450 0.704 A
Footnotes:
a. Roadway classifications based on City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan West. Roadway capacities based on City of Chula Vista Roadway
Classification Table shown in Appendix H.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue classified as a 6-lane Major in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan West.
f. For at-grade crossings, segment capacity has been reduced by 10% to account for trolley crossing delay.
g. Industrial Boulevard analyzed using the Class II Collector roadway classification thresholds.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
40
Year 2030 Traffic Volumes & Operations
Year 2030 traffic volumes were developed based on a SANDAG Southbay traffic model (Baseline
scenario) for Chula Vista. The South bay model was reviewed and verified to include the build-out
of the PGD. The Southbay model includes Year 2030 average daily traffic volumes (ADT’s). The
forecast ADT volumes were then used to calculate peak hour volumes based on the existing
relationship between ADT and peak hour volumes. The forecast volumes were also checked for
consistency between intersections, where no driveways or roadways exist between intersections, and
were compared to existing volumes for accuracy.
All future scenarios assumed 100% build-out of PGD’s prescribed land uses. Figure 11 contains the
Year 2030 forecast traffic volumes.
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study intersections under Year 2030
conditions. Table 9 reports the intersection operations during peak hour conditions. Appendix K
contains the calculation sheets. All intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the
exception of:
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street—LOS F–AM and PM peak periods
Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street (at-grade trolley)—LOS E–AM and PM peak
periods
As shown in the table below, with the grade-separated trolley alternative, the Industrial Boulevard/
Palomar Street intersection is calculated to operate at LOS D or better. The grade-separated
alternative removes vehicle-trolley conflicts thereby improving vehicular delay and traffic operations
on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
41
SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F
TABLE 9
YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Year 2020 Year 2030
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street AM >100 F >100 F >100 F
PM >100 F >100 F >100 F
2. Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street
(grade-separated trolley)
AM 15.8 B 20.2 C 26.9 C
PM 20.4 C 32.2 C 40.9 D
(at-grade trolley)c AM 39.8 D 50.2 D 62.9 E
PM 44.4 D 62.2 E 76.9 E
3. Transit Center Place / Palomar Street AM 10.3 B 11.4 B 12.2 B
PM 22.8 C 22.9 C 22.9 C
4. Trolley Center / Palomar Street AM 8.0 A 9.6 A 11.5 B
PM 13.4 B 14.6 B 15.9 B
5. Broadway / Palomar Street AM 22.5 C 23.4 C 25.4 C
PM 27.3 C 29.6 C 33.8 C
6. Ada Street / Industrial Boulevard AM 0.18d A 0.23d A 0.28d A
PM 0.33d A 0.35d A 0.42d B
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. 24, 30 and 36 seconds of delay added to the existing, Year 2020
and Year 2030 scenarios, respectively, to account for the trolley
crossing which occurs at this intersection. Appendix G contains
further explanation of this methodology.
d. Maximum v/c ratio reported.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
42
Street segment analyses were conducted for roadways in the study area for the Year 2030 scenario.
Table 10 reports existing street segment operations on a daily basis. As seen in Table 10, the
following street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E or F:
Palomar Street: I-5 to Walnut Avenue —LOS E
Palomar Street: Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
Palomar Street: Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (grade-separated and at-
grade trolley) —LOS E/ F
Industrial Boulevard: North of Palomar Street (grade-separated and at-grade trolley) —
LOS E/F respectively.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
43
TABLE 10
YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment
Buildout
Capacity
(LOS C) a
Existing Year 2020 Year 2030
ADTb V/C c LOS d ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
Palomar Street
I-5 to Walnut Ave 40,000 e 41,000 1.171 E 44,000 1.100 D 47,000 1.175 E
Walnut Ave to Industrial Blvd
(grade-separated trolley) 40,000 39,000 0.975 C 42,000 1.050 D 45,000 1.125 D
(at-grade trolley) 36,000f 39,000 1.083 D 42,000 1.200 E 45,000 1.285 E
Industrial Blvd to Transit
Center Place
(grade-separated trolley)
40,000 39,200 0.980 C 42,250 1.056 D 45,300 1.132 E
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 39,200 1.089 D 42,250 1.207 E 45,300 1.294 F
Transit Center Place to
Trolley Center 40,000 34,900 0.872 B 36,600 0.915 C 38,300 0.957 C
Trolley Center to Broadway 40,000 37,000 0.925 C 38,750 0.968 C 40,500 1.012 D
Industrial Boulevard
North of Palomar Street
(grade-separated trolley) 12,000g 5,380 0.448 A 9,640 0.803 B 13,900 1.158 E
(at-grade trolley) 10,500 5,380 0.512 A 9,640 0.918 C 13,900 1.323 F
Palomar Street to Ada Street
(grade-separated trolley) 12,000g 6,340 0.528 A 8,670 0.722 A 11,000 0.916 C
(at-grade trolley) 10,500 6,340 0.603 A 8,670 0.825 B 11,000 1.047 D
Ada Street to Anita Street 12,000g 5,900 0.491 A 8,450 0.704 A 11,000 0.916 C
Footnotes:
a. Roadway classifications based on City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan West. Roadway capacities based on City of Chula Vista Roadway Classification Table
shown in Appendix H.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue classified as a 6-lane Major in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan West.
