HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Attch 12 - Comment Response to CGS3 Issues LetterDate: June 22, 2016
To: Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
Via: Kelly Broughton, Director of Development Services
From: Miguel Z. Tapia, Senior Planner
Subject: Comment Letter from Ms. Evelyn Heidelberg/Mr. Earl Jentz on Vista del Mar Project
On April 15, 2016, City staff received a letter from Ms. Heidelberg with the law firm of Crosbie
Gliner Schiffinan Southhard & Swanson, LLP on behalf of Mr. Jentz (Authors) with a series of
comments on the proposed Vista del Mar development project at 795 Third Avenue (Project). A
copy of the letter is attached to this memorandum. The letter contains a set of comments on
various aspects of the Project, including the proposed building's Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
compliance with development regulations, consistency with design guidelines, and the
applicability of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions. The nature of the
comments indicates that the Authors are opposed to the Project and that approval of the Project
should be denied by the Planning Commission. This memorandum is in response to the
comments in the letter and is being forwarded to the Planning Commission in conjunction with
the City staff report to which it is attached.
The comment letter consists of fourteen pages of text and is generally divided into seven sections
denoted by roman numerals. Section I is a Summary of Issues; Sections II thru VII contain a
detailed description of each of those issues, although the issues summarized do not necessarily
concur with the issues that are detailed in the rest of the Sections. Following is a list of the
Sections of the letter with an abbreviated version of the Authors comments /issues that are
discussed in each of the seven Sections.
I. Summary of Issue s/FAR/Compounding Calculations
II. Project fails to comply with NTCD Provisions
III. Projected Build -Out Scenario in UCSP
IV. Degree of Public Benefit from increased FAR
V. Compounding of FAR
VI. Development Exemption should not be granted because it does not advance purpose of
the development exemption provisions
Introduction
Project offers little in design
Findings cannot be made to support exemption
VII. Streamlined review of the Application under CEQA will not suffice
Following are City staff responses to the comments in the letter; the responses are provided in
the same order as the Sections and issues listed in the letter.
Attachment 12
Response Memorandum to HeidelberglJentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 12,
SECTION I. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Review of the letter reveals that the Authors base their comments on outdated drafts of the
Project plans, which have already been revised. The Project plans were revised by the Applicant
in response to City and Residents' comments in November 2015, February 2016 and April 2016.
The Authors start the Summary by discussing and speculating on the "compounding" calculation
of the building FAR and include elaborate calculations on the building square footage and FAR
based on outdated numbers.
The referred "compounding" calculation is not being used by the Applicant nor City staff, and
the references to it on the first page of the Project plans have been removed. The first proposed
approximate 50% increase in FAR, which is being requested through the provision of three
amenities, is calculated by simply multiplying the site area by each of the amenities' percentage
allowed (see Urban Core Specific Plan Chapter VI, Urban Amenities Table). The allowed
increase in FAR through the provision of three amenities is 50 %. Following are the calculations
based on the Project's latest specifications:
® Project site area: 45,73 8 sq. ft.
Net building area: 91,345 sq. ft.
® Total proposed building FAR: 1.997 — 2.0 (Total requested FAR increases include
Urban Amenities & Development Exception)
® Proposed amenities and corresponding percentage increase in FAR are as follows:
o Parking ---- 10% (4,574 sq. ft.)
o Public Plaza --10% (4,574 sq. ft.)
o LEED Gold Certification — 30% (13,721 sq. ft.)
Total Amenities percentage and building square footage = 50% and 22,869 sq. ft.
The letter makes reference on Page 2 to an "unexplained deviation" of building square footage
and speculates that the Applicant is requesting an exemption. There is nothing "unexplained"
concerning the Applicant's request; the Applicant is requesting an exception of an additional
approximate 50% increase in FAR above the Urban Amenities increase discussed above. The
request is indicated on the first page of the Project plans along with all the Project specifications.
The Applicant's request for an additional approximate 50% increase in FAR is based upon a
Development Exception and brings the total building FAR to approximately 2.0 (see Urban Core
Specific Plan Chapter VI, Section 1, Development Exceptions). The request for an exception,
as well as the request for an increase in the FAR based on the provision of amenities, is based on
the aforementioned policies of the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), which provide incentives
to enhance the quality of life within the Urban Core by encouraging pedestrian friendly design,
urban amenities, beautification, sufficient parking, mixed -uses, affordable housing, and access to
public transit, parks, community facilities, and social services.
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 13
SECTION II. THE APPLICATION DOES COMPLY WITH THE NTCD
REQUIREMENT THAT BUILDING DESIGN BE COGNIZANT OF ADJACENT LOW
DENSITY USES AND AVOID BALCONIES OVERLOOKING REAR YARDS
The Authors' contention that the proposed Project does not meet the Neighborhood Transitioning
Combining Districts (NTCD) requirements is incorrect. The NTCD provisions are intended to
make sure that the design of projects addresses the issues associated with having taller structures
adjacent to single- family areas. The proposed Project not only meets all the building setback
requirements of the UCSP but also its design is cognizant of the adjacency of the single- family
residences. The Project has been designed to address issues of privacy and security. To
accomplish this, the building structure been designed to be farther away from the property line
and the adjacent residences than the minimum requirement of the NTCD. The UCSP requires
10 -foot setbacks from the northern and eastern property lines. The distance between the building
and the eastern property line is 47 feet, while the distance between the building and the two
closest houses is approximately 115 feet. The distance between the second floor terrace and the
eastern and northern property lines are approximately 20 feet on both sides. The distance
between the building that runs along K Street and the property line of the first house on the north
side is 20 feet, while the building's distance to the actual house is 24 feet. Also, the Project has
been designed to have two landscape buffers between the building /second floor terrace and the
single - family homes, which are intended to block as much of the views from the building as
possible. One landscape buffer is located along the property line and has a width of 10 to 13 feet
and the other is located at the edge of the second floor terrace and has an approximate width of
13 feet. The building separation and the landscape buffers will address privacy issues associated
with the balconies.
