HomeMy WebLinkAboutCGS3 - HeidelbergCROSBIE GLINER SCHIF'PMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP
Attorneys at Law
12750 IIICI7 BLUFF DRIV]', SUITE 250
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92134
T1 L.EPHONE (858) 367 -7676
FACSIMILF (858) 345 -1991
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Proposed Vista del Mar Project (Item 42, June 22, 2016 Agenda)
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
WWTER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
eheidelberg @cgs3.com
WRITLR'S DIRECT PHONE NO.
(858)779 -1738
On behalf of Balboa Equity Capital, Inc., I am submitting the attached material for your
consideration this evening.
Sincerely,
Evelyn F.ineidelberg
EFWpat
Attachments
4815 - 3846 - 1747.1
Item #Z - ISSUES WITH PROPOSED VISTA DEL MAR PROJECT
(Third Avenue and K Street)
BACKGROUND
® Project site is located in the C -1 neighborhood Transition Combining District
o Purpose of the NTCD designation and regulations is "to ensure that the character of
zones within the Specific Plan area will be compatible with and will complement
surrounding residential areas." (See pages 7 -8.)
o Project site is surrounded on two sides by low- density, single- family homes (see page 9).
0 Maximum FAR for C -1 NTCD is 1.0 (see page 10.)
B Project's FAR is 2.0
® Project seeks an award of an FAR bonus of 0.5 for inclusion of three amenities (parking on site,
LEED gold features, public plaza)
® In addition, the project's approval depends on your authorizing a "Development Exception" to
the FAR, to get the project to an FAR of 2.0
o Awarding a "Development Exception" requires that four findings be made, including
that "the proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the
Specific Plan and General Plan," and that "the proposed development will comply with
all other regulations of the Specific Plan"
THE REQUIRED FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH ALL REGULATIONS OF
THE SPECIFIC PLAN CANNOT BE MADE, BECAUSE ONE OF THE EXPRESS "REQUIREMENTS" OF THE C -1
NTCD IS THAT "BUILDING DESIGN SHALL BE COGNIZANT OF ADJACENT LOW DENSITY USES (I.E., AVOID
BALCONIES OVERLOOKING REAR YARDS." (UCSP, VI- 40 -41; see pages 7 - 8)
13 The project includes 21 balconies on floors 3, 4 and 5, as well as a second -floor terrace that
overlook the rear yards of the adjacent single - family homes.
Staff and the applicant assert that the "intent of this provision is not to do away with balconies
but rather to address their potential effects on privacy."
o They cite no legislative history to support that argument, but rather only policies and
guidelines of the UCSP and General Plan which "encourage the use of balconies..."
(emphasis added) and state that those provisions must be read "in harmony" with the
REQUIREMENT D.2.g. in the NTCD regulations stating that balconies are to be AVOIDED
1
if they overlook the rear yards of single - family homes.
o This assertion is incorrect. It would allow a policy guideline or suggestion — "encourage
use of balconies" — to trump an express requirement — no balconies in a C-1 NTCD zone
if the balconies would overlook the homes and yards of single - family homes.
o Staff and the applicant's supposed way to "harmonize" these provisions would violate a
fundamental principle of statutory construction, namely, that the specific governs the
general.
What this means here is that while balconies are generally to be encouraged,
they must be avoided in a C -1 NTCD if balconies would overlook the homes and
yards of single- family homes.
A specific REQUIREMENT to AVOID balconies in special circumstances trumps a
more general guideline or policy encouraging balconies.
And, even if staff were correct that the intent of the NTCD REQUIREMENT to avoid balconies if
they would overlook the homes and yards of single - family homes was to "address their potential
impacts on privacy," the project fails to address those privacy concerns in a satisfactory manner.
o Staff touts the fact that the proposed project meets the minimum step -down
requirements of the C -1 NTCD, and that the structure has been distanced as much as
possible from the single - family residential properties. But such distancing is really
minimal (see page 17 of the Staff Report):
"The second floor terrace is approximately 13 feet from the property line."
"The balconies along the east building elevation are approximately 47 feet from
the property line ....,,
o Attached is a photo that was taken from the balcony at the rear of the office building
immediately to the north of the project site. (See page 11; a photo of the balcony from
which page 11 was taken at page 12.) The horizontal distance from the second floor
balcony to the rear property line is more than 83 feet.
From this photo, you can appreciate how a second floor terrace only 13 feet
from the property line of the single- family homes adjacent to the proposed
project site will intrude on the privacy of the families living in those homes.
® Staff claims that the planting of trees and shrubs in containers along the
perimeter of the second floor terrace will protect the privacy of the
residents of the adjacent single family homes.
2
o But this is simply wrong: Those plantings will not create a
continuous, unbroken wall of greenery that will prevent the
residents of the 71 units and their guests from looking between
the shrubs and trees into the homes and yards of the adjacent
single - family homes. Rather, those plantings will simply shield
the residents of the 71 units and their guests from the views of
those in the homes and yards of the adjacent single- family
homes.