f. For at-grade crossings, segment capacity has been reduced by 10% to account for trolley crossing delay.
g. Industrial Boulevard analyzed using the Class II Collector roadway classification thresholds.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
45
Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
CEQA mandates the assessment of existing (ground) conditions with Project build-out conditions.
Thus, the Existing + Project analysis presumes the existing environment (existing traffic volumes,
existing roadway infrastructure, and existing land uses) plus full build out of the Project
immediately. A long-range development project such as the Palomar Gateway Specific Plan is not
anticipated to reach full build-out until after the Year 2030. Notwithstanding, an Existing + Project
analysis has been conducted and the results of the analysis are presented in this section.
Analysis of the study area intersections and street segments under Existing + Project conditions
revealed significant impacts at several facilities operating at LOS E or F. The following section
discusses the significant impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The analysis below
presents the results with the mitigation measures in place to meet CEQA requirements.
Significant Impacts
The following significant intersection impacts are identified:
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street—LOS F–AM and PM peak periods
Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street—LOS E–PM peak period
The following significant segment impacts are identified:
Palomar Street: I-5 to Walnut Avenue —LOS F
Palomar Street: Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
Palomar Street: Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (at-grade trolley) —LOS E
Intersection Mitigation Measures
Table 11 summarizes the deficient intersection operations with the mitigation measures in place.
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street: To achieve an acceptable level of service, it is recommended to
provide a raised median across the intersection and reconfigure Walnut Avenue to allow right-in /
right-out movements only. This improvement is recommended to enhance safety by restricting minor
street left-turn movements from Walnut Avenue across high-speed multiple-lanes of traffic on
Palomar Street. Pedestrians would be restricted to cross north-south and would utilize the/ Palomar
Street intersection to cross Palomar Street.
As left-turns movements are proposed to be restricted at Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection,
EB vehicles on Palomar Street intending to turn left at Walnut Avenue will need to make u-turns at
the Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard intersection. Similar westbound left-turning vehicles to
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
46
Walnut Avenue would be required to make a left-turn at the Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard
intersection and turn right on Ada Street.
Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street: To achieve an acceptable level of service, the following
mitigation measures are proposed:
Grade-separate the light-rail trolley rail crossing to improve automobile operations. This
would result in no additional vehicular delay during a trolley crossing. With the grade-
separation, the intersection is calculated to operate at LOS D or better. Grade-separation
would also eliminate vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with the trolley.
Change the left-turn lane signal phasing from permitted-protected to protected at all
approaches to improve safety.
TABLE 11
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
Intersection Peak
Period
Existing Existing +
Project
Existing +
Project with
Mitigation Improvements
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Walnut Avenue /
Palomar Street
AM >100.0 F >100.0 F 15.6 C Reconfigure
intersection to
provide right-
in/right-out only PM >100.0 F >100.0 F 26.3 D
2. Industrial
Boulevard /
Palomar Street
AM 39.8 D 45.2 D 34.9 C Trolley grade-
separation and
protected phasing PM 44.4 D 57.7 E 53.0 D
Footnotes:
a. Delay – measured in seconds.
b. LOS – Level of Service.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
47
Street Segment Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed to achieve an acceptable level of service on the
significant street segments in the study area. Table 12 shows the street segment operations with the
mitigation measures in place.
Palomar Street – I-5 to Walnut Avenue: With the addition of the Palomar Gateway Specific Plan,
this segment is calculated to operate at LOS F analyzing Palomar Street under its current
configuration as a 5-lane Major Street. A long-range development Project such as the Palomar
Gateway Specific Plan is not anticipated to reach full build-out until after the Year 2030, at which
(according to the City of Chula Vista General Plan) Palomar Street is expected to be built to 6-lanes
with the project. A reasonable scenario would be to assume Palomar Street as a 6-lane Major Street
for which LOS E operations would be calculated.