While the NTCD provisions note to "avoid balconies," they are not intended to prohibit
balconies. On the contrary, balconies are encouraged by the UCSP design guidelines for mixed -
use, multi - family buildings. While the NTCD provisions read that balconies be avoided, it is
actually the issues potentially raised by the use of balconies that should be addressed; in the case
of the Project the issue raised is privacy. Balconies are important design and functional elements
of the Project. The UCSP provisions for multifamily projects encourage the use of balconies
and other features to achieve quality building design. One of those provisions reads as follows:
"Three dimensional design features, such as balconies and bays should be incorporated
into the building design. "
Balconies serve to provide building facade articulation and interest, and they serve to provide
usable open/recreational space. Building facade articulation and interest are important elements
for a project such as this one, which is part of an urban setting where the building architecture
intends to improve the faces of the area and become a new architectural landmark. Balconies are
also important as a source of private recreational space in an urban setting. The Chula Vista
Municipal Code allows balconies to be used as open space toward meeting the Code's
requirement for private and common open space. The provision of this type of recreational space
as part of multi - family residential projects contributes toward meeting the demand for public
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 14
recreational facilities, particularly in the western part of the City. While balconies remain as part
of the proposed building elevations, the design issue (particularly privacy) associated with them
has been avoided through the building separation from the residential properties and by creating
landscape buffers. Thus, the project is consistent with the NTCD provisions.
In this same Section, following up with their assertion that the Project does not comply with the
NTCD provisions related to balconies, the Authors of the letter assert that three of the findings
for granting an exception cannot be made. The error of this assertion is found in the assumption
that the Project does not comply with the NTCD criteria. As discussed above, the Project
complies with the NTCD requirement related to balconies because the intent of the NTCD
provisions is not to prohibit balconies (nor the second floor terrace) but to make sure that the
Project is designed to be cognizant of and address potential issues related to balconies, such as
privacy. As indicated previously, the Project design addresses the issue of privacy by distancing
the building, and thus the balconies, from the Single - family residences and establishing two rows
of landscape buffers. Contrary to the Authors' assertion that the findings cannot be made, the
findings for the FAR exception can be made and have indeed been made (see below). Another
problem with the assertion that the findings for an exception cannot be made is that the Authors
wrongly tic the findings, particularly the first and fourth findings (see below), to the single issue
of non - compliance with the NTCD provisions. The first finding is related to the implementation
of the goals and objectives of the General Plan and UCSP, which are in turn related to the
encouragement and development of mixed use projects which will contribute to the creation of a
vibrant environment within the District, with thriving businesses, attractive housing,
entertainment, cultural and recreational activities. -The General Plan and - -UCSP goals and
objectives are more related to how the Project as a whole, with a variety of features, contributes
to achieve those goals and objectives or how the Project does "not adversely_ affect the goals and
objectives."
The four findings and their substantiating statements are contained in the Planning Commission
Report and Resolutions, and are also incorporated herein in summarized form. The four findings
for an exception along with their substantiating statements are as follows:
The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the
Specific Plan and General Plan.
The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan.
The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities
Incentives in Section F - Urban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter.
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.
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 15
In regard to the first finding, the Project as proposed does not adversely affect the General Plan
and Specific Plan. The Project actually implements those goals and objectives by providing a
mixed use residential /commercial use at the Corner of Third Avenue and K Street. The intent of
the General and Specific Plans is to facilitate and encourage development and improvements that
will help realize the community's vision for the Urban Core area. The Urban Core and the Cl
District are envisioned to be vibrant, forward - thinking but respectful of its past and alive with
thriving businesses, attractive housing and entertainment, cultural and recreational activities.
The Urban Core Vision aims to create a uniquely identifiable Urban Core for Chula Vista that is
an economically vibrant, pedestrian- oriented and multi- purpose destination. The Project would
redevelop the subject Site, which currently has buildings that were built in the 1950's and are in
need of replacement, with a residential and commercial Project. The Project will provide multi-
family housing in this area of Chula Vista and will bring families and social and economic
activity to the area. Those families would take advantage of and support the commercial base
along Third Avenue, which provides a variety of goods and services in close proximity to the
Project. More residents would contribute to create an active and vibrant atmosphere along Third
Avenue as envisioned by the General Plan and the UCSP. The proposed public plaza at the
corner of Third Avenue and K Street with art and furniture will provide an amenity that will
activate the street and create opportunities for civic engagement. The wider and furnished
sidewalks along Third Avenue and K Street will contribute to activate the street and create a
pedestrian -safe and friendly environment.
