Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-16 Packet 1 declere wder penalry of perjury that I am employed by the Ciry of Chuta Vista in the ofiice of the Ciry Clerk and that 1 pottad the document accotding to Brown Act rcquiremenu. - � .`� Deted: 8(�� I _�Signed: ta .:ti'� � � QiUTA VLSTA � t����i%�� � Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Gary Halbert, City Manager Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey John McCann, Councilmember ponna R. Norris, City Clerk Steve Miesen. Councilmember Tuesday, August 16, 2016 5:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula �sta, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Mayor Casillas Salas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A• 1 -6 0387 INTRODUCTION OF CHULA VISTA'S SISTER CITY, ODAWARA, JAPAN'S, YOUTH AMBASSADORS: RYOTA SAJI, IKUMI WATARAI, RITO HOSOYA AND IZUMI KIKUCHI, PARTICIPANTS IN THE ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION'S EXCHANGE PROGRAM; AND A PRESENTATION BY THE CHULA VISTA YOUTH AMBASSADORS: BIANCA ELENA QUILANTAN, MIYUKI SOPHIA MCCLELLAN, LUCIO ALEJANDRO LIRA AND VIRGINIA PEREZ-GONZALEZ, REGARDING THEIR EXPERIENCE IN ODAWARA c;y o�cn�a r,�m r.a•+ v,��ew�an tao�e August 16, 2016City Council Agenda PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO CALIFORNIA PROSTATE CANCER COALITION BOARD MEMBER CHAD LITTLE PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 2016 AS PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 16-0371B.16-0371 PRESENTATION BY THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015 TO FINANCE DIRECTOR DAVID BILBY 16-0389C.16-0389 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 8) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a “Request to Speak” form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 9, 2016.16-04081.16-0408 Council approve the minutes. Staff Recommendation: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN PLAN (FORM BASED CODE) FOR 207 ACRES OF LAND IN THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER PORTION OF THE OTAY RANCH RELATING TO THE RELOCATION OF THE MILLENIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, DELETION OF A PORTION OF MONTAGE AVENUE, REVISING THE PARKING RATES AND STANDARDS AND CLARIFYING THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUBSEQUENT PARKING RATES, AND FUTURE STREET DELETIONS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) 16-04062.16-0406 Development Services Department Department: The Project was adequately covered in previously adopted Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01 and only minor technical changes were required; therefore Addendum IS-15-0003 has been prepared. Environmental Notice: Council adopt the ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Page 2 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 2 August 16, 2016City Council Agenda ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DELETING SECTION 15.24.070, SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING CHAPTER 15.29, EXPEDITED PERMIT PROCESSING, RELATED TO PERMITS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING) 16-03233.16-0323 Development Services Department Department: The Project qualifies for a Class 8 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. Environmental Notice: Council place the ordinance on first reading. Staff Recommendation: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE, AND EXECUTE, AN AGREEMENT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND LEASING OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE; AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS ACCORDINGLY (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) 16-03734.16-0373 Finance Department Department: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Environmental Notice: Council adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation: Page 3 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 3 August 16, 2016City Council Agenda RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO DUMP TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION CONTRACT NUMBER 102811 AND THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,621 16-03785.16-0378 Public Works Department Department: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Environmental Notice: Council adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation: INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2016 16-03846.16-0384 Finance Department Department: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Environmental Notice: Council accept the report. Staff Recommendation: A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON CITIZEN OVERSIGHT BOARDS OF POLICE BEHAVIOR AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL B.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE CHULA VISTA JAIL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 16-03857.16-0385 Police Department Department: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Environmental Notice: Council adopt the resolutions. Staff Recommendation: Page 4 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 4 August 16, 2016City Council Agenda RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED STAFFING LEVEL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REFLECT THE ADDITION OF 2.0 POLICE SERGEANT POSITIONS AND THE ELIMINATION OF 2.0 POLICE AGENT POSITIONS 16-03868.16-0386 Police Department Department: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Environmental Notice: Council adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation: ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a “Request to Speak” form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Time Certain 6:00 p.m.: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE CORRIDOR COALITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND TENTATIVE MAP PCS15-006 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP ON 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN 16-03729.16-0372 Page 5 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 5 August 16, 2016City Council Agenda RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL BY THE CORRIDOR COALITION AND REAFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF THE ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP PCS15-006 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP ON 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN Development Services Department Department: The proposed Project was adequately covered in the previously adopted/certified Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 06-01. An Addendum to UCSP FEIR 06-01 has been prepared. Environmental Notice: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. Staff Recommendation: CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORTS RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF JAMES MERINO TO THE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION AND JASON PRATER TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION 16-040310.16-0403 COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting on September 13, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Page 6 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 6 August 16, 2016City Council Agenda Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk’s Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during normal business hours. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (619) 691-5041(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. Most Chula Vista City Council meetings, including public comments, are video recorded and aired live on AT&T U-verse channel 99 (throughout the County), on Cox Cable channel 24 (only in Chula Vista), and online at www.chulavistaca.gov. Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. (both channels) and are archived on the City's website. Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. Page 7 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 7 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0387, Item#: A. INTRODUCTIONOFCHULAVISTA’SSISTERCITY,ODAWARA,JAPAN’S,YOUTH AMBASSADORS:RYOTASAJI,IKUMIWATARAI,RITOHOSOYAANDIZUMIKIKUCHI, PARTICIPANTSINTHEANNUALINTERNATIONALFRIENDSHIPCOMMISSION’SEXCHANGE PROGRAM;ANDAPRESENTATIONBYTHECHULAVISTAYOUTHAMBASSADORS:BIANCA ELENAQUILANTAN,MIYUKISOPHIAMCCLELLAN,LUCIOALEJANDROLIRAANDVIRGINIA PEREZ-GONZALEZ, REGARDING THEIR EXPERIENCE IN ODAWARA City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 8 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0371, Item#: B. PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONTOCALIFORNIAPROSTATECANCERCOALITION BOARDMEMBERCHADLITTLEPROCLAIMINGSEPTEMBER2016ASPROSTATECANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 9 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0389, Item#: C. PRESENTATIONBYTHEGOVERNMENTFINANCEOFFICERSASSOCIATIONOFTHE CERTIFICATEOFACHIEVEMENTFOREXCELLENCEINFINANCIALREPORTINGAWARDFOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015 TO FINANCE DIRECTOR DAVID BILBY City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 10 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0408, Item#: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 9, 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council approve the minutes. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 11 City of Chula Vista Meeting Minutes - Draft 5:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: Present:Councilmember Bensoussan, Councilmember McCann, Deputy Mayor Miesen and Mayor Casillas Salas Absent:Councilmember Aguilar Also Present: City Manager Halbert, City Attorney Googins, City Clerk Norris, and Assistant City Clerk Bigelow PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Councilmember McCann led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A.16-0365 OATH OF OFFICE Amy Reeve, Civil Service Commission City Clerk Norris administered the oath of office to Commissioner Reeve, and Deputy Mayor Miesen presented her with a certificate of appointment. B.16-0399 PRESENTATION BY THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION OF THE 2016 GAYLE MCCANDLISS ARTS AWARDS Cultural Arts Manager Tessitore-Lopez gave a presentation on the item. Cultural Arts Commission Chair Cazares and Commissioner Gore recognized the following winners of the 2016 Gayle McCandliss Arts Awards: Rising Star Scholarship winners: Brianna Quirino (Body Art), Jared Gorospe (Photography), Joshua Lee (Dance), Isabel Rodriguez (Performing Arts), and Benjamin Salvacion (Music) Rising Star - Outstanding Artistic Achievement Award winners: Mathias Cien-Mayer, Leticia Roybal, Dayna Hill, Madelin Chavez, Ramona Demotto, Oscar Chavez, Jonathan Mena, Lori Lopez, Alisa Venegas, and Valentina Alonzo Literary Art Award - Outstanding Literary Achievement Award winners: Patricia Maxwell, Jennifer Hodge, and Chrissy Baclagan Bravo Award - Distinguished Community Service Award winners: Sophia Gray and Anita Chateau Page 1City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 12 August 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 - 7) 1.16-0400 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 26 and August 2, 2016. Recommended Action: Council approve the minutes. 