Based on the above and discussions with the City staff, with the addition of the project, LOS E
operations on Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue are accepted due to the following:
To enhance segment capacity and improve safety on Palomar Street, the study proposes
providing a raised median across the Walnut Avenue/ Palomar Street intersection. This
mitigation measure is proposed to achieve an acceptable level of service and also enhance
safety by restricting minor street left-turn movements from Walnut Avenue across
multiple-lanes of traffic on Palomar Street. Reconfigure Walnut Avenue to a right-in /
right-out configuration.
The Palomar Street interchange ranks high among the improvements needed for I-5
interchanges in Chula Vista based on traffic volumes and levels of service as identified in
the 2050 RTP. Caltrans, SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista have completed the I-5
South Multimodal Corridor Study, which identifies an overcrossing with additional lanes.
This study proposes improvements to achieve LOS C at the I-5 ramp intersections on
Palomar Street. Since intersection operations influence segment capacity, the I-5
improvements will enhance segment operations on Palomar Street between I-5 and
Walnut Avenue.
The proposed trolley grade separation on Palomar Street is included on the regional
priority list for rail grade separation projects in SANDAG’s 2050 Regional
Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) in the Revenue Constrained Plan to be completed by
Year 2020. Eliminating the at‐grade trolley rail crossings would be a practical alternative
for improving traffic and transit operations, thereby improving queuing and segment
capacity on Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue. The freight rail will be
maintained at-grade.
As a long-term improvement, a connecting roadway (north of Palomar Street) between
Walnut Avenue and Industrial Boulevard is also recommended. This improvement would
relieve congestion on Palomar Street thereby enhancing the capacity and throughput. The
new connecting roadway is envisioned to be a 2-lane Local Collector with sidewalks and
parking on both sides.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
48
With the Palomar Gateway Specific Plan, the intersections along Palomar Street corridor
are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
Palomar Street –Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard: To mitigate the significant impact to
this segment, it is recommended to grade-separate the trolley crossing to achieve maximum
throughput and capacity on Palomar Street. With the grade-separation, this segment is calculated to
operate at LOS D.
Palomar Street – Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place: To mitigate the significant
impact to this segment, it is recommended to grade-separate the trolley crossing to achieve
maximum throughput and capacity on Palomar Street. With the grade-separation, this segment is
calculated to operate at LOS D.
TABLE 12
STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
Street Segment
Existing + Project Existing + Project
with Improvements Improvements
Capacity
(LOS C)a ADTb V/Cd LOS Capacity
(LOS C) ADT V/C LOS
Palomar Street
I-5 to Walnut Ave. 35,000 47,903 1.369 F 40,000 47,903 1.197 E
Trolley grade-separation
and restrict movements
with median
Walnut Avenue to
Industrial Blvd 36,000 44,020 1.223 E 40,000 44,020 1.100 D Trolley grade-separation
Industrial Blvd to
Transit Center Pl. 36,000 42,212 1.173 E 40,000 42,212 1.055 D Trolley grade-separation
Footnotes:
a. Capacity based on City of Chula Vista’s roadway classification operating at LOS E.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
49
Long-Term Motorized Travel Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements
The following section discusses the recommended transportation improvements that met the study
objectives and guiding principles of the project, which can be succinctly expressed as improving
overall mobility. Improvements prove especially challenging balancing both motorized and non-
motorized travel.
Analysis of the study area motorized facilities under future conditions revealed transportation
deficiencies resulting in facilities operating at LOS E or F. The recommendations presented in this
section improve long-term deficient facilities to achieve an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better)
wherever possible. It is recommended that the City of Chula Vista identify improvements that
promote mobility for all modes of travel.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Table 13 summarizes the deficient intersection operations with the improvements in place.
Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street: This intersection shows deficient operations in Year 2020 and
Year 2030 scenarios. The study recommends to provide a raised median across the intersection and
reconfigure Walnut Avenue to allow right-in / right-out movements only. This improvement is
recommended to enhance safety by restricting minor street left-turn movements from Walnut
Avenue across high-speed multiple-lanes of traffic on Palomar Street.
As left-turns movements are proposed to be restricted at Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection,
EB vehicles on Palomar Street intending to turn left at Walnut Avenue will need to make u-turns at
the Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard intersection. Similar westbound left-turning vehicles to
Walnut Avenue would be required to make a left-turn at the Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard
intersection and turn right on Ada Street. These improvements bring the level of service to
acceptable levels.