Similarly, as one can envision from viewing the photo taken from the
second floor balcony of the adjacent property, the planting of "dense
and tall landscape materials ... along the east and north perimeter" will
not, as staff claims, "screen the homes from direct view of the [21j
balconies" on the 3'd 4th and 5t" floors.
THE AWARD OF FAR BONUS FOR AMENITIES IS DISCRETIONARY AND PLANNING COMMISSION IN
DETERMINING "JUST NOUN MUCH ADDITIONAL FAR... SHOULD BE GRANTED" MUST "TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE VALUE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY BY THE AMENITY OR DESIGN, AND A REASONABLE
SHARE OF ADDITIONAL FAR — THAT WILL PROPORTIONALLY COMPENSATE THE DEVELOPER FOR THE
ADDITIONAL AMENITIES OR DESIGN PROVISIONS." (UCSP, VI -48.)
o The staff report does not discuss `just how much additional FAR ... should be granted"
taking "into account the value added ... by the amenity or design, and a reasonable
share of additional FAR ... that will proportionally compensate the developer for the
additional amenities or design provisions."
o Rather, the staff report simply says that the project will incorporate three amenities and
concludes, without explanation, that the maximum amount of FAR bonus available.
o The Planning Commission must undertake this analysis, even though the staff report
does not help you.
o In deciding whether to award the maximum 10 percent FAR bonus for providing "public
outdoor space," for example, the Planning Commission should take into account a
December 23 memo from the project's architect to Mr. Tapia that references "a
community urban plaza with outdoor dining opportunities ...." (See pages 13 -14.)
® This statement suggests that a restaurant or cafe that occupies the 616 s.f.
commercial space adjacent to the plaza would be offered the opportunity to
serve patrons on the plaza. This would make the plaza (or some portion of it)
not a "public" plaza at all, but rather one available only to the patrons of a
commercial establishment.
3
THE UCSP ALSO REQUIRES THAT "[T]HE AMOUNT OF BONUS AWARDS CHULA VISTA WILL MAKE
AVAILABLE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PROJECTED BUILD -OUT THAT WOULD OCCUR IF ALL OF
THE BONUS PROVISIONS ALLOWED UNDER THE PROGRAM WERE ACTUALLY AWARDED. THIS TOTAL
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF THE LAND....- (UCSP, VI -48; see page 17)
® This refers to build -out under the UCSP: net increase of 7,100 multi- family dwelling units, net
increase of 1.0 million s.f. of retail space, etc.
Staff analysis is required to assume that OTHER amenities, in addition to the three included in
this project — such as affordable housing, preservation of historic features, or inclusion of
community or human services -- would be included and therefore the bonus award would be
higher than 0.5 FAR (see page 17).
Staff criticized CGS3's analysis of the cumulative impacts of approval of the bonus award sought
by the applicant on the buildout under the UCSP, on the grounds that we "confused" and
"mixed" the concepts of FAR and density.
o But staff's criticism ignores the fact that the UCSP itself plainly states that "The tool
selected for regulating density and intensity in the Urban Core is a limitation on the
allowable Floor Area Ratio." (UCSP, at VI -48; see page 17.)
Staff's only attempt to do its own analysis of the cumulative impact of the proposed project on
UCSP buildout is found at page 15 of the staff report: "It has been estimated by staff that the
appropriate residential acreage that could potentially be developed within the [Cl] District
based on the General Plan policy is approximately 40 percent of total area. That percentage
would be translated into approximately 21 acres. The proposed Project FAR of 2.0 (91,345 sq.
ft.) represents approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the C1
District." (Staff report, at page 15 (page 33 in the Agenda packet).)
o The basis and explanation for this conclusion is not presented.
EVEN IF THE PROJECT DID NOT VIOLATE AN EXPRESS REQUIREMENT OF THE NTCD REGULATIONS TO
AVOID BALCONIES THAT OVERLOOK THE YARDS OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES, A DECISION TO
AWARD A DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SHOULD BE BASED ON A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT
PROMOTES BETTER DESIGN.
As cited by the applicant's counsel in his June 13 letter to the Commission, the legislative history
of the Development Exception provision shows that it was intended to promote "better design"
and other public benefits.
® Staff has cherry- picked certain design guidelines that have been incorporated into the proposed
project, while ignoring other design guidelines that have been violated by the proposed project.
M
o For example, staff asserts as a virtue of the proposed project the fact that the "building
is close (10 ft.) to the street ...:' (Staff report, page 16.) But, the Architectural
Guidelines for the C -1 District call for a much greater setback for buildings taller than
one story: such structures "should be located farther away from the sidewalk and use a
plaza as a transition from the right of way to the building." (UCSP, VII -115; page 18.)