2.16-0392 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A.Letter of resignation from Max Zaker effective August 2, 2016, Housing Commission. B.Memorandum from Councilmember Aguilar requesting an excused absence from the July 26, 2016 City Council meeting. Recommended Action: Council accept the resignation and excuse the absence. 3.16-0278 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-165 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND COLE & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND APPROPRIATING $30,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRANSNET FUND TO CIP GG222, “ASSET MANAGEMENT” (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 4.16-0377 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-166 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE COMBINATION SEWER CLEANING TRUCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ALLIANCE CONTRACT NUMBER 102811 AND THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $439,961 Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 5.16-0333 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-167 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS; AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE “MAX FIELD PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (CIP NO. SW278)” TO JUST CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $398,631; APPROPRIATING $320,000 FROM THE SEWER FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SW278; AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL CHANGE ORDERS; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. Page 2City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 13 August 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft 6.16-0358 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-168 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS FOR SLF IV-MILLENIA, LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MILLENIA PROJECT AND PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE CREDIT FOR ELIGIBLE EXPENSES Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 7.16-0374 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-169 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND ADVANTAGE SENTRY AND PROTECTION, INC. TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR PRISONERS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. Approval of the Consent Calendar A motion was made by Deputy Mayor Miesen, seconded by Councilmember McCann, to approve staff's recommendations on the above Consent Calendar items, headings read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: ACTION: Yes:Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Casillas Salas4 - No:0 Abstain:0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS Steven Pavka, Chula Vista resident, expressed concern regarding issues affecting older residents of the City. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.16-0314 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 07-01 AND AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER (EUC) SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND FORM BASED CODE TO RELOCATE THE MILLENIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, DELETE A PORTION OF MONTAGE AVENUE, REVISE PARKING RATES AND STANDARDS, AND CLARIFY THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUBSEQUENT PARKING RATES, AND FUTURE STREET DELETIONS Page 3City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 14 August 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft A.RESOLUTION NO. 2016-170 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM (IS-15- 0003) TO EIR 07-01 AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE RELOCATION OF MILLENIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE AND DELETION OF A PORTION OF MONTAGE AVENUE B.ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN PLAN (FORM BASED CODE) FOR 207 ACRES OF LAND IN THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER PORTION OF THE OTAY RANCH RELATING TO THE RELOCATION OF THE MILLENIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, DELETION OF A PORTION OF MONTAGE AVENUE, REVISING THE PARKING RATES AND STANDARDS AND CLARIFYING THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUBSEQUENT PARKING RATES, AND FUTURE STREET DELETIONS (FIRST READING) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice. Landscape Architect Ferman gave a presentation on the item. Mayor Casillas Salas opened the public hearing. The following members of the public spoke in support of staff's recommendation: - Todd Galarneau, representing Meridian Development - Carolyn Scholl, representing the Chula Vista Elementary School District Mayor Casillas Salas stated written documentation in support of staff's recommendation had been received from Lee Chesnut, representing Chesnut Properties. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Casillas Salas closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmember Bensoussan, that Resolution No. 2016-170 be adopted and the above ordinance be placed on first reading, headings read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: ACTION: Yes:Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Casillas Salas4 - No:0 Abstain:0 9.16-0354 CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL BY BALDWIN & SONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION OF NO DECISION DUE TO NOT ACHIEVING A MAJORITY VOTE ON DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DR15-0024 FOR A 78-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD R-17B(b) Page 4City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 15 August 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft RESOLUTION NO. 2016-171 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN APPEAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DR15-0024 TO CONSTRUCT A 78-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT WITH TWO-CAR GARAGES, RECREATION AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE ON 4.7 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO, NEIGHBORHOOD R-17B(b) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice. Deputy Mayor Miesen stated he would abstain from participating and voting on the item due to a potential conflict of interest related to a business entity in which he had a financial interest. He left the dais at 5:47 p.m. Senior Planner Donn gave a presentation on the item. Nick Lee, applicant, representing Baldwin & Sons, provided information regarding the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the proposed project. Mayor Casillas Salas opened the public hearing. Stephen Haase, representing Baldwin & Sons, spoke in favor of consistency in applying parking standards to development projects that were similar in nature. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Casillas Salas closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmember Bensoussan, that Resolution No. 2016-171 be adopted, heading read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: ACTION: Yes:Bensoussan, McCann and Casillas Salas3 - No:0 Abstain:Miesen1 - CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS City Manager Halbert provided a status update regarding the extension of Heritage Road to Main Street. MAYOR’S REPORTS Mayor Casillas Salas announced the standings of the following youth sports teams: Bonita Valley Girls Softball 12 and under became the 2016 National Champions, Bonita Vista Girls softball 14 and under finished in fifth place in the Nationals, Bonita Valley Girls 10 and under played in the Nationals but were eliminated, Park View Little League was two wins away from the Little League World Series, and Chula Vista South Pony League played in the Colt League World Series and were the West Zone Champions. She spoke regarding her attendance at the recent National Night Out event, a presentation by The Maritime Alliance and OceanSTEM Education at Marine Group Boat Works, the Farm to Bay fundraising event at the Living Coast Discovery Center, and the Lemon Festival. Mayor Casillas Salas paid tribute to Officer Jonathan De Guzman and City employee Rich Zumwalt. Deputy Mayor Miesen returned to the dais at 6:10 p.m. Page 5City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 16 August 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS Councilmember McCann spoke regarding the recent Lemon Festival, a recent community meeting regarding an East H Street project. Councilmember McCann thanked the community for its support and spoke regarding the memorial service for Officer De Guzman. Deputy Mayor Miesen spoke regarding the recent community recognition of and support for law enforcement. He stated he attended the recent Living Coast Discovery Center Farm to Bay event and the Lemon Festival. Councilmember Bensoussan spoke regarding the upcoming HarborFest event. City Attorney Googins spoke regarding the recent Lemon Festival event. City Attorney Googins announced that the Council would convene in closed session to discuss the items listed below. Mayor Casillas Salas recessed the meeting at 6:20 p.m. The Council reconvened in Closed Session at 6:24 p.m., with Councilmembers Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen, and Mayor Casillas Salas present. CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and Council Policy No. 346-03, Official Minutes and records of action taken during Closed Sessions are maintained by the City Attorney. 