Industrial Boulevard / Palomar Street: This intersection shows deficient operations in Year 2020
and Year 2030 in the at-grade trolley crossing alternative only. The following improvements are
recommended to achieve LOS D or better:
Grade-separate the rail crossing to improve automobile operations. This would result in
no additional vehicular delay during a trolley crossing. With the grade-separation, the
intersection is calculated to operate at LOS D or better. Grade-separation would also
eliminate vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with the trolley.
Change the left-turn lane signal phasing from permitted-protected to protected at all
approaches to improve safety.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
50
Transit Center Place/ Palomar Street: Despite this intersection not calculating as deficient, the
following improvements are recommended to improve intersection operations, pedestrian access and
safety based on field observations.
Realign the north leg of the Transit Center Place/ Palomar Street intersection to align
with the south leg which would eliminate intersection offset. This improvement is also
intended to benefit pedestrians by allowing shorter walking distances.
Install pavement markings after realignment on the north leg showing exclusive left-turn
lane and shared through-right lanes. This will formalize the intersection configuration and
improve operations.
Appendix L contains the intersection calculation sheets with improvements.
TABLE 13A
YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection Peak
Period
Year 2020
without
Improvements
Year 2020 with
Improvements Improvements
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS
1. Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street AM >100 F 13.6 B Reconfigure intersection to
provide right-in/right-out only. PM >100 F 21.3 C
2. Industrial Boulevard / Palomar
Street
AM 50.2 D 24.5 C Trolley grade-separation and
protected phasing PM 62.2 E 37.1 D
Footnotes:
a. Delay – measured in seconds.
b. LOS – Level of Service.
TABLE 13B
YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection Peak
Period
Year 2030
without
Improvements
Year 2030 with
Improvements Improvements
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS
1. Walnut Avenue / Palomar Street AM >100 F 14.9 B Reconfigure intersection to
provide right-in/right-out only. PM >100 F 24.9 C
2. Industrial Boulevard / Palomar
Street
AM 62.9 E 26.9 C Trolley grade-separation and
protected phasing PM 76.9 E 40.9 D
Footnotes:
a. Delay – measured in seconds.
b. LOS – Level of Service.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
51
STREET SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS
The following improvements are recommended to improve mobility at deficient roadway segments
in the study area. Table 14 lists these improvements.
Palomar Street – I-5 to Walnut Avenue: To enhance segment capacity and improve safety on
Palomar Street, the study recommends providing a raised median across the Walnut Avenue/
Palomar Street intersection. This improvement is recommended to enhance safety by restricting
minor street left-turn movements from Walnut Avenue across multiple-lanes of traffic on Palomar
Street.
In addition to the above improvement, the segment operations on Palomar Street between I-5 and
Walnut Avenue are expected to operate better due to the following:
The Palomar Street interchange ranks high among the improvements needed for I-5
interchanges in Chula Vista based on traffic volumes and levels of service. Caltrans,
SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista have completed the I-5 South Multimodal
Corridor Study, which identifies an overcrossing with additional lanes. This study
proposes improvements to achieve LOS C at the I-5 ramp intersections on Palomar
Street. Since intersection operations influence segment capacity, the I-5 improvements
will enhance segment operations on Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue.
The proposed trolley grade separation on Palomar Street is included on the regional
priority list for rail grade separation projects in SANDAG’s 2050 Regional
Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) in the Revenue Constrained Plan to be completed by
Year 2020. Eliminating the at‐grade rail crossings would be a practical alternative for
improving traffic and transit operations, thereby improving queuing and segment capacity
on Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue.
As a long-term improvement, a connecting roadway (north of Palomar Street) between
Walnut Avenue and Industrial Boulevard is also recommended. This improvement would
relieve congestion on Palomar Street and Walnut Avenue and load traffic onto Industrial
Boulevard thereby enhancing the capacity and throughput of Palomar Street. The new
connecting roadway is envisioned to be a 2-lane Local Collector with sidewalks and
parking on both sides.
Additionally, the City of Chula Vista supports the notion that acceptable levels of service at
intersections during peak hours are a valid indicator of adequate street segment operations.
Therefore, if intersections operate at LOS D or better, a segment impact is considered not significant
since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than the street
segment analysis. Even though the segment of Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue is
calculated to operate at LOS E, the intersections along Palomar Street corridor are calculated to
operate at LOS D or better.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
52
Given the above improvements and discussions with City staff, LOS E on Palomar Street between
I-5 and Walnut Avenue is accepted.