The graphics depicting implementation of this design guideline (see Figures
7.150 and 7.151, at page 18) contrast markedly with the proposed project
design, which consists of long and largely unbroken, solid block faces along both
Third Avenue and K Street, with the only break being the plaza at the
intersection.
NEITHER THE STAFF REPORT NOR THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ADDRESSES PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE
PROJECT'S SOLE VEHICULAR ACCESS BEING AN ENTRANCE TO THE PARKING GARAGE FROM K STREET.
® Because the applicant is seeking to cram onto its property the maximum building mass the City
will allow it, there is no service alley or other surface level access.
0 Consequences not addressed in the staff report or traffic analysis:
o Trash dumpsters will have to be rolled onto the sidewalk and street from the parking
garage two or three times weekly for pickup on K Street. The north side of K Street is
red - curbed, and there is one lane for moving traffic, plus a left turn lane. (See pages 19-
21.) This means that trash trucks will block the moving traffic lane during pickup of
garbage two or three times a week.
o There are "No Stopping Any Time" signs on Third Avenue in front of the project site.
(See page 22.) As there is no parking allowed on Third Avenue or on K Street, moving
vans and other large commercial vehicles servicing the project (including the
commercial use) could not park along the streets fronting the property without blocking
moving lanes of traffic. Moving vans, at 14 feet in height, and with extremely large
turning radius (e.g., 50 feet for a 45 --foot trailer) may be unable to enter the parking
structure. (See pages 23 -28.)
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THIRD AVENUE FROM OFFICE TO
RESIDENTIAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF GENERAL PLAN POLICIES.
w Attachment 2 to the staff report (page 41 in the Commission's agenda packet) consists of an
excerpt from the General Plan's Land Use and Transportation Element for the Mid -Third Avenue
District. Included are Objectives LUT 60 and 60.1, which staff apparently believes apply
notwithstanding the subsequent adoption of the UCSP.
o Objective LUT 60 states "Reinforce the existing land use pattern of predominantly retail
uses on the west side of Third Avenue, and office uses on the east side of Third Avenue
between J Street and L Street."
o Objective LUT 60.1 states "Establish a professional office district along the east side o
Third Avenue, between J and L Streets, consistent with the predominance of existing
office uses. Some limited residential uses may be considered within this segment to
provide additional vibrancy and pedestrian activity."
® The Planning Commission should be aware that its approval of the proposed project would set a
precedent for allowing high- density residential development in an area designated in the
General Plan for reinforcement and establishment of a professional office district on the east
side of Third Avenue between J and L Street.
11% Special Provisions k Neighborhood Transition o n Csl mbini13ig,
IMstricts and Transitfocus Areas
The purpose of: h e: Neitfhborhaod TransWon oMbInind Dis+tribt (NMD) is 'M
.Writ sp c -W regulation to insura tire` tine 0,9ractarofzones MtNh the Specift
pLm .area will be .coM €e;w h and will complement s.urrotind ng resldenl l
areas: Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts apply to the subdistricts
adjacent to R -1 and R -2 zones: V-3, V - -4, UC -5, UC-6, t19 UC -13, C-
1, and C-2. Transit Focus Areas provide special regulations to encourage the
development and use of public transportation: UC -1, UG2, UC -10, UC -12, and
UC - -15.
2. Requkernents
a. Figure 6.60 details required side and rear setbacks from the property
line that abuts an R -1 or R -2 zone. Where such yard is contiguous and
parallel with an alley, one -half the width of such alley shall be assumed
to be a portion of such yard. Within transit focus areas, provide a
minimum 15 feet of rear yard setback for structures up to and over 34
feet in height.
b. For every 35 feet in height, the
5tMetureMeight ORS Mohiffluni Setback ) structure shall step back at least
0 <45 10 15 feet on the side(s) of the
46 <55 15 structure that abut an R -1 or R -2
56 <65 20
66 <75 25 district. Within Transit Focus Areas,
76<85 so provide a building stepback of at
86 <96 35 least 15 feet for every 35 feet in
96 <105 40
height abutting residential uses. In
Mal addition to meeting the stepback
o
requirements, no part of the building
shall be closer to the property line
- -- than a 60- degree plane extending
from each stepback line.
15' fvfin Setback
7
c. A landscaping plan should include one
to three small shade tree(s) for every
3,000 square feet within the rear /side
yard and should be located on the site
to provide shade /heat gain reduction
effect (i.e. trees not to be planted on the
north facing facade of the building).
d.
All exterior lighting shall focus internally within the property to decrease
the light pollution onto the neighboring
properties.
e.
Screening and /or buffers shall be required to obscure features such
as dumpsters, rear entrances, utility and
maintenance structures and
loading facilities.
f
A six -foot solid or decorative metal fence small be places` on the property
line. If the fence is solid, it shall have
design treatment and be articulated
"°''�$ . ¢�
every six to eight feet to avoid
presenting a blank wall to the street
or adjacent property.