In regard to the second finding, the project complies with all other development standards and
regulations of the Specific Plan (except for FAR for which a valid exception is being requested
by the Applicant). The building has a height that varies from 34 feet along K Street and a height
of 57 feet along Third Avenue (the building parapets and elevator shaft achieve a height of 60
feet, which is the maximum permitted by the UCSP). The project provides all the required
parking on -site and enclosed within the building structures in the underground and first floor
levels, and provides 14 additional parking spaces for guests and residents. Open space and
Iandscaped areas are also provided in excess of the minimum required.
The building form respects the properties in the adjacent R -1 Zone to the north and east of the
Site along Church Avenue by locating the second floor terrace and balconies as far away as
possible from the property lines (a distance that ranges between 20 and 115 feet), and provides
substantial screening by landscaping the perimeter of the structure. The 3 to 5 -story building
structure was designed to place most of the bulk and mass along Third Avenue and K Street, and
as far as possible from the property lines of the single- family homes. As required in the NTCD
regulations, the building also steps back from the adjacent residential properties and along
Church Avenue, resulting in a reduced building mass and height near the residential properties
and distancing the building as much as possible from the residential properties.
In regard to the third finding, the project incorporates the following three Urban Amenities
elements (see Urban Core Specific Plan Chapter VI, Urban Amenities Table):
Response Memorandum to HeidelberglJentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 16
® All required parking (on -site and enclosed), plus fourteen resident and guest parking
spaces beyond the spaces required by the UCSP;
o Public outdoor space in the form of a plaza (approximately 1,700 square -feet in area)
with an art feature and furniture located at the corner of the building and Third Avenue
and K Street, just outside the commercial suite; and
LEED Gold Certification with a variety of elements and amenities to reduce global
warming and enhance the natural environment.
Each of these amenities is more fully described and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff
Report.
Regarding the fourth finding, the additional FAR of 0.5 is appropriate for this location because it
would allow the Project to comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Specific
Plan related to bringing a mixed use project with sufficient residential units and community
amenities to provide housing, activate the street and support the existing commercial base. The
C 1 District is currently characterized by having mostly retail and office uses. While there are
approximately five properties in the District with residential uses, these properties only represent
about 4% of the total District area. General Plan policy calls for additional residential
development within the C1 District to support the existing and future commercial development.
The Project's FAR of 2.0 is appropriate for an urban mixed use development and is in line with
development trends elsewhere in the Urban Core area. The maximum building height is 5 stories
along the Third Avenue elevation (60' high as allowed by the C -1 zone) and 3 stories along the
K Street elevation. This building configuration places the most mass and -bulls along the Third
Avenue and K Street's elevations, away from the existing low density residential. The Applicant
has revised the Project and has taken measures to reduce the building mass and address
community concerns without reducing the viability of the project. Furthermore, the form -based
nature of the UCSP ensures that the proposed development emphasize the importance of site
design and building form (which last many years) over numerical parameters such as FAR
(which are likely to change over time). The proposed development creates a people activated,
urban corner that contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the public
realm through improved streetscape design and individual building character.
SECTION III. IN ANALYZING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR BONUS
AWARDS OF FAR STAFF DID CONSIDER THE PROJECTED BUILD -OUT THAT
WOULD OCCUR IF ALL THE BONUS PROVISIONS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE
URBAN AMENITIES INCENTIVES PROGRAM WERE ACTUALLY AWARDED
The comments in this section are related to a potential scenario under the UCSP projected build -
out. This section of the letter provides an intricate analysis of a build -out scenario that is highly
speculative, and not instructive in assessing whether a bonus award should be granted. The
build -out scenario, as described in the UCSP, is used to analyze and evaluate the potential
development impacts resulting from the full implementation of the projected development within
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 17
a specific period of time (approximately 20 years). In this long -term context, the implementation
of one project cannot be used to speculate on the implementation of the UCSP's projected build -
out. At the same time, the results of such a speculative analysis cannot be used to assess and
evaluate a single project, particularly at this early stage of the UCSP implementation. The
analysis in the letter assumes a scenario where the projected development takes place in a
vacuum without the dynamic interaction that projects go through during the various phases of
project development and implementation. The analysis also assumes a scenario without changes
in the economy and adjustments to the UCSP vision, goals and policies. In other words, the
Authors wrongly assume that a certain number of projects will continually be developed
independently of economic cycles and physical changes in the Urban Core. They also assume
that during the next twenty -five years the UCSP will remain un- evaluated and un- revised. To
respond to this point and to dispute the Authors' attempted analysis based on static type model
assumptions, it is important to see what actually has happened during the past nine years in the
life of the Urban Core and implementation of the UCSP.
The UCSP was adopted by the City Council in March of 2007. Since then, the regional and
Chula Vista economy have gone through a massive recession (2008- 2012), which for a period of
time stopped all land development and negatively affected the economy. The economy and land
development activity have had a very slow recovery since then. Development within the Urban
Core is a clear illustration of this process. Since .2007 the City Council and/or Planning
Commission have approved 11 development projects (commercial and residential) within the
UCSP area: four mixed -use projects; one retail market; one gas station /mini mart remodel; three
restaurants; a medical clinic and a liquor store. Of those projects only one mixed -use project has
been constructed (33 residential units and 1,253 square -feet of office space). Other projects that
have been implemented are the gas station, the liquor store and the restaurants. Also, since 2007,
the UCSP has been evaluated and revised twice (2011 and 2015) by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The physical and economic conditions of the City's Urban Core, as well as
the life of the UCSP, have not been static nor linear. It is a mistake to use a static type analysis,
which is intended to estimate the potential environmental and infrastructural impacts and
mitigation under CEQA for a "most- case" scenario, to evaluate the merits of a single project
today. Contrary to what the Authors of the letter say, it is not instructive to compare the
proposed project with a static, long -term build -out scenario.