Palomar Street –Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard: This segment is calculated to operate
deficiently in the at-grade trolley alternative only. To mitigate this deficiency, it is recommended to
grade-separate the trolley crossing to achieve maximum throughput on Palomar Street. With the
grade-separation, this segment is calculated to operate at LOS D.
Palomar Street – Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place: To mitigate the deficiency to this
segment, it is recommended to grade-separate the trolley crossing to achieve maximum throughput
on Palomar Street. With the grade-separation, this segment is calculated to operate at LOS E. Based
on discussions with City of Chula Vista staff, this street segment is accepted at LOS E due to the
following reasons:
The proposed trolley grade-separation is expected to enhance segment capacity, traffic
flow and operations on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
Even though the segment of Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard to Transit
Center Place is calculated to operate at LOS E, the intersections along Palomar Street
corridor are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
Industrial Boulevard – North of Palomar Street: To mitigate the deficiency to this segment, it is
recommended to grade-separate the trolley crossing to achieve maximum throughput on Industrial
Boulevard. With the grade-separation, this segment is calculated to operate at LOS E. Based on
discussions with City of Chula Vista staff, this street segment is accepted at LOS E due to the
following reasons:
The proposed trolley grade-separation is expected to enhance segment capacity and
traffic operations on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
Even though the segment of Industrial Boulevard – North of Palomar Street is calculated
to operate at LOS E, the Palomar Street/ Industrial Boulevard intersection is calculated to
operate at LOS D or better.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
53
TABLE 14A
YEAR 2020 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Deficient Street Segments
Year 2020 without
Improvements
Year 2020
with Improvements Improvements
Capacity
(LOS C)a ADTb V/Cd LOSc Capacity
(LOS C) ADT V/C LOS
Palomar Street
Walnut Avenue to Industrial Blvd
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 42,000 1.200 E 40,000 42,000 1.050 D Trolley grade-separation
Industrial Blvd to Transit Center Pl.
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 42,250 1.207 E 40,000 42,250 1.056 D Trolley grade-separation
Footnotes:
a. Capacity based on City of Chula Vista’s roadway classification operating at LOS E.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
TABLE 14B
YEAR 2030 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Deficient Street Segments
Year 2030 without
Improvements
Year 2030
with Improvements Improvements
Capacity
(LOS C)a ADTb V/Cd LOSc Capacity
(LOS C) ADT V/C LOS
Palomar Street
I-5 to Walnut Ave. 40,000 47,000 1.175 E 40,000 47,000 1.175 Ee Trolley grade-separation
and install a median
Walnut Avenue to Industrial Blvd
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 45,000 1.285 E 40,000 45,000 1.125 D Trolley grade-separation
Industrial Blvd to Transit Center Pl.
(at-grade trolley) 36,000 45,300 1.294 F 40,000 45,300 1.132 Ee Trolley grade-separation
Industrial Boulevard
North of Palomar Street
(at-grade trolley)
10,500 13,900 1.323 F 12,000 13,900 1.158 Ee Trolley grade-separation
Footnotes:
a. Capacity based on City of Chula Vista’s roadway classification operating at LOS C.
b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. Based on the City of Chula Vista significance criteria, no significant impact are calculated to these segments as intersections adjacent to these segments are
calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
Horizon Years (Year 2020 and 2030) Mitigation Measures
Currently, it is unknown when the first or any subsequent development(s) in the PGDSP
will be constructed, where they will be located and what types of uses they will include.
The PGDSP Mobility Study analyzes the PGDSP project at a programmatic level
assuming the build out of the approved General Plan land uses and not individual,
pending projects. This is consistent with Section 15146(b) of the CEQA Guidelines,
which states that an EIR on a project such as the adoption of a general plan [or specific
plan] should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the plan’s
adoption, but the EIR need not be as detailed as that for a specific construction project.
Therefore, for the Horizon Year scenarios, the Mobility Study analyzed the PGSDP land
uses with a straight line growth assumption added to the proposed land uses to obtain
Year 2020 and 2030 traffic volumes. Tables 13A and 13B summarize the deficient
intersection operations with the improvements in place. Tables 14A and 14B, shows the
recommended improvements to improve mobility at deficient roadway segments in the
study area. As shown in the tables, the recommended mitigation measures improve the
deficient facilities to achieve an acceptable LOS.