_
g.
uAld—lag de,51gn sh-, ,. cognizant T
ad�awnt low densftjr tLs (Le -avail
balconies avert�ac king rear yards )-,
h.
As part of the project design and
submittal, developments within Transit
�{
Focus Areas shall conduct studies to
assess the effects of light, solar,
e°
access, and shadowing, a:O�
_...
i
pa on adjacent buildings and
areas as determined necessary.
0
01
N
I,
I?
Y
m
r-
>n
X01
H m
Set
S
H
33
1 4,E, COR.)
r
19r
I�LOT 27 dX 114 SEC -€39 Y 166
® 4fi
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABUTY IS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS
ASSESSOR'S a7 MAP
BOOK 573 PG 37 [MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISION OR BUILDING ORDINANCES.
mi
AF
J
9a1
38
MAP 2533 -MARIE HATZ SUB
MAP 505 - CHULA VISTA
ROS 1688
573-37
V =100'
12I1w2ot1 JGD
:ANC
r
19r
3 7 { !
20
a
.
$ za
I
1.22 AC
21 :.:; h
a
f9?-57
_r
l7a'S9'sa "a
22
q
O
, ee
�.irs3
'
POR 27
tT
23
O
t5
24 ..'
6
15
25
f i I'jr tI F'
d
as
26
g yy
{
-
�r,Ix 3 7' -i i y3 F1F
13
27
® 4fi
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABUTY IS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS
ASSESSOR'S a7 MAP
BOOK 573 PG 37 [MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISION OR BUILDING ORDINANCES.
mi
AF
J
9a1
38
MAP 2533 -MARIE HATZ SUB
MAP 505 - CHULA VISTA
ROS 1688
573-37
V =100'
12I1w2ot1 JGD
:ANC
10
Urban a ulatIons
o e'
2. Building Height.,
Min: 18' Max: 60'
3, Building Stepback. Not mandatory
4, Street Wall Frontage., 50% Min
S Setbacks.,
Street Min: 10' Street Max. 20'
Neighborhood Transition: See Section
D. for additional setbacks for parcels
adjacent to R -1 and R -2 districts x
Parung Regulations
1. Parking Locations.
10 20 Setback
Anywhere on site gym.-- ._ -eem
,
2. Residential Parking., ��
See CVMC 15.62.050
3, Non - Residential Parking. street
Min: 2 spaces /1,000 sf Sidewalk
Onsite Mir): 50%
Y
C3
_C
i Q
Y
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
10
r
r
STUDIO I
A R C H I T E C T S
Project. Memorandum
2258 First Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
OATE; • December 23, 2075
T619.235.9262 F 619.235.0522
3PttcifEC6': 14118 Vista del Mar
T®: Miguel Tapia, City of Chula Vista
FROM: Maxine Ward, Studio EArchitects
SUBJECR Findings
COKESTO: Fite
MEMORA DUM:
As stated on pageV €54 ofthe Urban Care Specific Plan, the Chula Vista Planning
Commission may authorize 'exceptions tothe land use and development regulations within
Chapter VI through the issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit, if all of the following
findings are made_
1. The proposed development willnot adversely affect the goals and objectives of
the Spacifrc Plan and General Plan.
Z. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific
Flan
3. The proposed development will incorporate one ormore of the Urban
Amenities Incentives
4. The' exceptions are appropriate for this location and will result in a better
design orgreaterpohlic benefit than could be achieved through strict
conformance with the Specific Plan development regulations
Below are our responses to these Findings:
Item 1.• The proposed development will not adverselyafTect thegoals and objectives ofthe
Sped& Plan and General Plan.
The intent of the Specific Plan is to facilitate and encourage development and improvements
that will help realize the community's vision for the Urban Core area. The community wants
the Urban Core to be "vibrant, forwardthinking but respectH.of its past and alive with
thriving businesses, attractive housing and entertainment, cultural and recreational activities."
The Urban Care 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 development follows the goals of the Specific Plan in the following ways:
It brings improvements and community benefit 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 Ave corridor with additional
community and economic benefits.
The proposed development meets the following key principles of the Specific Plan:
The development will be a catalyst Forthe creation of a vibrant, urban atmosphere (Principle
1). It will foster civic amenities in the form of a community urhdn plaza with cutdcardining.
13
appnrtunki .ond will create a pedestrian- friendly environment within a compact (Principle 3
& 6).
Item 2. 7ha proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan.
The proposed development complies with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. These
include:
Height: The height limit per the development regulations is 60'.The proposed development is
5 stories, 58' high.
Setbacks: The proposed development complies with all required setbacks and building
stepbacks of the C -1 and Neighborhood Transition Combining District (NTCD) regulations.