In order to insure that development proposed under the UCSP does not have negative impacts or
exceeds the capacity of the infrastructure, the City uses a variety of measures. The City has in
place a project review process to evaluate every development proposal prior to issuance of a.
building permit. This process involves environmental review pursuant to CEQA requirements,
design review pursuant to established development regulations and design guidelines and
infrastructural requirements. This is a very detailed process that is used to insure that every
project avoids or mitigates any potential impacts to the environment; it is also used to make sure
that every project complies with regulations and guidelines; and that every project contributes its
share of infrastructure and that said infrastructure is provided prior to the completion of the
prof ect.
Response Memorandum to HeidelberglJentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page j8
The proposed Vista del Mar Project is an example of the described review process in action. The
Project plans were submitted to the City in June 2015, and have been thoroughly reviewed by
staff pursuant to the established review process. The Project went through environmental
review, design review, and infrastructural review. A report (and this response letter) has been
prepared for the Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project, and it includes a
lengthy description and analysis of the Project. Two resolutions have also been prepared that
include findings and determinations on the Project, as well as a lengthy list of conditions of
approval.
The City also consistently monitors physical, economic, and land development activity and
conditions within the Urban Core to evaluate the changes and requirements of the area as those
conditions change. The City consistently monitors public facilities and infrastructure for
compliance with established threshold standards. Since 1988, the city of Chula Vista has
monitored a dozen threshold standards for compliance, including drainage, sewer, traffic, water,
and emergency response times, as well as schools, libraries, and the fiscal condition of the City.
The city's Economic Development Department monitors the economic conditions of the City,
the San Diego region, and the Nation in order to see how the economy is changing and how
those changes might affect different economic sectors and areas of the City. This information is
used to develop strategies to encourage economic activity and promote investment and
development projects. The Development Services Department routinely monitors the conditions
of land development of western Chula Vista; this information serves to make changes in the
processes, regulations and requirements on development consistent with the new conditions. The
input of the community, as expressed in their own vision and needs, is also used to calibrate the
processes, regulation and requirements.
Lastly, the City uses the information collected from the monitoring to modify the established
regulations and processing. For example, the UCSP, as well as other specific plans throughout
the City, are updated at different intervals. State Law requires that a specific plan "may be
amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body." This is a constant practice that is
embedded in the City's processes and is consistently implemented. For example and as indicated
previously, the UCSP has been amended twice since its adoption; once in 2011 and then again in
2015. These amendments were intended to respond to changes in the economy and development
activity in the area. They were also intended to calibrate the UCSP regulations in the context of
the little development activity that has taken place during and after the last recession.
Another error in the Authors' analysis is the Authors' confusion and mixing of the concepts of
FAR and Density. The Authors use the two concepts interchangeably and do not appear to
recognize the differences between them. In the context of project development pursuant to the
UCSP, FAR is simply the relationship between the site area and the net building area, while
Density is a relationship between the site area and the number of residential units that can be
accommodated in the building and site. FAR is related strictly to the building's mass and bulk,
while density is related to number of units per acre. The problem with the Authors' analysis,
particularly in their projected calculations, is that they use the FAR to project the number of units
that could be built under a given scenario. The fallacy of this is that FAR is not a reliable metric
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 19
for density (that is the number of units to be built), because a given FAR may result in different
residential unit scenarios, depending on the type and size of residential units that are being built.
A given FAR may result in different number of units if, for example, the units are studios, 1-
bedroom, 2- bedroom, 3- bedroom, etc.; the larger the units the lower the number of units that is
achieved in the same FAR. At the same time, different FAR's may achieve the same number of
units (Density) depending on unit type and size. The main point of this response is that a higher
FAR does not necessarily result in more units. Therefore, the use of FAR that the Authors make
to calculate a given scenario is misleading and leads to the wrong assumptions and
determinations.
SECTION IV. THE STAFF REPORT ON THE APPLICATION DOES EVALUATE
THE DEGREE OF PUBLIC BENEFIT PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
AND BASES ITS RECOMMENDED PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FAR ON THAT
ANALYSIS
The UCSP establishes requirements and provides incentives in exchange for the provision of
urban amenities by a given project. These requirements and incentives are provided in order to
achieve certain amenities or design provisions that will enhance the quality of life within the
Urban Core. These requirements and incentives are expressed in terms of increases in FAR that
a project may realize. Contrary to what the Authors of the letter say, the increase in FAR is not
granted automatically to the Project, but rather it is evaluated on a case by case basis and is
subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The evaluation and discretionary approval is
based on the level of enhancement and benefit provided by each of the amenities. As discussed
above, there are three amenities being provided. by the Project, as follows:
® All the required parking is provided on -site and parking is enclosed within the structure;
An approximately 1,700 square -foot Outdoor Space /Plaza ( approximately 41' x 43')
provided with art/furniture at the corner of Third & K Street; and
® LEED Gold Certification for the building.