It’s important to note that the listed Light Rail Transit (LRT) split grade improvement is
outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Chula Vista but its completion is paramount to
the operation of East Palomar Street and the localized intersections. The separation would
physically remove the conflict between the operation of the trolley tracks and that of the
vehicular traffic on Palomar Street. It would do away with the impacts due to the
anticipated increase in trolley frequency and the subsequent increase in the lowering of
the crossing gates by eliminating the vehicular conflict for all movements.
Implementation of the project to split grade the tracks would require coordination with
Caltrans and SANDAG/MTS and a combination of local, state and federal funding
sources. The city will continue to stress the importance of the split grade crossing with
appropriate authorities.
MITIGATION - Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street: The mitigation to reconfigure the
intersection to provide right-in/right-out only movements only, has been added to the
city’s Capital Improvements Plan for 2013 and is now fully funded. As shown in tables
13A and 13B the recommended mitigation measure improves the deficient facility to
achieve an acceptable LOS.
TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM - In addition and not a part of any project
mitigation, it is important to remember that during the of implementation of the plan to
develop the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan, the city shall apply the Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) to monitor actual performance of the street system in the
area by conducting roadway segment travel time studies in accordance with the city’s
existing Growth Management Program through its Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP).
The results of the annual study under the TMP will be used by the city to determine the
timing and need for implementation of any other improvements to the street segments
and intersections identified as having potential significant impacts. The city shall
continue to stress the need for the implementation of the identified street segment and
intersection improvements [split grade] based upon the results of the annual TMP
monitoring.
FUTURE PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSESSMENTS - In addition to the listed CEQA
impacts and mitigations, all PGDSP projects shall prepare traffic assessments to examine
local access and safety issues as well as to quantify the project’s potential traffic impacts
on a local level. Subsequent projects shall be required to fully mitigate localized near-
term project specific impacts and to contribute their fair share to the city’s existing
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program, as well as to the existing
Traffic Impact Signal Fee, as amended from time to time.
In addition to quantifying a future project’s potential traffic impacts, future traffic
assessments shall identify how alternative modes of transportation will be
accommodated. Mitigation may be in the form of:
1. Compliance with the development regulations and design guidelines of the
PGDSP to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and public transit; and
2. Where applicable, construction of the improvements within the project
boundaries; and/or
3. Early advancement of improvements beyond the project boundaries, subject to a
reimbursement agreement.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
54
6.0 MOBILITY PLAN
The Palomar Gateway District (PGD) Mobility Plan identifies infrastructure improvements
(motorized and non-motorized) based on the guiding principles introduced in Section 3.0. The
relationship between the community’s land uses, circulation system and transportation infrastructure
network is an important consideration for comprehensive planning. Efficiency, access, and safety for
all modes of travel, including pedestrian, bicycling, and transit will afford citizens to have options when
trip planning and lessen dependence on single passenger auto-mobile travel. The result will be cleaner
air, a safer environment, an improved economy, and a higher quality of life. Additionally, integrating
sidewalks, bike lanes, transit amenities, and safe crossings into the initial design of a project spares
the expense of retrofits later. Communities that incorporate complete streets gain quality of life
benefits as increased bicycling and walking are indicative of vibrant and livable communities.
Multi-Modal Recommendations
The Mobility Plan reviews the constraints and opportunities of each travel mode. Recommendations
are prioritized based on a defined tiered system. These recommendations were developed by
adhering to AB 1358 principles outlined in Section 3.0, PGD’s need and purpose, researching Multi-
Modal transportation industry standards and guidelines practiced nationwide (such as Designing for
Smart Growth by SANDAG) and findings outlined by Walkable and Living Communities Institute
Inc. Report on PGD shown in Appendix M.
TIER I:
Addresses high-volume high-accident locations.
Improves Mobility substantially for all modes. Moves people, not cars.
Essential component of activating the community, applying Smart Growth principles and
achieving the objectives of the PGD vision.
TIER II:
Improves Mobility and has little to no impact on other travel modes.
Creates a better balance between motorized and non-motorized travel.
Enhances mobility by introducing missing links and ensures continuation of capacity.
Ease of implementation from a constructability, political and financial standpoint.
Promotes ADA compliance.
TIER III:
Creates places of human scale that promotes active lifestyles and enhances the user
experience.
Involves the beautification of the District.
Improves mobility to lesser extent and may impact other modes of travel.
Feasibility unclear with potential concerns of constructability, political and financial
support.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
55
Table 15 and Figure 12 presents the Palomar Gateway District Mobility Plan.
It is important to note that the improvements suggested in the following Mobility Plan are
conceptual and provide a long-range vision for the community and the Palomar Gateway District.