The building form respects the adjacent R -1 zoning to the north and east of the site along
Church by locating the 1 story portion with roof terrace adjacent to those property lines,
screened by landscaping and locating the bulk of the 5 story building as for as possible from
those property lines, As required in the NTCD regulations the building also steps back from
the adjacent residential property and Church Ave, resulting in a reduced building mass and
height in this locution.
Parking: The G1 zone regulations state that parking may be located anywhere on site, The
proposed development provides a better design with greater public benefit by locating the
required parking below the building and architecturally screened from view. The development
provides the required number of resident parking spaces (136), plus the required commercial
space (1). The regulations do not require guest parking, however, the development will provide
7 guest spaces. All spaces will be within the secured parking garage.
Open Space: The G1 zone regulations do not have an open space requirement. The proposed
development provides a better design with greater public benefit by providing resident
common open space in the form of a 12,000sf (gross) roof terrace, resident private open
space in the form of approximately 78sf balcony /patio at each unit, for a total of 6,240sf and
public open space in the form of a 550sf public plaza atthe corner of Third and K For
comparison, the UG1 zone (also on Third Ave, 3 blocks north) has an open space requirement
of 100sf /du. The proposed development provides 236sf /du of open space and exceeds the
requirements of the G1 zone,
Item 3.- The proposed development willincorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities
Incendves
Per the Urbari Amenities Table in the Specific Plan, Figure 6.66 and 6.67, Page VI -50 & 51, the
development incorporates the following Urban Amenities incentives and will be allowed an
incentive of a 50% FAR increase, for a total FAR with incentives of 1.5
Urban Amenity
Incentive
Parking below grade/ within building
10% FAR increase
Public Plaza
10% FAIL increase
Green Building
LEED Gold: 30%
Total Allowed FAR with Incentives
1.5
Additional community benefits include:
® The development exceeds the parking regulations by providing guest parking
spaces within the parking garage therefore reducing the parking impact on the
surrounding single-family neighborhood and providing a community benefit,
® The proposed development will provide additional community benefits such as
a community landmark for the south end of Third Avenue in the form of a
14
public art mural on the north facing wail of the development, Per the
community input received, the mural could reflect the history of Chula vista or
important historical events in the city's past and looking towards the future.
The proposed development will "define unique identities for focus areas
through individualized streetscapo design and public spaces" as stated in one
of the ten key principles of the UCSP.
The development will provide additional public art in the form of a fountain
and/or sculpture for the urban plaza created at the intersection of Third & K.
The enhanced street improvements for the development will include a widened
sidewalk along Third and at both Third & K, 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 forthe Chula Vista workforce. These
76 dwelling units will put more people on Third Avenue to support the small
businesses located there.'The development will provide secure boundaries to
the site preventing use of the site by the homeless and will therefore increase
public safety in the area. The development will create employment use in the
small commercial unit and in the management of the property.
As stated in the UCSP, the vision ofthe. plan is to provide "an increase in living and
lifestyle choices for existing and future residents... These residents will further add to
local business revenues and create a vibrant, pedestrian - friendly activity center
throughout the day." The proposed development is in line with this vision.
Item 4:• The excepMons are appropriate for this location and will resultin abetter design or
greater public benefit than could be achieved through strict conformance with the Specific
Plan development regulations
The proposed development requests only one exception to the development regulations M an
increase in the FAR from 1.5 (with the allowed Urban Amenities incentives) to 2.0.
The applicant respectfully asks For staff and planning commission to considerthe benefits of
the proposed development as a whole and not have the value of the project be obscured by
the FAR of 2.0. This is an appropriate FAR for an urban mixed use development and is in line
with development trends elsewhere in the urban core area. The mass of the building is 5
stories (60' high as allowed by the G1 zone) and.is located along the Third and Kstreets away
from the existing residential. The applicant has token every measure possible to reduce the
building mass, address community concerns and be a good neighbor to the adjacent single
family without reducing the viability of the project, Furthermore, the form -based nature of the
UCSP ensures that proposed development emphasize the importance of site design and
building form (which last manyyears) over numerical parameters such as FAR (which are
likely to change over time). The proposed development creates a people activated, urban
cornerthat contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the public realm
through improved streetscape design and individual building character.
15
Tha site is desig noted C-1 in the UCSP. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0. The FAR is a
measure of the bulk of the huildings on the site. The maximum height limit is 60'. It is highly
unusual for a zone with an FAR of 1 to have such a high height limit. The proposed FAR of 2.0
is appropriate forthis location at a prominent intersection along Third Avenue which is being
developed as Chula Vista's Urban Core and Village Center, only 4 blocks to the north.