The amenities have been evaluated by staff and have been found to be beneficial to the project
and the community. Further, staff has determined that the characteristics and added value of the
amenities deserve the full awarded FAR increase as listed in the Table of Amenities in the
UCSP. Following is a brief discussion as to .how each of the amenities contributes to the
enhancement of the quality of life within the Urban Core. The parking amenity is seen as a
positive addition to the Project because it benefits the Project and the surrounding neighborhood
by providing all the parking on -site and enclosed within the building, and by providing 14 spaces
beyond those required by the UCSP. Based on the UCSP Urban Amenities Table, the on -site
and enclosed parking receives a 10% increase in FAR (4,574 sq. ft. of building area). Providing
all the required parking on -site plus 14 additional spaces for guests and residents contributes to
minimize on- street parking demand. Additionally, the 14 additional parking spaces are
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 110
equivalent to approximately 10% of the total parking required (142 spaces) by the UCSP for the
Third Avenue District C 1.
The second amenity, the Outdoor Space /Plaza, has an area of approximately 1,700 square -feet
and will be furnished with tables, chairs, and landscape materials such as palm trees and shrubs.
A central feature will be a water fountain or an artistic sculpture. The Plaza is located outside
the building and adjacent to the corner and represents a valuable outdoor public space that is
accessible to and can be used by the building residents, customers of the commercial suite or by
the general public. This feature will offer a passive recreational space for people to congregate
and interact, and create neighborhood activity. The UCSP Urban Amenities Table assigns a 10%
increase in FAR for the implementation of Public Parks and Plazas. The Plaza represents a
public benefit and a positive addition to the Project, which is considered an appropriate
,justification for the 10% increase in building FAR.
In regards to the third amenity, the Project has been designed to incorporate architectural and
construction features that would qualify the project to apply for and achieve Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Certification when it is built. LEED is a
building certification program associated with the US Green Building Council and the LEED
program provides a means of verifying that a building or a group of buildings were designed and
built in a way that would improve energy savings, water efficiency, indoor environmental
quality, and CO2 emissions reduction. LEED - certified buildings are resource efficient. They use
less water and energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the UCSP Urban
Amenities Table, LEED Gold Certification would allow for an increase in building FAR by 30 %.
Granting the 30% increase in building FAR is justifiable because the certification will insure that
the Project has been designed and will be built in a way that will improve energy savings, water
efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and CO2 emissions reduction. The Project will
therefore conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and UCSP by being
environmentally sensitive, save resources, create less waste and pollution, and contribute to a
healthier environment and community.
SECTION V. THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE UCSP TO ALLOW FOR COMPOUNDING
OF FAR BONUSES FOR AMENITIES
As indicated in the first section of this memorandum, compounding is not being used to calculate
additional FAR for the Project. The references to the "compounding" calculation in the first
page of the Project plans have been removed. The proposed increase in FAR through the
provision of three amenities is simply calculated by multiplying the site area by each of the
amenities' percentage allowed. The base site area and the proposed amenities and their
corresponding percentage increase in FAR to be awarded are as follows:
• Project site area: 45,738 sq. ft.
• Parking —10% (4,574 sq. ft.)
• Public Plaza — 10% (4,574 sq. ft.)
• LEED Gold Certification — 30% (13,721 sq. ft.)
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page III
SECTION VI. A DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO THE FAR LIMIT PERMITTING A
FAR OF APPROXIMATELY 2.0 SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE
APPLICATION DOES ADVANCE THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
EXCEPTION PROVISION, AND THE REQUIRED FINDINGS CAN BE MADE
The Authors of the letter divide Section VI into three sub - sections. The first is titled as
Introduction, although the comments made here are related to the proposed project FAR, which
is one more repetition of the same theme discussed in the previous sections. This sub - section
describes once again the Project numbers related to the FAR and argues that the FAR increase
should not be granted. This sub - section ends with the statement that the project "does not offer
much if anything in the way of innovative design," which is elaborated in the next sub - section of
the letter. Sub - section B discusses some of the UCSP design guidelines and the Authors argue
that the Project architecture does not meet the guidelines. Sub - section C of the letter argues that
the required findings for granting the exemption to the FAR limits cannot be made.
City staff has reviewed the Project's architecture in relationship to the applicable design
guidelines listed in the UCSP, which is a normal practice and a review requirement of every
project. Staff has provided in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission a full
discussion/response on how the Project meets those guidelines. Staff has also provided in the
Staff Report and Resolutions each of the findings that must be made in order to grant the
exemption and has described how each of the findings is made. The response to the design
guidelines and the exemption findings are included below.
UCSP Design Guidelines
In addition to the development standards and regulations listed in the Cl District, the UCSP also
contains a variety of design guidelines, the purpose of which is to guide the design and
development of projects pursuant to the objectives and policies of the General Plan and the
UCSP. The UCSP's design guidelines for the Cl District focus primarily on promoting quality
and diversity of new commercial and residential development, and safe and efficient parking and
circulation. The proposed Project was analyzed based on the applicable design guidelines that
are listed below and are followed by a statement indicating how the Project is consistent with
each of the guidelines.