These recommended improvements were developed to achieve the PGD’s spirit and intent to
develop a Smart Growth Transit Oriented Development integrated with the Palomar Transit Center.
The proposed improvements are intended to foster multi-modal choices for the residents of Chula
Vista while maintaining appropriate levels of service. The motorized improvements outlined in the
Mobility Plan below are CEQA mitigations to achieve an acceptable LOS and non-motorized
improvements are considered project features to improve overall mobility. A detailed engineering
study is recommended to identify the feasibility, constructability and funding of these improvements
when appropriate.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
56
TABLE 15
PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT MOBILITY PLAN
Mobility
Element Constraints
Opportunities
Tier I (High Priority) Tier II (Medium Priority) Tier III (Low Priority)
Pedestrian
At-grade trolley crossing compromises pedestrian safety and bisects
community
Missing sidewalk links hinders mobility
Lack of ADA compliance at certain locations
No buffer on Palomar Street creates a dangerous and unpleasant user
experience
“Mega-blocks” lack human scale and hinder walkability
Abundance of driveways along Palomar Street exposes pedestrians
Grade-separate trolley line per 2050 RTP (recommend trolley
under Palomar Street to avoid bisecting the community and
avoid visual impact)b
Introduce new roadways that introduce human scale and
encourage walkability
Add countdown timers to existing traffic signals
Square up the at I-5 SB ramps at Palomar Street to avoid free
high-speed right-turns
Close/modify driveways on Palomar Street
Provide non-contiguous sidewalks on Palomar Street
Provide sidewalks on missing links
Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
Provide high visibility crosswalks
Provide adequately sized islands for pedestrian refuge on
Palomar Street
Provide two pedestrian curb ramps per intersection corner
Provide a multi-use path in the SDGE easement.
Provide a multi-use bridge over I-5 at Ada Street
extension
Bicycle
At-grade trolley crossing compromises bicycle safety
Missing bicycle links hinders mobility
Poor accessibility to future Bayshore Bikeway
“Mega-blocks” lacks any human scale and does not promote bicycle
activity
Grade-separate trolley line per 2050 RTP recommend trolley
under Palomar Street to avoid bisecting the community and
avoid visual impact)b
Class II bike lanes on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard
to integrate with the Bayshore Bikeway
Provide bicycle facilities on missing links
Provide bicycle lockers at the Palomar Transit Station
Use colorized or elevated bike lanes to enhance bicycle safety
and create driver awareness at vehicle-bicycle conflict pointsa
Developer subsidy of transit passes
Provide a multi-use path in the SDGE easement.
Provide a multi-use bridge over I-5 at Ada Street
extension
Transit
At-grade trolley crossing lowers transit capacity
Increasing demand on Blue Line adds congestion and delay to buses
on Palomar Street
Increasing congestion on Palomar Street reduces reliability of bus
service
Only one driveway with limited movements serves both buses and
vehicles
On-board bus collection increases dwell and route travel timesa
Grade-separate trolley line per 2050 RTP (recommend trolley
under Palomar Street to avoid bisecting the community and
avoid visual impact) to reduce transit travel times on Palomar
Streetb
Shade structures at busiest stops such as Broadway and
Palomar Street
Passive transit signal priority along Palomar Streeta
Allow level boarding by providing low-floor buses
Provide amenities such as illuminated bus shelters, system
maps and schedule, wayfinding signage and bars that
passengers that can lean on while standing
Display real time arrival information at Palomar Transit
Center
Off-board bus collection systema to improve headways
Consider public art and unique design for bus shelters,
benches and other street furniture
Light Rail
At-grade trolley crossing impedes vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
mobility
Increasing demand on Blue Line adds congestion and delay to
Palomar Street
High-floor trolley cars inhibit disabled and bicycle loading leading to
increased gate closing time and excessive delays to vehicles
Frequency of trolley line needs to increase to serve highest ridership
trolley blue line demand
Trolley vehicle lengths needs to increase to serve highest ridership
trolley blue line demand
Grade-separate trolley line per 2050 RTP (recommend trolley
under Palomar Street to avoid bisecting the community and
avoid visual impact)b
Consider low-floor trolley cars to reduce passenger loading
and unloading times (currently under construction)
Grade-separate trolley line at Ada Street
Increase trolley car length and reduce headways to serve Blue
Line demand
None
Vehicular
At-grade trolley crossing at Industrial Boulevard/ Palomar Street