10.16-0398 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of case:A) John Kilpatrick v. City of Chula Vista, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Case No. 2016040774; and B) Karen R. Escobedo as Trustee of the Irving A. Escobedo and Karen R. Escobedo Family Trust v. City of Chula Vista, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2015-00007825-CU-PO-CTL. Item A: No reportable action. Item B: Reportable action pending finalization of settlement. ACTION: ADJOURNMENT At 6:34 p.m., Mayor Casillas Salas adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 16, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. _______________________________ Kerry K. Bigelow, Assistant City Clerk Page 6City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 17 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. ORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAPPROVINGAMENDMENTSTOTHEEASTERN URBANCENTERPLANNEDCOMMUNITYDISTRICTREGULATIONSANDDESIGNPLAN(FORM BASEDCODE)FOR207ACRESOFLANDINTHEEASTERNURBANCENTERPORTIONOF THEOTAYRANCHRELATINGTOTHERELOCATIONOFTHEMILLENIAELEMENTARY SCHOOLSITE,DELETIONOFAPORTIONOFMONTAGEAVENUE,REVISINGTHEPARKING RATESANDSTANDARDSANDCLARIFYINGTHEAPPROVALPROCESSFORTHEPARKING MANAGEMENTPLAN,SUBSEQUENTPARKINGRATES,ANDFUTURESTREETDELETIONS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the ordinance. SUMMARY TheMilleniaproject(formerlyknownastheEasternUrbanCenter)includesapproximately207acres oflandandislocatedalongtheSR125tollwaybetweenBirchRoadandthefutureHunte Parkway/MainStreetextension(Attachment1).Theprojectisapprovedforapproximately3.5million square feet of non-residential uses, and 2,983 multi-family housing units. TheapprovedEUCSPAPlan(SPA)andFormBasedCode(FBC)currentlyproposetheprimary locationoftheElementarySchoolsitetobewithintheSouth-Centralresidentialneighborhood (District9).SLFIV/Millenia,LLC(“Applicant”)filedanapplicationtoamendtheapprovedSectional PlanningArea(SPA)PlanandFormBasedCode(FBC)tomovetheschoolsitetoTentativeMap (TM)Lot16intheMixedUseCivic/OfficeCoreDistrict(District5).TheSchoolDistricthasexpressed apreferencefortheelementaryschooltobelocatedinDistrict5insteadofDistrict9duetoitsmore central location and improved accessibility. StaffisalsoseekingclarificationoftheDirectorofDevelopmentServices’authoritytoapprove,atan administrativelevel,streetdeletionsintheMilleniaplanandtoapprovetheMilleniaParking Management Plan. Both of these issues are discussed in more detail in the staff report. As proposed, the Project will require amendments to the EUC SPA Plan, and FBC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice TheProjectwasadequatelycoveredinpreviouslyadoptedFinalSecondTierEnvironmentalImpact Report,EIR07-01andonlyminortechnicalchangeswererequired;thereforeAddendumIS-15-0003 has been prepared. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththeCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 18 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheprojectwascoveredin previouslyadoptedFinalSecondTierEnvironmentalImpactReport,EIR07-01.TheDirectorof DevelopmentServiceshasdeterminedthatonlyminortechnicalchangesoradditionstothis documentarenecessaryandthatnoneoftheconditionsdescribedinSection15162and15164of theStateCEQAGuidelinescallingforthepreparationofasubsequentdocumenthaveoccurred; therefore,theDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshaspreparedanaddendumtotheFinalSecondTier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01 (Attachment 2). BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OnJuly13,2016,thePlanningCommissionconductedapublichearingandvoted[4-0-3Anaya, Fuentes,Gutierrezabsent]thattheCityCounciladopttheResolutionconsideringtheAddendumto theFinalSecondTierEnvironmentalImpactReport,EIR07-01(IS-15-0003)andadoptthe OrdinanceapprovingthesecondamendmenttotheEasternUrbanCenter(EUC)SectionalPlanning Area(SPA)PlanandFormBasedCodewiththechangethatfuturerevisionstoparkingrates(SPA PlanParkingStandardsTableIII-A)shallrequirereviewandapprovalbyPlanningCommission,until suchtimeastheParkingDistrictCounciltransfersfromtheMasterDevelopertotheCommunity Association.StaffagreeswiththePlanningCommission’srecommendationandtheirrevisionis reflected in the proposed amendments (Attachment 4). DISCUSSION SPA Plan and Form Based Code TheadoptedSPAPlan,approvedonSeptember15,2009,establishesthevisionforMillenia,and definesthelandusecharacterandmix,designcriteria,transportationsystem,andpublic infrastructurerequirementsfortheproject.TheSPAPlanproposesaflexibleregulatoryframework thatprovidesforavarietyofpossiblelandusescenariosforeachdistrictandisintendedtoallowthe projecttorespondtomarketcycles.TheFBCincorporatesboththePCDistrictRegulationsandthe VillageDesignPlanandisbasedontheconceptthattherelationshipbetweenbuildingsandthe public realm is more important than distinctions in land-use types. Milleniaisdividedinto10CommunityDistricts,andtheSPAcontainsaTableofRequirementsfor eachDistrictthatidentifiesthedominantlanduse,numberofdwellingunits,non-residentialsquare footage permitted (office and retail), building setbacks, and other requirements and limitations. Relocation of the Millenia School Site ThePublicFacilitiesSectionoftheSPAPlanstatesthattheprojected2,983residentialdwellingunits willgenerateapproximately624elementarystudentsatfullbuild-outaccordingtotheChulaVista Elementary School District (CVESD). TheSPAplanapprovedbytheCityinSeptemberof2009includedtwopotentialschoolsites:A preferredsiteintheCentralSouthernNeighborhoodDistrict(District9)andanalternativesiteinthe SouthwesternNeighborhoodDistrict(District10).InSeptember2012,theCVESDprovidedformal confirmationthatthealternativesiteinDistrict10wasnolongerneeded;therefore,inMarch2013a SPAplanamendmentincludedtheeliminationofthealternativeschoolsite(Resolution2013-038and City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 19 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. SPAplanamendmentincludedtheeliminationofthealternativeschoolsite(Resolution2013-038and ordinance 3257). Sincethen,theSchoolDistrictandtheApplicanthavediscussedaconceptforapotentialjoint-use elementaryschoolandYMCAfacility.TheApplicantandtheCVESDconcludedthatoneofthe challengestolocatingapotentialjoint-usefacilitywasthesizeoftheschoolsiteinTMLot26in District9,whichisapproximately6.5acresofusablearea.Thediscussionsthenfocusedonan alternativesitewhichcouldaccommodateapotentialjoint-usefacilitywiththeYMCAorasimilar compatible use. Negotiations on the joint-use facility are ongoing and may or may not be realized. TheApplicantisproposingtomovethesitefortheelementaryschoolfromitscurrentlocationin District9toTMlot16(8.5acresinsize)intheMixed-UseCivic/OfficeCoreDistrict(District5) (Please see Attachment 4, EUC SPA Plan Amendment). PertheSPAPlan,Section02.03.001,District5isintendedtobetheheartofMilleniaandtofunction “asthesymbolicandceremonialfocusofcommunitygovernmentandculture”.Ithasatargetdensity of200residentialunits,900,000squarefeetofnon-residentialuses,aPublicLibrary,aFireStation,a CPFsite,anda1.62-acrepark(seeAttachment4,SiteUtilizationPlan,pages5and6of31).The CityhasreceivedaDesignReviewapplicationfromChesnutPropertiesforTMLot7whichformsthe northernhalfofDistrict5.Thatapplicationproposesapproximately318,000squarefeetofClassA officespacealongwithafour-storyparkingstructure.Discussionsareongoingregardingthesitingof the Millenia library in one of the proposed buildings. TheCVESDhassubmittedtheattachedletterdatedApril21,2016formallysupportingTMLot16as thesitefortheMilleniaelementaryschoolduetoits“morecentrallocationandimproved accessibility”(Attachment3).Theapplicantisinagreementwiththispositionandifapproved,the proposed SPA plan would delete any reference to TM Lot 26 as a potential school site. a.Proposed School Site Land Use Theproposedschoolsiteisan8.5-acreparcellocatedinthesouthernportionofDistrict5andis ofsufficientsizetoaccommodateapotentialjointusefacility.ThisDistrictalreadycontainsa requirement for a CPF site to be developed within it. Whilenotwithinaresidentialdistrict,theproposedschoolsiteisbothimmediatelyadjacentto otherresidentialdistrictsandiscentrallylocatedwithinMillenia.Thissitewillhavedirectaccess toa1.62-acreplannedparkP-2,theRegionalTrail,anextensivesidewalkandbicyclenetwork, andisalsoincloseproximitytotheplannedCitylibrary,whichprovidesaddedlanduse synergies. TheparcelwithinDistrict5containsabuildingheightdesignationofMH3whichrequiresthata minimumaverageheightofthreestoriesbemaintained.TheCVESDhasindicatedthatthe maximumheightoftheschoolwillbetwostories.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthe RegulatingPlanforMinimumAverageBuildingHeights(Attachment4,ExhibitIII-49,pages24 and25of31)indicatesthatthepotentialschoolsitelocationisnotsubjecttoheightaveraging calculations. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 20 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. TheMilleniaplanprovidesarangeoflandusesforeachDistrict,andcontemplatesthattherange ofresidentialandnon-residentiallandusesineachDistrictareflexible.TheSiteUtilizationPlan providesLow(minimum),High(maximum)andTargetdensitieswithineachDistrict.Whilethe targetamountistheanticipateddensityatthetimeofSPAapproval,anyvaluebetweenthelow andhighamountsisconsistentwiththeSPAPlan.PerSection04.05.000oftheEUCFBC, residentialandnon-residentialusesnotmeetingthetargetintensitycouldbereallocatedasan intensity transfer to another District. Consideredcumulatively,theTargetnon-residentialsquarefootageineachDistrictcorrespondsto thetotal3.5millionnon-residentialsquarefeetapprovedfortheMilleniaproject.Thegap betweentheTargetandHighdensitiesreflectthecapacityforeachDistricttoabsorbnon- residentialsquarefootagedisplacedfromanotherDistrictviaintensitytransfer.Thenon- residentialtransferabsorptioncapacityvariesbyDistrict,rangingfrom50,000squarefeet(District 10) to 368,000 square feet (District 4). Ifrelocationoftheschoolsiteisapproved,thecurrentschoolsiteinDistrict9wouldreverttoits underlyingresidentiallanduse,asdesignatedontheSiteUtilizationPlan.Noadditional residentialunitsarebeingproposedatthistimeandthereissufficientcapacitytoabsorbthe displacednon-residentialusesinotherDistricts.PriortobuildoutofDistrict5,anadministrative intensitytransferoftheseunitstoanotherDistrictmustbeconductedinaccordancewiththe provisions contained in Section 04.05.000 of the FBC. WhilefinallandusesarenotknownforTMlot16inDistrict5,iftheSchoolDistrictdoesmove forwardwithconstructionoftheMilleniaschool,itwoulddisplaceothernon-residentialuses plannedforthatDistrict.Nointensitytransferhasbeenproposedatthistime;however,thereis sufficientcapacityintheotherDistrictstoabsorbthenon-residentialusesthatwillbedisplaced from District 5. Toevaluatethepotentialfiscalimpactsassociatedwithapuredisplacementscenario(nointensity transfertoanotherDistrict),theApplicantpreparedafiscalstudytoanalyzethepossiblelossof 450,000squarefeetofofficeusesintheCivicDistrict.ThatstudycomparestheCity’scosts