"Encourage new development that maintains a healthy interaction with the major street
and surrounding uses by minimizing harmful external effects and providing strong
transit, automobile, and pedestrian connections. "
The proposed Project is consistent with this guideline because it relates directly to the Third
Avenue and K Street frontages and strongly interacts with the commercial corridor. The Project
creates a people activated, urban corner that contributes to the City's goal of "Complete Streets."
The Project enhances the public realm by being placed next to the street, through direct access
onto the street, and by the unproved streetscape design and individual building character. The
Project's placement of most of its mass and bulk next to the street and away from the adjacent
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Continent Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 112
neighboring residences, creates an appropriate separation (ranging from 20 feet to 59 feet to the
property lines) that respects privacy and minimizes shade, noise and other potential externalities.
The Project also provides a strong connection with pedestrians along the sidewalks, and public
transit and the automobile by its placement along Third Avenue and K Street. The building is
close (10 ft.) to the street and the uses on the first floor, such as the residential fitness center,
lobby and elevator space, residential lounge space, and commercial space, relate to and activate
and connect effectively to the street. The future residents will also have easy and quick access to
Bus Route 929 on Third Avenue, which will connect them to other Bus Routes and Trolley
Stations. The vehicle entry into the garage on K Street is located away from the intersection and
provides access for residents, guests and commercial customers without creating traffic issues on
the street.
"New development in the Corridors District should consider the area's scale and
character and demonstrate sensitivity to surrounding uses by limiting building massing,
providing project, amenities such as landscaping, seating, and plazas, and screening
parking and equipment areas. "
"Additional setback areas and upper floor setbacks are encouraged when commercial
and residential areas are adjacent to each other and employ landscaping to screen
parking lots,/rom adjacent residential uses and streets. "
The building structure has been designed to incorporate large setbacks that create significant
distance from the neighboring properties (ranging from 20 feet to 59 feet at the property lines
and 24 feet and up to 115 feet from actual houses) and limit the potential intrusion into their
backyards. The fifth and fourth floors on the wing located along K Street have been removed
and reduced, respectively, to lower the mass and bulk and create more separation from the
adjacent residences. As such the building structure is closest to the Third Avenue and K Street
frontage to create more activity and vibrancy on the street thus promoting more pedestrian
activity, as envisioned by the General and Specific Plans.
All parking is contained on -site and enclosed in the ground and first floors of the building
structure. The perimeter around the parking is heavily landscaped by a combination of trees and
shrubs on planters and on the ground in order to maximize screening between the building and
the single- family residences. This landscape planter (with a width of 13 feet) extends along the
north and east property line. Also, the east and north perimeter of the second floor terrace is
fully landscaped (with a 13 foot wide landscape planter) to provide additional screening between
the building and the single- family residences.
The building is sited, designed and treated such that the intensity of the building mass is in the
most appropriate location along the Third Avenue commercial corridor and as far away as
possible from the adjacent single family properties. By being next to the Third Avenue and K
Street commercial corridor, the Project creates a people activated, urban corner that contributes
to the City's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the public realm through improved
streetscape design and individual building character. By being located along the western and
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page (13
southern areas of the site, the building structure minimizes the shade effect over the residences,
particularly during the winter solstice. The Project is sensitive to and responds to the nearby
residential neighborhood's concerns by stepping down the building mass and using balconies and
awnings to articulate the building facade and create more presence along the streets.
"Upper floor balconies, bays, and windows should be provided that overlook the street,
enliven the street elevation, and communicate the residential_function of the building. "
"Consideration should be given for privacy relative to adjoining properties. Orient
buildings and decks to maximize views while preserving the privacy of the surrounding
neighbors. "
Balconies and windows are an integral part of the building structure. Balconies are an important
architectural element and their projection beyond the building wall is used to create articulation
and variety along the building walls. They are also an important functional element in that they,
as well as the second floor terrace, serve as recreational open space for the residents. The
concerns of the neighbors related to views from the balconies and terrace into their backyard and
homes and a potential loss of privacy are addressed by the Project by stepping down the building
mass and distancing the structure from the residential properties as much as possible. The
balconies along the east building elevation are approximately 47 feet from the property line,
while the balconies along the north elevation are approximately 58 feet from the property line.
The second floor terrace is approximately 13 feet from the property line, but along its perimeter
is a 6 to 13 -foot planter that creates additional distance between people on the terrace and the
property line. This planter will have a variety of landscape materials such as trees and shrubs to
further screen views to and from the neighboring yards and homes from the project. The Project
has been designed in response to the neighbors' concerns and to strike a balance between the
neighbors' respect for privacy and the Project's need to contain all the elements of a well -
organized and articulated building.