intersection causes excessive vehicular delay and poor LOS during
peak hours
Loading and unloading maneuvers on high-floor trolley cars causes
excessive queuing and disrupts signal progression on Palomar Street
Absence of parallel routes, limited roadway network and multiple
driveways affects traffic throughput
Grade-separate trolley line per 2050 RTP recommend trolley
under Palomar Street to avoid bisecting the community and
avoid visual impact)b
Restrict Walnut Avenue access to/from Palomar Street to
allow right-in/right-out onlyb
Introduce new access to Oxford Street from Industrial
Boulevard to relieve traffic congestion on Palomar Street
Change left-turn phasing from permitted-protected to
protectedb
Realign Transit Center Place driveway to avoid intersection
offset
Enhance segment capacity on Palomar Street by modifying
and/or closing driveway access where feasibleb
Increase curb-radii on Anita Street to allow truck turning
to/from Industrial Boulevard
Provide landscaping along the median on Palomar
Street to add visual character
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-11-2023
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
N:\2023\Report\2023 report_April 2012.docx
57
TABLE 15
PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT MOBILITY PLAN
Mobility
Element Constraints
Opportunities
Tier I (High Priority) Tier II (Medium Priority) Tier III (Low Priority)
ADA
Disintegrated/absent sidewalks and crosswalks hinders mobility for
disabled and senior users
Wide curb radii on driveways create high-turning speeds of traffic
compromising safety
Repair all disintegrated sidewalks and provide sidewalks on
missing links
Retrofit all intersections within the PGD to ADA compliant
crosswalks and curb-ramps
Remove or relocate street furniture on sidewalks that hinder
mobility
Close/modify driveways on Palomar Street to reduce exposure
Introduce infrastructure such as audible count-down
pedestrian signals, truncated domes/ ADA pads to enhance
mobility
Provide dedicated ADA parking at the Transit Station
None
Parking
Current parking layout promotes auto use
Free parking does not provide a revenue source
Lack of parking efficiency with over-supply and non-shared land uses
Promote mixed-use, compact development with shared
parking
Provide parking interior to the development and not along
roadway to add visual character and promote other travel
modes
Use dynamic parking pricing to promote non-motorized travel
and create a revenue stream
Consider on-street parking as supply for development
None
Footnotes:
a. Case studies presented in Appendix N.
b. Subject improvements are treated as CEQA mitigations.
Conceptual Mobility Plan
Palomar Gateway Mobility Study
Figure 12
Recreational Multi-Use Path
Recessed
Trolley Station
Shared Lane Markings
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
High-Visibility Crosswalk
and Curb Ramps
Existing Bike Lanes
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
Widen Intersection to match width of
Anita Street east of Industrial Boulevard
Extend Curb
New Roadway
Remove Free Right Turn /
“Square Up” Intersection
New Bike Lanes
Existing
Bike Lanes
Add All-Way Stop
Add All-Way Stop
Narrow Apron-Style
Driveway
New Bike Lanes
New Bike Lanes
New Bike Lanes
ADA STREET
PALOMAR STREE
T
OXFORD
S
T
R
E
E
T
DOROTHY STREET
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
ANITA STREET
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
ORANGE AVENU
E
PALOM
A
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
BA
Y
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BELVIA LANE
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
High-Visibility Crosswalks
and Curb Ramps
Landscaped Median
New Roadway
Multi-Use Bridge over
Freeway
Shared Lane Markings
Future Bayshore Bikeway
Class 1 Bike Path Existing Roundabout
New Roundabout
Modified Driveway
Grade Separation for Trolley
at Oxford St and Palomar St
Pocket Park
Monument Feature
New Bike Lanes
Signal Priority for
Transit
Grade Separation for Trolley
at Ada St
Enhanced Sidewalks
New Bike Lanes
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Signal Priority for
Transit
Landscaped Median
Existing Bike Lanes
W
A
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
Park
Park
New Alley or
Roadway
New Alley or
Roadway
Modified Driveway
Right Turn Only
Right Turn Only
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
ÆaÆa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Æa
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Shared-Lane Marking
Mutli-Use Path
Existing Light Rail
Traffic Control
Signal Priority for Transit
Landscaped Median
Modified Driveway
LEGEND:
Enhanced Sidewalk (Non-Contiguous Sidewalk)
New Roadway with Sidewalk
Missing Link Sidewalk
Bike Lane
Æa Existing Bus Stop
Right Turn Only Intersection Approach
T
R
E
N
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
Existing Crosswalk
Existing High-Visibility Crosswalk