associatedwiththeofficeusewithanticipatedrevenuestogenerateanetfiscalimpacttotheCity. Please refer to the Ongoing Fiscal Section of this report for an analysis of the fiscal impacts. b.Proposed School Site Circulation Theproposedschoolsitewillbeboundonthreesidesbyroads,includingthefour-laneMillenia Avenue(StreetA)tothewest,MontageAvenuetotheeastandStrataStreettothesouth.The siteisborderedonthenorthbythefutureCivicPark(P-2)andtheplannedCityLibrarysiteonLot 7.Whilenositeplanhasbeenprovidedtoindicatethelayoutoftheschoolsite,withstreetsat padlevelonthreesides,thereisthepotentialtoprovideforaccessandcirculationpatternsinand aroundtheelementaryschool.Signalizedaccesstotheschoolsitewillbeprovidedviaaplanned traffic signal on Millenia Avenue between Optima Street and Strata Street. TheCity’sTransportationEngineerhasreviewedtheprevioustrafficstudiespreparedfortheEUC andconcludedthattrafficimpactsofprovidingaschoolsiteinDistrict5wouldbeminimaltonone. Whiletheremaybetemporaryheavytrafficduringmorningandafternoonpeakhours,therewillCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 4 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 21 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. Whiletheremaybetemporaryheavytrafficduringmorningandafternoonpeakhours,therewill beenoughcapacityontheroadwaysandintersectionstohandlethesetemporarypeaks.Further, becausetheMilleniacommunityislaidoutinagridpatternofsmallerunclassifiedstreetsthat provideanumberofwaystogettoanydestinationwithinthesite,theCity’sTransportation EngineerhasindicatedthatMilleniaAvenuewillnotcreateasubstandardlevelofserviceasa result of the alternative school site location. Street Deletion Authority Section04.06.000oftheMilleniaFBCincludesspecificSubdivisionStandardsandProceduresthat allownewstreetstobeaddedbyFinalMapwiththeapprovalofthe“DirectorofPlanningand Building(nowDirectorofDevelopmentServices)andtheCityEngineer”,regardlessofwhetherthose streetswereshownontheoriginalTentativeMap.Theintentoftheproposedamendmentistoadd clarifyinglanguagetoallowstreetstoalsobedeletedwithapprovalofaFinalMapwiththeDirector ofDevelopmentServicesandtheCityEngineer’sapproval(Attachment4,page31of31).Any requestwouldneedtobesupportedbyatechnicalstudyevaluatingtheimpactofthedeletiononthe Millenia circulation system, surrounding arterials and adjacent properties. a.Montage Avenue Segment Deletion Inadditiontotheproposedamendmentdiscussedabove,theApplicantisproposingtodelete MontageAvenuebetweenStrataStreetandAvantStreet.In2014,theCityCouncilapprovedthe SPAPlanandrelatedentitlementsfortheOtayLandCompany’sVillageNineproject.Those entitlementseliminatedthesoutherlyextensionofMontageAvenuefromthefutureHunte Parkway/MainStreetextensionacrosstheOtayLandCompanyproperty.Thisactionhadthe impactofrenderingthissegmentofMontageAvenueontheMilleniasiteunnecessary.Atechnical studydatedAugust13,2013waspreparedbyDarnellandAssociatesandshowedthatthe deletionofthestreetsegmentwouldnotadverselyimpacteitherthecirculationorlevelsofservice (LOS) in the project. That study was reviewed and approved by City Staff. ThedeletionofthesegmentofMontageAvenuesouthofStrataStreet,whichwouldbedeletedby theDirectorofDevelopmentServicesiftheproposedamendmentisapproved,willnotimpact pedestrianorotheralternativemodesofcirculationassufficientsidewalksandbikeaccessibilityis providedtothelotsadjacenttothedeletedstreetsegmentsviaMilleniaAvenue,OrionAvenue andStrataStreet.Theremovalofthissegmentwillalsonotimpactanyplannedtransitroutesor facilities. Parking Management Plan TheParkingStandardsSection03.15.003oftheEUCFBCrequiresthatprojectswithinMillenia complywiththeparkingratesoutlinedinTableIII-Aofsaidsectionuntilsuchtimeastherevised parkingratesareadoptedaspartofaParkingManagementPlan(PMP).TheFBCdidnotspecifyan approvalauthorityfortheadoptionofthePMP.TheproposedSPAamendmentintendstoclarifythe approvalauthorityforthePMP,aswellas,toadoptrevisedparkingratesfromtheproposedPMP whichwillreplacethosecurrentlyshowninTableIII-AoftheEUCFBC(Attachment4,pages27,28, and 29 of 31). ThePMP,preparedbyLinscott,Law&Greenspan(LLG),iscurrentlyunderCityreviewandisnowCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 5 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 22 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. ThePMP,preparedbyLinscott,Law&Greenspan(LLG),iscurrentlyunderCityreviewandisnow nearingcompletion.ThePMP’spurposeistoprovideamechanismtomanagetheparkingallocation forMilleniaandtoimplementtheprovisionsoftheSPAPlanwithanoverallgoalofmanagingthe parkingdemandandsupplywithinthenon-residentialareasoftheproject.ThePMPwouldnotapply toresidentialparkingwithinprivatelots;however,itdoesapplytoresidentialparkingonpublic streets.Themanagementoftheresidentiallots,andanyspecificresidentialpermitparkingprogram implementedwithinthoseprivatelots,wouldbeunderthesolepurviewofeachindividual Homeowner’sAssociation(HOA).Sharedparkingwillnotbearequirementforanyresidential development,althoughtheoptiontoenterintoaprivateagreementtoshareparkingisopenviaa private agreement between the sharing parties. a.Parking District PerSection03.15.010oftheEUCFBC,aParkingDistrictshallbeformedandamanagement entityestablishedinordertoactivelyimplementandupdateaparkingmanagementplan.The DeclarationofCovenants,ConditionsandRestrictionsandEstablishmentofEasementsof Millenia(CommunityDeclaration)recordedDecember18,2013asdocumentnumber2013- 0727255statesthattheCommunityAssociationwillformaParkingDistrictCouncil(PDC)to implementtheParkingManagementPlanwhichshallbepreparedbytheMasterDeveloperand shallbeupdatedonasemi-annualbasisinaccordancewiththerequirementsofCommunity EntitlementsandtheprovisionsofArticle4oftheCommunityDeclaration.ThePDCmayalso include representatives of the City. ThePMPwillbeimplementedbyeithertheMasterDeveloper,duringtheinitialbuild-outofthe projectinaccordancewiththeCommunityDeclaration,orthePDC.Dutiesincludethe requirementtoconductaninventoryandoccupancystudyeverytwoyearstodeterminethe numberofavailablespacesintheParkingDistrictduringpeakperiodsandtoevaluatetheir sharedparkingeffectiveness.ThestudyshallbeusedtoupdatethePMP,includingthe developmentofnewparkingratesforprojectswithintheDistrict.Thenewrateswouldapplytoall development projects in the district during the following two-year period. b.Parking Rates TherevisedparkingratesinthePMPdifferfromthosedescribedinTableIII-AoftheSPAinthat theyrepresentmoreappropriateratiosforthecurrentmarketconditionsasprimarilyreflectedin thebaseratesfoundinthe ULI’sSharedParking(2nd Edition)and ITE’sParkingGeneration(4th Edition).TherevisedparkingrateswillbeincorporatedasAppendixBintheParking ManagementPlan.Theserateswillbeuseduntilafutureparkingsurveyisconductedand updatedparkingratesadoptedeverytwoyears.Forprojectsrequestingparkinglowerthanthe amountrequiredbythePMPorparkinggreaterthantheamountrequiredbythePMPbymore than 10%, a parking study is required as part of their Design Review application. TheproposedamendmentwouldgivetheDirectorofDevelopmentServicesauthoritytoapprovethe initialParkingManagementPlanandfuturechangestothePlan.Theamendmentwouldalsoallow futurerevisionstonon-residentialparkingratesbasedonresultsoftherequiredperiodicparking surveys.DuringthepublichearingheldonJuly13,2016,thePlanningCommissionrecommended thatallfurtherrevisionstoparkingratesshallrequirepriorreviewandapprovalbyPlanning CommissionpriortoreplacingthosecontainedintheParkingManagementPlanandasshowninCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 6 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 23 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. CommissionpriortoreplacingthosecontainedintheParkingManagementPlanandasshownin TableIII-AoftheEUCSPAPlan,untilsuchtimeastheParkingDistrictCounciltransfersfromthe Master Developer to the Community Association. Staff agrees with this recommendation. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT StaffhasreviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilmembersandhasfoundnoproperty holdingswithin500feetoftheboundariesofthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthisaction. Consequently,thisitemdoesnotpresentadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictof interestunderCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18702.2(a)(11),forpurposesofthe Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. TheintentofthisamendmentistoprovidesupportfortheMilleniaprojectasitdevelopsintoa thrivingandsafedestinationwithstrongconnectionstothesurroundingcommunitieswhileproviding activeandpassiverecreationforresidentsthusenablingahealthy,strongandsecurecommunityto develop. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT AllapplicationfeesandprocessingcostsarebornebytheApplicant,resultinginnonetimpacttothe General Fund or the Development Services Fund. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT TheMilleniaFiscalImpactAnalysis,whichisincludedasAttachment5,indicatesthattheanalysisis basedonapreviousdevelopmentprogramevaluatedinconnectionwithafiscalanalysisfortheEUC SPAPlanwhichenvisionedthedeliveryofthe450,000grosssquarefeetofofficespaceneartheend oftheproject’s20-yearabsorptionperiod.TheAnalysisfurtherindicatesthatfiscalimpacts referencedintheAnalysisatanillustrativeyear5andyear10wouldberealizedbytheCity approximately20yearsinthefuture.TheAnalysisconcludesthatforamid-rentscenario($2.70per squarefeet)thenetnegativefiscalimpacttotheCityofremoving450,000squarefeetofofficefrom theCivic/OfficeDistrictwouldaverage$29,000(2015dollars)onanannualbasis.Thelossofoffice spacewouldalsoresultinalossofapproximately1,900jobsatbuildoutoftheproject.Thisanalysis assumesthatthereisnotransferofthiscapacitytootherDistrictswithintheproject(worst-case scenario). Thestudyestimatesthatatprojectbuildout,theremovaloftheofficecomponentunderconsideration wouldresultinthelossoflessthanonepercent(0.5)ofthetotalnetCityrevenuesgeneratedbythe Milleniaproject.Onagrossrevenuebasis,thisrepresentsanannuallossofapproximately$732,000 inyear10ofthebuildoutscenario.Thelostrevenuesarelargelyoffsetbyannualexpenditure savingsprojectedtototal$703,000,resultingintheabovedescribednetannualfiscalimpactof $29,000.Theestimatedfiscalimpactdoesnotincludeanyoffsetassociatedwiththeresidentialthat City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 7 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 24 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. $29,000.Theestimatedfiscalimpactdoesnotincludeanyoffsetassociatedwiththeresidentialthat willbeconstructedinthepreviouslydesignatedschoolsite,asnoincreaseofthetotalresidential