Zone
Max. FAR
Max, Height
V-2
2
45'
V -3
4.5
84' (45' between F & Park)
UC -1
4
84'
UC -2
5
84'
C-1
1
60'
If we compare otherzones along Third Avenue such as UC -1 and V -2, they have much higher
max €mum Floor-Area Ratios and heights. In addition, otherNTCD zones (UG13, 10, 9, 5 & 5)
have a maximum FAR of 2.0, not 1,0 and some ofthese are further away from the urban core
than this site.
The attached diagrams show the incongruity between the base FAR of 1.0 and a height of 60'.
It is our opinionthatthe proposed development is a better design and in keeping with the
overall vision of the UCSP, than the type of potential development thatthe regulations could
allow on this site.
Diagram 1 shows a 5 story building with on FAR of 1,0 which does not provide an activated
urban street edge and has surface parking which does not contribute to the community
character or enhanced public saFety.
Diagram 2 shows a 5 story building with an FAR of 1.0 which attempts to create a street edge
along both Third and K. The resulting dimensions of the L shaped form are not conducive to
residential units.
Diagram 3 shows the proposed development with an FAR of 2,0. It creates an urban street
edge and respects the adjacent single family neighborhood by having the 5 story mass biased
towards the street.
Diagram 4 illustrates the proposed development setback to the single family rear property
line and the allowed setback condition with a different potential development.
ENO OF MEMORANDUM
16
�A rban ,�Unenfty e uEren. tints and ncent 'aves
1m #ntroducffon
This section outlines requirements and incentives for urban amenities that will
enhance the quality of life within the Urban Core by encouraging pedestrian -
friendly design, amenities, beautification, sufficient parking, mixed -use districts,
preferred site location, affordable housing, and access to public transit, parks,
community facilities, and social services.
2. Incentive Zoning
The Urban Core Specific Plan regulates the development of property through
use and bulk restrictions. The' of selecA d for r gulating;den -� lty and.. 111tensity,
in tl Verb n Cart-, is a_ &— itation on the all @Me Faor,,A. ro Ratlbj FAR is the
ratio between the size of the lot and tie mdklrhum amount of floor space that
a building constructed on that lot may contain.
Through incentive zoning, Chula Vista seeks to realize certain amenities or
design provisions related to a particular development project in exchange for
granting an increase in the FAR or FAR waiver for the property being developed.
Locations where the City maygrant such incentives are clearly identified in this
chapter.
Bonus awards may be as "of right" or discretionary. Discretionary authority
to grant all FAR bonuses or fee waivers is delegated to the Planning
Commission or City Council as necessary.
The am, by? ,7t, Pf 13000s. allvR r&S I Chula Vista lYlll make. a,ailable should tare into.
account, tkl.o projected &0d i_ -Y that rbdld �w if' all, tai the borum wisicrrd
al bsumbr`eund" the loogrem,wereacfq flyaty .:This total �.lo.01dnot0.0 e d
fie= c p
.Y ,q 'l Man -or the capacity of the City to provide infrastructure and
services to support the build -out.
To determine just how much additional FAR or FAR waiver should be granted,
the take into account,the, value added_
xc the. prt erty by the amenity r design, and a reasonable sham cof aca`o" l�aal
.
FAR:dr,. AR w ivar,thal Will propor.do halfy 'eorripensate the [ leper,.for the..:.
advittional amehttfes of design provisions,:
17
4. Architectural Wdellnes
a. Introduction
There are no specific architectural styles
required for commercial buildings. However,
innovative and imaginative architecture is
encouraged. The guidelines seek quality and
complete design that will contribute to the
overall quality of built environment.
h. Building Height, Form and Bass
1) Building heights and setbacks should vary
from adjacent or adjoining buildings to
ensure diversity in building type.
2) One -story buildings along Broadway and
Third Avenue should be placed close to the
sidewalk to reinforce a pedestrian scale.
Two story building's: should be located:'
farther away, from h-e sidewalk and-use-al
pl-za as a transitibn fr6m the rignfiof way to
the building.
3) Building heights should enhance public
views and provide adjacent sites with
maximum sun and ventilation andprotection
from prevailing winds.
c. Facades
1) Tho °physical design offdcadiosshould uotze
such techniques ass:
Br�:ak or�iti�talaiio,� of tip �;
Vertical and horizontal offsets to
minimize large blank walls and reduce
building bulk;
• Stgnifii nt change in facade design;
• Placementof windowand door openings;
and
• Position of awnings and canopies.
13
;U
rn
r
MIW
j, E�.a
j € 3.�E,3.
',�,
�r .,a
Ey I
jr
8
3 P
i�
#
7
T0111;
;
- - 7 e
6/21/2016 Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans > Business > Division of Design > Manuals & Guidance > Highway Design Manual
gg
€ .�4 2 ,!I,t i Design Manual
;�
EM The Highway Design Manual (HDM) has been revised with the 6th Edition HDM Change 12130115. Changes reflect the
revised reorganization of Headquarters Division of Design, as well as the District Design Delegation Agreements and the
California Stewardship and Oversight Agreement with the FHWA. Bikeway guidance was revised consistent with the new Design
Information Bulletin 89 entitled "Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways /Cycle Tracks) to be published January 1, 2016.