"The physical design offacades should utilize such techniques as: Break or articulation
of the facade; vertical and horizontal offsets to minimize large blank walls and reduce
building bulk; significant change in facade design; placement of window and door
openings; and position of awnings and canopies. "
The architecture of Vista del Mar is contemporary and it intends to provide a new urban face to
development in this part of Chula Vista. The project relates to its location on the Third Avenue
commercial corridor by creating a people activated urban corner that creates street activity and
enhances the public realm through improved streetscape design and individual building
character. The building elevations are well articulated by a variety of elements. The view of the
building from the corner of Third and K shows the elevations that divide the building into four
smaller parts, a 5 -story portion with a plaster finish along Third Avenue, a 5 -story corner portion
with different materials and sloped roof line, a 4 -story portion with plaster finish along K and a
3 -story portion along Church with a more residential roofline with overhanging eaves at the
balconies. -
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
.tune 22, 2016
Page 114
The clean, contemporary lines of the building are a deliberate design direction. The materials
will have a finely grained texture. The sand finish plaster will provide a predominately neutral
texture and color and will be juxtaposed by the randomly seamed pre - finished metal panel
cladding at the building corner element. The building mass is punctuated by recessed vertical
elements such as the stair and elevator tower, which are highlighted in an accent color and which
break up the roof line. Balconies are both recessed into and project out from the building wall
providing shadow and articulation to the building fayade. Windows are vertically oriented, full
height and are recessed in the building wall. The windows are distributed in an off -set pattern
within the plaster wall and in a regular pattern within the metal clad wall. The facade will be
enlivened by various window awning types including a L shaped sheet metal shroud and a
horizontal awning with diagonal support kickers.
Shade and Shadow
Residents to the north and east of the Project Site have expressed concerns regarding the
potential of the project to cast shadows on their properties, and block out sunlight for a
significant portion of time. The Project plans include a shade and shadow study (Sheet A5.0 of
the plans in Attachment 9 of the staff report). This study looks at the best and worst case
scenarios based upon summer and winter solstice. The shade /shadow analysis examines summer
and winter shading conditions between Sunrise and Sunset for the 34 to 60 feet -high structure. It
shows where shade from the proposed structure falls over the neighboring properties as the sun
moves through the sky from morning to evening. According to the shade /shadow analysis, no
urban development within the Project vicinity would be permanently shaded. As can be seen on
the winter shading exhibit, shadowing during the winter months would create increased shading
on the commercial office immediately to the north and residential properties to the northeast of
the structure. During winter months, shadowing would occur in a northwest to northeast
direction throughout the day. During noon, the commercial office building and part of the first
house would be shaded on the worst case winter solstice exhibit. The most severe shading during
the Winter Solstice would occur during the evening. Shading would be less during all other
times of the year. The summer solstice exhibit (best case) shows very little shadowing cast onto
adjoining properties.
Findings for an Exemption to the limits on FAR
The Development Exemptions section of the UCSP authorizes the Planning Commission to grant
exemptions in the FAR limits to projects in order to encourage a variety of land uses that are
pedestrian and environmentally friendly and encourage innovative design. This is the basis for
the Applicant's requests for an exemption for a 50% increase in building FAR; this is also the
basis for staff's recommendation to the Planning Commnission to grant said request. It is staff's
position that the FAR increase will advance the UCSP provisions and that the required findings
can be made as follows:
1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific
Plan and General Plan.
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 115
The goals and objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan are not adversely affected by the
proposed 0.5 increase in FAR. On the contrary, the Project as proposed implements the General
Plan and Specific Plan by providing a mixed use residential /commercial use at the Corner of
Third Avenue and K Street. The intent of the General and Specific Plans is to facilitate and
encourage development and improvements that will help realize the community's vision for the
Urban Core area. The Urban Core and the C1 District are envisioned to be vibrant, forward -
thinking but respectful of its past and alive with thriving businesses, attractive housing and
entertainment, cultural and recreational activities. The Urban Core Vision aims to create a
uniquely identifiable Urban Core for Chula Vista that is an economically vibrant, pedestrian -
oriented and multi- purpose destination. The proposed Project meets the goals and objectives
because it brings improvements and community benefits to an area of Third Avenue which is
currently under - performing and not living up to the stated vision of the Specific Plan. This
Project has the potential to spur additional development along the Third Avenue corridor with
additional community and economic benefits. The proposed Project provides wide sidewalks
and a public plaza that will create a pedestrian - friendly environment and foster civic engagement
in a multi - purpose environment. The building mass and f6rm allows the Project to have the
number of residential units and the associated parking, landscaping, recreational spaces and other
features that provide a multi - purpose environment and activities to meet the goals and objectives
of the General and Specific Plans.
2. The proposed development will coniply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan.
As indicated in the Development Standards table in the staff report to the Planning Commission,
the project complies with all other development standards and regulations of the Specific Plan.
The building has a height that varies from 34 feet along K Street and a height of 57 feet along
Third Avenue (the building parapets and elevator shaft achieve a height of 60 feet, which is the
maximum permitted by the UCSP). The project provides all the required parking on -site and
enclosed within the building structures in the underground and first floor levels, and provides 14
additional parking spaces for guests of the residents. Open space and landscaped areas are also
provided in excess of the minimum required.
The building form respects the properties in the adjacent R -1 Zone to the north and east of the
Site along Church Avenue by locating the second floor terrace and balconies as far away as
possible from the property lines, and provides heavy screening by landscaping the perimeter of
the structure. The 3 to 5 -story building structure was designed to place most of the bulk and mass
along Third Avenue and K Street, and as far as possible from the property lines of the single -
family homes. As required in the NTCD regulations the building also steps back from the
adjacent residential properties along Church Avenue, resulting in a reduced building mass and
height near the residential properties, as well as, distancing the Project as much as possible from
the residential properties.