units for the project is proposed. Thenetnegativefiscalimpactassociatedwiththisactionreducestherevenuesavailabletofinance Cityservices.Furthermore,theCitywillabsorbtheestimatedgrossrevenuelossinperpetuityunless anequivalentlanduseisrestoredwithintheMilleniaprojectthatcompensatesfortheremovalof 450,000squarefeetofofficespaceasproposed.Thecurrentactionneitherrequiresnorprecludes thetransferoftheplanned450,000squarefeetofofficespaceelsewhereintheMilleniaproject. PriortobuildoutofDistrict5,anadministrativeintensitytransfertoanotherDistrictmustbe conductedinaccordancewiththeprovisionscontainedinSection04.05.000oftheFBC.Thereis sufficientcapacityintheotherDistrictstoaccommodatetherequiredtransfer,andshouldsucha transferoccurinthefuture,itwouldpotentiallyoffsetthenegativefiscalimpactassociatedwiththis action. WhileotherMilleniaDistrictshavesufficientcapacitytoabsorbthetransferof450,000squarefeetof non-residentialfromDistrict5,thepracticalityofsaidabsorptionshouldbeconsidered.Projects approvedtodate,orinprocessforapproval,areconsistentlyfailingtomeetthenon-residential squarefootagetargets.Whilethesereduceddensitiesareallowedundertheplan,theymay negatively impact the fiscal performance of the project. PursuanttoSection4.5(OperatingDeficit)oftheMilleniaDevelopmentAgreement,theMaster DeveloperwillcovertheCity’snetoperatingdeficitduringtheinitialyearsoftheproject(excluding fireservices),uptoacumulativemaximumof$500,000.Theamountofthedeficitistobe determinedviaafiscalstudytobepreparedbytheCityattheMasterDeveloper’scost.Perthe DevelopmentAgreement,thefirstfiscalanalysis“shallbeconductedfollowingtheendofthefiscal yearwhichistwo(2)yearsfollowingthefirstoccupancywithintheProperty,andannuallythereafter attheendofeachfiscalyear.”ThefirstMilleniacertificateofoccupancywasissuedtoFairfield Residential,onOctober23,2015.Baseduponthisdate,thefirstfiscalanalysisshallbeconducted after June 30, 2018. Whentheoperatingdeficitfiscalanalysisisconducted,theMasterDeveloperwillberequiredto provideaplandemonstratingtheproject’sabilitytomeetthetotaltargetnon-residentialsquare footage, including intensity transfers between Districts. ATTACHMENTS 1.Locator Map 2.Addendum to Second Tier Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 07-01 (IS-15-0003) 3.Letter from the Chula Vista Elementary School District Dated April 21, 2016 4.EUC SPA Plan 2nd Amendment 5.Fiscal Impact Study Dated May 27, 2016 6.Planning Commission SPA Resolution MPA15-0009 7.Draft City Council SPA Plan Resolution 8.Draft City Council Ordinance City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 8 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 25 File#:16-0406, Item#: 2. Staff Contact: Patricia Ferman, Project Manager City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 9 of 9 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 26 SR - 1 2 5 - T O L L R O A D PARK P 2 PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE C URRE NT SC HOOL SITE PARK P5 Otay Ranch Town Center DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 9 FIRESTATIO N OFFICE COMPLEX LOCATOR NORTH MPA15-0009 Attachment 1 L:\Gabe Files\Projects by Requestor\PF\EUC_SPA Plan & PC Regs.ai.6.17.16 LOCATOR NORTH Eastern Urban Center (EUC) SPA Plan & Form Base Code Second ammendment CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MILLENIA E A S T L A K E P W DIS C O V E R Y F A L L S D R WINDING W A LK ST S O L S T I C E A V HUNT E P W STYLUS ST ARTISAN ST OR I O N A V BIRCH RD A VANT S T M O N T A G E A V MILLENIA AV 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 27 ADDENDUM TO SECOND-TIER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 07-01 PROJECT NAME:Eastern Urban Center Sectional Plmming Area (SPA) Plan and Form Based Code Amendment PROJECT LOCATION:Properties within the Eastem Urban Center (EUC) bounded by Birth Road on the north, Eastlake Parkway on the east, Hunte Parkway on the south and SR 125 on the west. PROJECT APPLICANT: SLF 1V/Mcmillin Millenia JV, LLC CASE NO: IS- 15-0003 DATE: July 6, 2016 I. BACKGROUND/SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The purpose of this Addendum is to address the proposed project, which includes an amendment to the EUC Sectional Plamaing Area (SPA) Plan and Form Based Code (FBC) to relocate the wimary school site designation to District 5 of the Project. As the lead agency for the woject under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code, Sec. 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-07-01). The Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 07-01) for the Otay Ranch EUC SPA Plan, Tentative Map and related items was certified on September 15, 2009. The EIR addressed the development of the 207 acres of the Otay Ranch. There are no new environmental impacts not examined in the certified Program EIR prepared for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (EIR 90-01) and the General Plan Update EIR (EIR-05-01) except as described in the Second-Tier Final EIR 07-01. The proposed amendment to the EUC SPA Plan and FBC are based on requested changes to: 1) allow for the primary elementary school site designation to be removed from District 9 and added to District 5; 2) deletion of a segment of Montage Avenue and clarify the approval authority for future street deletions; and 3) establish revised parking rates for Millenia and clarify the approval authority for the projects' parking management plan. Mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRPs) associated with FEIR 07-01 are still valid and applicable to this project. The physical development of the 207 acres has been previously addressed in the certified EIR. Thus, this Addendum focuses on the proposed EUC SPA and FBC amendment. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 28 Because the modifications to the SPA plan, and associated FBC would not result in any increase in allowable units nor an expansion of the limits of grading, the proposed SPA and FBC amendment is considered to be adequately covered under FEIR 07-01 and no further analysis is WalTanted. II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The purpose of this Addendum is to address the proposed project, which includes the following elements: 1. An amendment to the EUC Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Form Based Code (FBC) to relocate the Millenia primary school site from the South Central Neighborhood District (District 9) to the Civic District (Dislsict 5). 2. An amendment to delete segment of Montage Avenue between Strata Street and Avant Street and amend Section 04.06.000 of the EUC Form Based Code to give the Director of Development Services and City Engineer the authority to approve street deletions. 3. An amendment to establish revised paacking rates and amend Section 03.15.000 of the EUC Form Based Code to clarify that the Director of Development Services has the authority to approve the Millenia Parking Management Plan as well: as minor text revisions to reflect the new parking rates. III. CEQA REQUIREMENTS Sections 15162 through 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's certified enviromnental document. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides: (a)When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1)Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2)Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 29 (3)New infornlation of substantial impel-lance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time tile previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a.The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; b Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C.Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would : substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the ........................... environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A,The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. gl An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. C,The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. D*A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed changes to the project do not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project. The modifications proposed would not result in any environmental effects that were not considered in the 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 30 Second-Tier Final EIR 07-01, nor would the changes increase tile severity of any of the impacts identified in this EIR. There has been no significant ma{erial change in circumstances relative to the project, and no new information of substantial impoliance has become available after tile preparation of the EUC EIR. The mitigation measures identified in Second-T{er Final EIR 07-01 would be equally applicable to Lhe revised project. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this addendum to Second Tier FEIR 07-01. IV. ANALYSIS No new significant impacts were identified beyond those identified in Second-Tier Final EIR 07-0l. Therefore, no new additional mitigation measures or modifications to existing mitigation measures are required. Circulation The EIR for the original EUC SPA Plan approved in 2009 analyzed two potential school sites, a preferred site on Lot 26 (within District 9) and an alternative site on Lot 27 (District 10). In 2012, the Chula Vista Elementary School District (school district) formally approved the school location within District 9. Because it was deterlnined.at that time that the alternative school site in District 10 was no longer needed, the site designation was removed from District 10 (as part of a 2013 SPA amendment) and no alternative location was provided at that time. Thus, even though the EIR had assumed both a primary and alternative school site, all that remained (after the 2013 SPA amendment) was the primary site. The School District has now requested that the primary school site in District 9 be removed, and a primary school site designation be placed on the 8.5 acre site (Lot 16) within the southern portion of District 5. The new primary school location on Lot 16 within District 5 will be bound on three sides by access roads, including Millenia Avenue to the west, Montage Avenue to the east and Strata Street to the south. The site is bordered on the north by the future Civic Park and the planned City Library site on Lot 7. While no site plan has been provided to indicate the layout of the primary school site, with streets at pad level on three sides, there is the potential to provide for improved access and circulation patterns in and around the elementary school. Signalized access to the school site will be provided via a planned traffic signal on Milllenia Avenue. The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the previous traffic studies prepared for the EUC and concluded that traffic impacts of providing a primary school site in District 5 would be minimal to none. While there may be temporary heavy traffic )luring morning and afternoon peak hours, there will be enough capacity for the roadways and intersections to handle these temporary peaks. Further, because the Millenia community is laid out in a grid pattern of smaller unclassified streets, the City's traffic engineer does not believe Millenia Avenue will move to a substandard service threshold as a result of the alternative school site location. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 31 Iri regard to Street Deletion Approval Authority, the Millenia Form Based Code (FBC) includes specific Subdivision Standards and Procedures (Section 04.06.000) that allow new streets to be added by Final Map with the approval of the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer, regardless of whether those sh'eets were shown on the original Tentative Map. The intent of the proposed amendment is to add clarifying language to allow streets to also be deleted with approval of a Final Map with the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer's approval. Montage Avenue segment deletion - In 2014, the City Council approved the SPA plan and related entitlements for the Otay Land Company's Village Nine project. Those entitlements eliminated the extension of what is Montage Avenue in Millenia, south across the Otay Land Company property to Main Street (previously known as Hunte Parkway). This action had the impact of rendering a segment of Montage Avenue (between Strata Street and Avant Street) on the Millenia site unnecessary. A technical study dated August 13, 2013 was prepared by Darnell and Associates, Inc. and accepted by the City showing that the deletion of the street segment would not adversely impact either the circulation or levels of service (LOS) in the project. In fact, the study concluded that several of the Millenia intersections operated better with this street segment removed. That study was reviewed and approved by the City. The deletion of tile seNnent of Montage Avenue south of Strata Street, which would be deleted by the Director of Development Services if the proposed amendment is approved, will not impact pedestrian or other alternative modes of circulation, as sufficient sidewalks and bike accessibility is provided to the lots adjacent to the deleted street segments via Millenia Avenue, Orion Avenue and Strata Street. The removal of this segment will also not impact any planned transit routes or facilities. In terms of Parking Management Plan, this component of the proposed SPA amendment is intended to clarify the approval authority for the Millenia Parking Management Plan (PMP) and well as to establish initial parking rates to replace those currently shown in Table III of the EUC FBC (Said rates will subsequently be established as Appendix B to the subsequently adopted PMP). The Millenia PMP plan is contemplated by and required by the Millenia SPA Plan (Section 03.15.00) to manage the parking supply in the commercial areas of the project. The SPA plan provisions are very specific as to the elements of the PMP, the scope of what is to be included in the plan, and what the respective roles and responsibilities are for the various parties. There are no environmental impacts associated with this portion of the SPA amendment as it is procedural only. Land Use The EIR for the original EUC SPA Plan approved in 2009 analyzed two potential school sites, the preferred site on Lot 26 (within District 9) and an alternative site on Lot 27 (District 10). In 2012, the Chula Vista Elementary School District (School District) formally approved the location within District 9. Because it was determined at that time that the alternative school site in District 10 was no longer needed, the site designation 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 32 was removed frOl'n District 10 (as part of a 2013 SPA mnendment) and no alternative location was provided at that time. Thus, even though the EIR had assumed both a primary and alternative school site, all that remained (fbllowing the 2013 SPA amen&nent) was tile primary school site. Subsequefitly, tile school district bas been considering a joint use elementary school and YMCA facility or other similar compatible non-profit use Due to [he requirement for additional acreage to provide for a joint facility, tile school district found the available acreage in District 9 (the existing primary school site location) would not be sufficient. As a result, the school district has now formally selected a site in District 5 as their desired school site for Millenia. The applicant has requested that the FBC be amended to reflect this desired change in the designated location for the primary school site. The 8.5 acre parcel within District 5 is located in the southern portion of this District and is of sufficient size that it could accommodate such a joint use facility. This District already contains a requirement for a CPF site to be developed within it. While not within a residential district, the new location of the primary school site in SPA Lot 16 within District 5 is both immediately adjacent to other residential districts and is centrally located overall within Milleifia. District 5 fi,mctions as the focus of community, government, and cultural activities and will provide a major office campus, a-CPF site; a Fire Station, a 1.62-acre public park and multi-purpose venues. The relocated prh ary school site is in proximity to a future City Library site. The site is adjacent to future public park with access to the Regional Trail and an extensive sidewalk and bicycle network. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion and substantial evidence in the record supporting said discussion, I hereby find that the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Reports adequate under CEQA. "----A's sociate Planner Attachments: 1. 2. Project Site Plan(s) Executive Summary to EIR 07-01 References: City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedm'es City of Chula Vista General Plan Update Second Tier EIR #07-01 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 33 / ( INIKODUCIION Vista Regional Vicinity E$condldo RanchoCardiff hy the sea Santa Ee t Del Mar i San Dieg¢La MeSa Project Location ChuIa Vista (10/6/09) C 0 , Cinfi Land Planning Exhibit I-1 SPA PLaN 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 34 ( NIRODUCIION Location/;PA Boundary astern Urban Center orcoFCHU,VL A OTAY RANCH Exhibit I-2 (i 016109) SPA PlAN I-8 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 35 ( ( EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document intended for use by the City of Chula Vista, other public agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the potential environmental effects of the proposed Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan located in the Otay Ranch subregion of the City, The proposed SPA Plan is a document that refines and implements the land use plans, goals, and objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for the development of the EUC CEQA Statute Section 21002 requires that an EIR identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these effects This Draft EIR evaluates the environmental effects assodated with development of the proposed EUC SPA Plan and discusses the manner in which the SPA Plan's significant effects can be reduced or avoided through the implementation of mifigation measures or feasible alternatives to the proposed project, In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, this E!R also includes an examination of the effects of cumulative development. The Otay Ranch GDP Program Final EIR (EIR 90-01, SCH #89010154) is incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), This Draft EIR addresses environmental issues associate with the EUC that were not evaluated at a project level in the Otay Ranch GDP Program Final EIR and updates information in the Otay Ranch GDP EIR pertaining tothe EUC SPA Plan area This summery provides a brief synopsis of the project description, project alternatives, and the results of the environmental analysis presented in this EIR document 1. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The Otay Ranch GDP planning area lies within 'the East Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista.. The EUC is located in the northeastern portion of the approximate 9,500-acre Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch GDP project area, Telegraph Canyon Road and the EastLake Community bound the Otay Valley parcel on the north; Lower Otay Lake and the Arco Olympic Training Center from the eastern limits; the Otay River Valley encompasses the southern limits; and other recent development, including Sunbow i and I], the Otay Landfill, and the Coors Amphitheater and Water Park, comprise the western limits The EUC is an approximately 237 acre parcel located at the east side of State Route 125 (SR-125) between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway, The proposed EUC SPA Plan site comprises approximately 207 acres, or approximately 90 percent, of the total EUC land area. Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area EIR State Clea nghouse NO 2007041074 City of ebula Vista May 2009 Page ES-I 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 36 Executive Summary The EUC parcel consists of fairly flat mesa tops and gently rolling hills within the high point of the Clay Ranch, with elevations ranging from approximately 520 feet above mean seal level (MSL) in the southeast corner of the site to a high of approximately 640 feet above MSL in the center of the property, The EUC area has historically been used for grazing and agriculture and no development presently occurs or{ the site. The project site is surrounded by existing Otay Ranch development, including the Clay Ranch Town Center (Planning Area Twelve) to the north, north of Birch Road; Village Seven to the west, west of SR-125; and Village Eleven to the east; east of EastLake Parkway. 