Also included is revised high - occupancy toll and express lane guidance consistent with the passage of California Assembly Bill
194, new discretionary fixed object guidance, revised design vehicle guidance, new interchange guidance to deter wrong -way
movements, revised pavement guidance, revised highway noise abatement guidance, as well as revisions that reflect current
nomenclature and other errata.
Reaffirming our commitment to providing flexibility while maintaining the safety and integrity of the state highway system and
local streets and roads under the jurisdiction of cities and counties, the Department is reaffirming the flexibility provided in existing
Caltrans guidance, highlighting the positive steps already taken in underscoring the importance of mult €modal design, and
recognizes the value of other guidance in supporting planning and design decisions made by state and local decision makers
statewide. For more information on this topic please refer to the memorandum titled "Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design'
dated April 10, 2014 and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on Design FlexibilitV and NACTO Endorsement.
Mould you like to be notified automatically of any changes or updates to the Highway Design Manual? If "YES" Click
Here.
The latest English Version of the Highway Design Manual (HDM) is available on-line below in two formats.
The first format available is a ;pdf file of the complete manual which will allow you to perform word searches of the complete
manual and/or allow you to download or print the complete HDM cover to cover all at one time. This file is very large and may
take some time to download.
A second format that is available below, in both Metric and English Versions, is the traditional chapter by chapter format. This
format is easier to download and/or print. However, the traditional versions only allow for chapter by chapter word searches.
Pease note, implementation of the current version of the 6th Edition HDM available below shall be applied to on -going projects in
accordance with HDM Index 82.5.
No matter which of the formats is used to download and/or print, if the HDM Holder chooses to do so, the Holder is responsible
for keeping their electronic and/or paper copy up to date and current. For this reason, HDM Holders are encouraged to use the on-
line versions of the HDM for the most current design guidance.
The HDM is available for purchase through the Caltrans Publication Unit . If this option is chosen, the HDM Holder and not the
Publications Unit is responsible for obtaining and inserting all of the change- sheets that are available on the Department Design
website,
Hove can I propose changes to the manual? Changes can be proposed by submitting a Proposed Revision to the Highway
Design Manual form to the HDM editor. Antonette.Clark(a?dot.ca.gov
Design Information Bulletins (DI B's) and Design Memos may supercede this Manual
Manual Change Transmittals and Erratas
Bikeway Research. Experimentation, nesting, Evaluation, or Verification Related to Design Criteria
Other Useful Links
Highway Design Manual
Table of Contents
23
http:Mmww. dot .ca.gov /hq /oppolhdmlhdmioc.htm 1/3
6/21/2016
Foreword
Contents Expanded Table of Contents
Chapter 10 Division of Design
Chapter 20 Designation of Highway Routes
Chapter 40 Federal -Aid
Chapter 60 Nomenclature
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Chapter 80 Application of Design Standards
Chapter 100 Basic Design Policies
Chapter 200 Geometric Design and Structure Standards
Chapter 300 Geometric Cross Section
Chapter 400 Intersections At Grade
Chapter 500 Traffic Interchanges
Chapter 600 Pavement Engineering
Chapter 610 Pavement Engineering Considerations
Chapter 620 Rigid Pavement
Chapter 630 Flexible Pavement
Chapter 640 Composite Pavements
Chapter 650 Pavement Drainage
Chapter 660 Base and Subbase
Metric Version English Version
PDF
LAST
PDF
LAST
VERSION
UPDATED
VERSION
UPDATED
fwd.odf
07 -01 -08
fwd.Qdf
07 -01 -15
toc.pdf
07 -01 -08
toc.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0010.pdf
06 -26 -06
chpQ010.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0020.pdf
07 -01 704
chpQ020.pdf
05 -07 -12
chp0040.pdf
07 -01 -95
chp0040.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0060.pdf
06 -06 -08
chp0060.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0080.pdf
06 -27 -08
cht20080.pdf
12 -30 -15
chpQ100.pdf
06 -05 -08
ch 200..pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0200.r)df