The UCSP's Special Provisions for the NTCD indicate that "Building design shall be cognizant
of adjacent low density uses and avoid balconies overlooking rear yards." The intent of this
provision is not to do away with balconies but rather to address their potential effects on privacy.
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Cominent Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 116
The building design is cognizant of and sensitive to the adjacent residential uses by distancing
the structures from the adjacent property lines by as much as 49 to 59 feet. Also, dense and tall
landscape materials have been provided along the east and north perimeter to screen the homes
from direct view of the balconies. While the NTCD provisions indicate that balconies be
avoided, balconies are important design and functional elements of the UCSP and the Project. In
fact, the UCSP provisions for multi- family projects encourage the use of balconies and other
features to achieve quality building design. One of those provisions is the following:
"Three dimensional design features, such as balconies and bays should be incorporated into
the building design.
Balconies serve to provide building facade articulation and interest, and they serve to provide
usable open/recreational space. Building fagadc articulation and interest are important elements
for a project such as this one, which is part of an urban setting where the building architecture
intends to improve the face of Third Avenue and become a new architectural landmark.
Balconies are also important as a source of recreational space in an urban setting because they
provide recreational space on site. While balconies remain as part of the building elevations, the
design issues (particularly privacy) associated with them have been avoided through the
described Project features.
3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives
in Section F - Urban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter.
The Project incorporates the three amenities listed above, which are: all required parking (on-
site and enclosed); public outdoor space in the form of plaza with art feature and furniture; and
LEED Gold Certification. Additionally, the Project includes other amenities and community
benefits as follows:
As indicated previously, the Project will provide fourteen parking spaces that exceed the parking
regulations and provide guest parking spaces within the parking garage. The proposed Project
will provide a community landmark at the Site in the form of a public art mural on the north
facing wall of the building. The mural will not only serve as a piece of art that will complement
the building's architecture, it will also serve as a landmark that may be used to identify this new
building in this area of Third Avenue, since no other art pieces like this exist now. Per the
community input received at the Second Neighborhood Meeting, the mural could reflect the
history of Chula Vista or important historical events in the City's past and looking towards the
future.
The enhanced street improvements for the Project include a widened sidewalk along Third and K
Street, new paving, street trees in grates, and street furniture such as benches, trash cans and
planters. Additionally, this residential development will provide more options for clean, safe,
energy efficient and modern housing for the Chula Vista workforce. These 71 dwelling units will
put more people on Third Avenue to support the small businesses located there and to create a
more pedestrian- friendly street atmosphere.
Response Memorandum to HeidelberglJentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
Page 117
4. 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.
The additional FAR of 0.5 is appropriate for this location because it would allow the Project to
comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan related to bringing a
mixed use project with sufficient residential units and community amenities to provide housing,
activate the street and support the existing commercial base. The C I District is characterized by
having mostly retail and office uses. While there are about five properties in the District with
residential uses, these properties only represent about 4% of the total District area. General Plan
policy calls for additional residential development within the Cl District to support the existing
and future commercial development. It has been estimated by staff that the appropriate
residential acreage that could potentially be developed within the District based on the General
Plan policy is approximately 40% of total area. That percentage would be translated into
approximately 21 acres. The proposed Project FAR of 1.99 (91,019 sq. ft.) represents
approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the C1 District.
The Project's FAR of 1.99 is appropriate for an urban mixed use development and is in line with
development trends elsewhere in the Urban Core area. The maximum building height is 5 stories
along the Third Avenue elevation (60' high as allowed by the C -1 zone) and 3 stories along the
K Street elevation. This building configuration places the most mass and bulk along the Third
Avenue and K Street's elevations, away from the existing low density residential. The Applicant
has revised the Project and has taken measures to reduce the building mass and addressed
community concerns without reducing the viability of the Project. Furthermore, the form -based
nature of the UCSP ensures that the proposed development emphasize the importance of site
design and building form (which last many years) over numerical parameters such as FAR
(which are likely to change over time). The proposed development creates a people activated,
urban corner that contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the public
realm through improved streetscape design and individual building character.
SECTION VII. STAFFS REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION UNDER CEQA IS
SUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
ESTABLISHED BY THE UCSP
The Authors wrongly assume a certain environmental review process and speculate on an
incorrect CEQA determination. - The Authors state in their letter that staff utilized CEQA
Guidelines section 15183, a streamlined CEQA process for projects that are consistent with
existing zoning and a community plan. The Authors' contention is misplaced. Staff reviewed
the proposed Project for compliance with the CEQA and determined that the proposed Project
was adequately covered in the previously adopted Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 06 -01, certified by the
Chula Vista City Council in May 2007. Staff determined that only minor technical changes or
additions to FEIR 06 -01 were necessary and because none of the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines section 15162 calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred,
Response Memorandum to Heidelberg /Jentz Comment Letter
June 22, 2016
11age 118
staff was able to prepare an Addendum to FE1R 06 -01 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15164, not CEQA Guidelines section 15183, as the Authors so stated. In addition, staff could
have utilized CEQA Guidelines section 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan,
to take advantage of a streamlined CEQA process, but chose not to do so, and as such, prepared
the Addendum to more fully disclose any new potential significant environmental impacts, of
which there were none.
Attachment:
Exhibit A Hildenberg /Jenz Comment Letter