06 -26 -H
chp0200.odf
12 -30 -15
cht)0300.pdf
07 -21 -06
chP0300.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0400.pdf
07 -01 -08
chp0400.lDdf
12 -30 -15
chp0500.pdf
06 -26 -06
chpQ500.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0600.pdf
07 -01 -08
chp0600.pdf
11 -02 -12
ch 0c610. df
07 -01 -08
chp0610.pdf
11 -02 -12
chp0620.r)df
07 -01 -08
chpQ620.pdf
11 -02 -12
chp0630.pdf
07 -01 -08
ch 0p _63.o2f
05 -07 -12
chp0640.pdf
07 -01 -08
chpQ640.pdf
12 -30 -15
chp0650.pdf
06 -26 -06
ch Qp 6
12 -30 -15
chP0660.pdf
07 -01 -08
chp0660.pdf
12 -30 -15
24
http://ihww.dot.ca,govihqloppdlhdrnlhdmtoc.htm 213
111GHWAY DFSiGN MANUAL
Figure 404.6A
ST'AA Design Vehicle
56-Foot Radius
ST.AA - STANDARD
Tractor Width : 8.5'
Trailer Width :8.5'
Tractor Track : 8.5'
'trailer Track : 8.5'
Lock to Lock Time : 6 seconds
Steering Lock Angie : 26.3 degrees
Articulating Angle : 70 degrees
25
400 -15
May 7, 2412
side wheel
of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
------------------- - - - - -- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
4 ft
23 ft
41 ft
4 ft
8.6 ft
'
41'
10
25 50 75 10
0
(FEET)
ST.AA - STANDARD
Tractor Width : 8.5'
Trailer Width :8.5'
Tractor Track : 8.5'
'trailer Track : 8.5'
Lock to Lock Time : 6 seconds
Steering Lock Angie : 26.3 degrees
Articulating Angle : 70 degrees
25
400 -15
May 7, 2412
side wheel
of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
------------------- - - - - -- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
48'
'
41'
0
o'
00
oQ
4'
23'
ST.AA - STANDARD
Tractor Width : 8.5'
Trailer Width :8.5'
Tractor Track : 8.5'
'trailer Track : 8.5'
Lock to Lock Time : 6 seconds
Steering Lock Angie : 26.3 degrees
Articulating Angle : 70 degrees
25
400 -15
May 7, 2412
side wheel
of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
------------------- - - - - -- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
400 -16 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
May 7, 2012
Oft
23 ft
41 ft
Oft
0
Figure 404.613
STAA Design Vehicle
67 -Foot Radius
STAA n S 1 AN DARD
Tractor Width :8.6'
Trailer Width : 8;5'
Tractor Track 8.5'
Trailer Track .8.6,
Lack to Lock Time ; 6 seconds
Steering Lock Angle : 26.3 degrees
Articulating Angle : 70 degrees
26
vhleel
dl WeY11111111Cj. ul ,.ul've.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
......................... Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
19'
48'
3'
41'
Q
0'
d
_
,,gg
4'
23"
STAA n S 1 AN DARD
Tractor Width :8.6'
Trailer Width : 8;5'
Tractor Track 8.5'
Trailer Track .8.6,
Lack to Lock Time ; 6 seconds
Steering Lock Angle : 26.3 degrees
Articulating Angle : 70 degrees
26
vhleel
dl WeY11111111Cj. ul ,.ul've.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
......................... Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
3 f
20 ft
38 ft
Oft
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
400 -17
May 7, 2012
Figure 404.5C
California Legal ,; Vehicle
60-Foot Radius
CA LEGAL - 65 FT
Tractor Width : 8.5' Lock to Lock Time : 6 seconds
Trailer width : 8.5' Steerin Lack Angie : 26.3 degrees
Tractor Track ; 8:5' ArticulaUing Angle :70 degrees
Trailer Track ; 8.5'
27
* Radius to outside wheel
at beginning of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
.. - - - - -- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
15'
�' %ill.
11� %+! /%�■■f�!
10
25
so 75 10
CA LEGAL - 65 FT
Tractor Width : 8.5' Lock to Lock Time : 6 seconds
Trailer width : 8.5' Steerin Lack Angie : 26.3 degrees
Tractor Track ; 8:5' ArticulaUing Angle :70 degrees
Trailer Track ; 8.5'
27
* Radius to outside wheel
at beginning of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
.. - - - - -- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
15'
4s'
3'
38'
COO
D
O
3'
20'
CA LEGAL - 65 FT
Tractor Width : 8.5' Lock to Lock Time : 6 seconds
Trailer width : 8.5' Steerin Lack Angie : 26.3 degrees
Tractor Track ; 8:5' ArticulaUing Angle :70 degrees
Trailer Track ; 8.5'
27
* Radius to outside wheel
at beginning of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
.. - - - - -- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.
3 f
20 ft
38 ft
Oft
15' 45'
3' 38'
0 0'
3' 20'
CA LEGAL - 65 FT
Tractor Width :8.5' Lock to Lock Time . 6 seconds
Trailer Width :8.5' Steering Lock Angle: 26.3 degrees
Tractor Track 8.5' Articulating Angle : 70 degrees
Trailer Track :8.5'
28
houlus to Outside MOM
at beginning of curve.
LEGEND
Swept Width (Body)
--------- --- Tracking Width (Tires)
Note: For definitions, see
Indexes 404.1 and 404.5.