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND The proposed EUC SPA Plan is part of the designated EUC planning area within the Otay Ranch GDP The Otay Ranch GDP was adopted by both the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in October 1993, Both agencies were involved in the development and approval of the plan because the planning area included land failing within the jurisdiction of both agencies The GDP was amended in December 2005 The GDP establishes land plans, design guidelines, objectives, policies, and implementation measures that apply to all portions of Clay Ranch while supporting a balance of housing; shops, workplaees, schools, parks, civic facilities, and open spaces on a total of approximately 23,976 5 acres, The majority of development is intended to be clustered in villages, with conveniently located features and well-defined edges such as the Chela Vista greenbelt, open spaces, and wildlife corridors, Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP, review and City Council approval of SPA plans is required before final development entitlements can be considered, The GDP defines the EUC as a regional center that would contain the most intense development in Otay Ranch and would serve as the urban heart of the region, Uses and intensities are intended to create a lively 24-hour environment, with a creative combination of uses, building types and amenities, These uses include regional retail commercial, hotel, office uses, and medium to high density residential uses. Retail and office development within the EUC would be of an intensity compatible with a "downtown" urban center. The most intense development is concentrated near the transJt station, with building heights and sizes gradually decreasing near the edge of the planning area 3,, PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of four components, including (1) the EUC SPA Plan, (2) the off site Soils Stockpiling Area (SSA); (3) off-site Salt Creek Sewer Lateral improvement Area (SCSL); and (4) the off-site Poggi Canyon Sewer improvement Area (PCSI). Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area EIR Slate Clearinghouse No 2007041074 City of Chula Vista May 2009 Page ES-2 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 37 i Executive Summary A, EUC SPA PInE The proposed SPA Plan Is comprised of the following land uses: a maximum of 2,983 multF family residential units; a maximum of 3.487 million sguare feet of non-residential floor area; approximately 16 acres of urban parks; a potential approximately 5 E-acre elementary school site; an approximately one-acre fire station site; and approximately 30 acres of street right-of way. Development would occur in ten specific districts, insluding five residential neighborhood districts, two gateway districts, a business district, a mixed-use civic/office core district, and a main street district, Although the orientation of specific districts may be more residential or non-residential in character, mixed use would be permitted within all districts The EUC SPA Plan establishes density/intensity ranges for each district, although density/intensity may be transferred between districts, The SPA Plan would feature an internal grid street system, with a primary (4-tane major) north south street providing uninterrupted access between Birch Road and Hunts Parkway The SPA Plan would provide two access points on Birch Road, three access points on EastLake Parkway, and two access points on Hunte Parkway A greenway trail linking with the City's Greenway Trail system would enter the EUC via Bob Pletcher Way on the west and exit the EUC via a pedestrian bridge across EastLake Parkway on the east, The EUC would provide a transit station and guideways for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Chula Vista Transit (CVT), Transit stops would be located within ¼ mile of the majority of uses in the EUC Site preparation and grading for the EUC would occur under one of two options: Grading Option 1 end Grading Option 2 The estimated earthwork quantity under Grading Option 1 would be approximately 3.6 million cubic yards of cut and fill. EarLhwqrk would be balanced between the EUC and off-site locations, with 2,5 million cubic yards of fill to remain in the EUC and 1,1 million cubic yards to be exported off-site to an approximately 30,3-acre parcel to the south in the designated Village Nine, Grading Option 2 recognizes that adjacent property owners may not consent to off-site grading and balances quantities within the project site and a portion of the remainder of the EUC, including the Hunts Parkway right-of-way. Under this option, the estimated earthwork quantity under Option 2 would comprise 3.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill. Under this option, the grading necessary for the construction of the off-site portions of Streets A, B, C and M, and Hunte Parkway is evaluated, Development of the EUC SPA Plan would occur non-sequentially to allow flexibility based on market changes or regulatory constraints and public infrastructure needs/requirements, It is assumed that construction could begin in late 2009 with buildaut of all residential units within the EUC SPA Plan area by Year 2020, along with approximately two million square feet of non residential uses, The remainder of the project is estimated to be built out by Year 2030, The proposed EUC SPA Plan is consistent with the maximum residential development and non residential floor area set forth in the Clay Ranch GDP and no amendments of the General Plan or GDP are required, Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area EIR State Clearinghouse No 2007041074 City of Chula Vis May 2009 Page ES-3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 38 Z'( I Executive Summary B. Off-site Soils Stockpilinfl Area fSSA) Under Grading Option 1, the approximately 59-acre off-site SSA to the south would be affected . Therefore, stockpiling on the SSA is evaluated in the EI.R as a potential component of the proposed project. Stockpiling activities include grading and compaction of fill soils. Grading would be completed in one or two phases. Under the single phase, stockpiling and grading would be completed in approximately 12-18 months and under the two-phase, the first phase would be completed in 9 months and second phase would be completed in 12 months C. Off-site Salt Creek Sewer Lateral ImProvement Area (SCSL) The SCSL would involve the addition of a 173-foot, 15-inch diameter sewer line to the Salt Creek trunk sewer within an approximate 1.44-acre area. The proposed sewer pipeline would be installed using a combination of conventional open trench excavation and boring and jacking. The SCSL will also include modification of an upstream manhole. This project would be short-term in nature [3, Off-site Poq qi Canyon Sewer Improvement Area [PCSI) The PCSI involves the replacement of a section of 18-inch line with a section of 214rich line within the Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue intersection. The PCSI project would require an approximately 8-foot-wide, 14-foot-deep excavation trench This project would be short-term in nature. E. Discretionary Actions A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or haw to carry out a project. The following discretionary actions are associated with the proposed EUO project and would be considered by the Chula Vista Planning Commission and City Council: (1) Adoption of the SPA plan and associated documents including, but not limited to: SPA Plan, Form Based Code (Planned Community District Regulations & Village Design Plan), - Public Facilities Financing Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis, - Air Quality Improvement Plan, - Water Conservation Plan, - Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Eastern Urbml Center Sectional Planning Area EIR State Clearinghouse No 2007041074 City of Chula Vista May 2009 Page ES-4 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 39 ( ( Executive Summary - Affordable Housing Plan, and Urban Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Plan. (2) Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map to establish the layout of land uses, developable and open spa.ca lots, and infrastructure requirements for the EUC; (3) Certification of a Final EIR and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potential future discretionary actions may include approval and adoption for a Parks Agreement and a Development Agreement tf it is determined that either of the agreements deviates from the impacts analyzed in this EIR, additional environmental review will be conducted prior to approval of the Agreement, in accordance with CEQA In addition, this EIR may be used by other responsible agencies to implement the proposed project, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table ES-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, on page ES-8 summarizes the project's impacts according to established thresholds under each environmental issue, proposed mitigation measures, and potential significant and unavoidable impacts after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures as analyzed in detail in Section 4,0 of this E IR..-t 5,, PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Three project alternatives have been evaluated in the Draft EIR. These include: (1) the "No Project" Alternative;" (2) the "Reduced Density Alternative;" and (3) the "Adjusted Land Use Mix" Alternative.. The No Project Alternative assumes that no SPA Plan would be developed within the EUC, and the existing land uses within the project site would remain unchanged Accordingly, this alternative would be equivalent to the conditions discussed under existing conditions for each category analyzed in this Draft EIR. The project site would remain in agricultural use or remain fallow. Since no development would occur, environmental impacts associated with construction and development would be avoided. The No Project Alternative would avoid the proposed EUC SPA Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the permanent change in visual character of the project site from open space to dense urban development; construction and operation air emissions; cumulative traffic impacts on three segments of the t-805 freeway; and permanent loss of Farmland of Local Importance However this alternative would be less beneficial than the project in meeting the General Plan and GDP objectives that call for the Eastern Urban Center to function as the high-density, mixed use downtown and regional heart of the Otay Ranch Subarea and East Planning Area. Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area EIR State Clearinghouse No 200704107# City of Chula V]sta May 2009 Page ES-5 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 40 ( /' Executive Summary In addition, the No Project would be less beneficial in that it would not provide a link in the City's Greenway Trail; it would not remediate existing stockpiled soils that have the potential to impact downstream habitat; it would not remediate soils containing OPCs associated with the former use of pesticides in the project site; and it would not provide affordable housing, as would the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the roject objectives and would be inconsistent with the General Plan and GDP. As school, fire, and library sites would not be provided this alternative would result in a significant impact on these region-serving public services. The Reduced Density Alternative ("Alternative 2") would reduce overall development by 25 percent, resulting in a total 2,237 residential units and 2..62 million square feet of non residential floor area. This alternative assumes that the project's library and fire station would be respectively reduced commensurate with reduced demand. The Greenway Trail would be developed as under the proposed EUC SPA Plan. In addition, a 5- to 6-acre school site would be provided as under the proposed project. However, parkland and in lieu fees would be proportionately reduced by 25 percent for a total of 11.72 acres of parkland and in lieu fees equivalent to 5 8 acres, for a total equivalent to 17.5 acres. Alternative 2 would meet the bade objectives Of the projects, but assumes that the EUC would have an overall lower building profile than anticipated under the Otay Ranch GDP. In contrast to the proposed project, this alternative would be inconsistent with the General Ptan and GDP and would, therefore, require a General Plan Amendment and GDP Amendment. Alternative 2 would reduce impacts that are population based and, therefore, would have incrementally less impact on services and utilities Due to reduction in daily and peak hour traffic, this alternative would incrementally reduce impacts associated with mobile air quality, mobile noise, and traffic, including four previously significantly impacted intersections prior to mitigation. However, this alternative would not reduce the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the permanent change from open space to dense urban development, construction and operation air emissions, cumulative traffic on three segments of 1-805, and the permanent loss of Farmland of Local Importance. The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative ("Alternative 3") would change the project's mix of land uses, including a 62.5 percent increase in residential units and a 53..5 percent decrease in total non-residential floor area. Alternative 3 would provide 1.62 million square feet of non residential uses (including an elementary school) and 4,850 residential units. Other changes from the EUC SPA Plan would be a 40 percent reduction in hotel rooms, and an increase in parkland (2037 acres of parkland and seven parks, compared to the proposed project which would provide 15 63 acres of parkland and six parks). Although Alternative 3 would provide 30 percent more parkland than the proposed project, as residential uses would increase 62.5 percent, parkland obligation would respectively increase High Rise Commercial/Office floor area and cividpublio facilities would be the same as under the proposed project and the reduction in non-residential floor area would be primarily made with respect to regional and local retail uses. Alternative 3 would generate 52,097 fewer trips than the proposed project. There would be a corresponding reduction in AM and P.M. peak hour trips, As with the proposed project, all impacts to the study area intersections and roadway segments would be Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area EIR State Clearinghouse No 2007041074 City of Chula Vista May 2009 Page ES-6 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 41 ( ( Executive Summary reduced to less than significant. Significant and unavoidable impacts along three segments of the 1-805 freeway would not be avoided with the alternative. Alternative 3 would not implement the CTDP in providing a mixed-use environment in which residential uses are intermixed with a strong retail component to the same extent as the EUC SPA Plan. In addition, it would exceed the GDP and General Plan estimated residential units for the EUC by 62 5 percent The 53 5 percent reduction in non-residential floor area would be less in keeping with the objective to establish a flexible and responsive land use and facility plan which assures project viability in existing and future economic cycles, since Alternative 3 is predominantly residential Due to the change in the balance of residential and non residential uses, Alternative 3 would not implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP to achieve a mixed'use urban place that sets itself apart from surrounding suburban villages to the same extent as the proposed project. Amendments to the General Plan and GDP would be required to implement this alternative. Alternative 3 would have the same significant and unavoidable impact as the project regarding the change in the open space character of the project site to dense urban use and would not avoid the project's significant and unavoidable impact construction and operation air emissions; permanent loss of Farmland of Local Importance; and cumulatively significant and unavoidable impacts on three segments of the 1-805 freeway. In addition, unlike the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have a significant and unavoidable impact on schools Alternative 3 would have an incrementally greater impact on geology, fire, police, library, water, wastewater, solid waste, and population. The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, as it would entirely avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable reduction of open space, air quality, Joss of agricultural lends, and cumulative impacts on the 1-805. However, as the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, an environmentally superior alternative must also be identified among the remaining alternatives. Thus, Alternative 2 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as it would incrementally reduce traffic; mobile and stationary operational air emissions; operational noise; biological resources, water quality, exposure to geologic hazard; demand for fire and emergency services, police services, schools, libraries, water supply, wastewater, solid waste services; and impacts affecting global climate change. However, as with Alternative 3, this alternative would not eliminate any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the change in the open space character of the project site; construction and operalion emissions, and loss of Farmland of Local Importance Eastern Urban Center Sectional Plmlning Area EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2007,041074 City of Chula Vista May 2009 Page ES-7 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 42 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 43 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 44 July 2016 Page 2 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 45 July 2016 Page 3 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 46 July 2016 Page 4 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 47 July 2016 Page 5 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 48 July 2016 Page 6 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 49 July 2016 Page 7 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 50 July 2016 Page 8 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 51 July 2016 Page 9 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 52 July 2016 Page 10 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 53 July 2016 Page 11 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 54 July 2016 Page 12 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 55 July 2016 Page 13 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 56 July 2016 Page 14 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 57 July 2016 Page 15 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 58 July 2016 Page 16 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 59 July 2016 Page 17 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 60 July 2016 Page 18 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 61 July 2016 Page 19 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 62 July 2016 Page 20 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 63 July 2016 Page 21 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 64 July 2016 Page 22 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 65 July 2016 Page 23 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 66 July 2016 Page 24 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 67 July 2016 Page 25 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 68 July 2016 Page 26 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 69 July 2016 Page 27 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 70 July 2016 Page 28 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 71 July 2016 Page 29 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 72 July 2016 Page 30 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 73 July 2016 Page 31 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 74 To: Todd Galarneau, Meridian Development From: Lance Harris Date: May 27, 2016 re: Millenia Fiscal Impact Analysis - Potential Removal of 450,000 Square Feet of Office Development cc: Introduction The following provides a discussion of the potential fiscal impact associated with the removal of 450,000 square feet of office development in the Millenia project to the City of Chula Vista’s General Fund. It is important to note that this analysis is based on a previous development program that was evaluated in connection with a fiscal analysis for the Eastern Urban Center Specific Plan Area. The development plan envisioned the delivery of this 450,000 gross square feet of office space near the end of the project’s 20-year absorption period (6,500 square feet in year 16 and the remaining 443,500 square feet in year 21). As a result, references herein to fiscal impacts at an illustrative Year 5 and Year 10 would be realized by the City approximately 20 years in the future. The analysis uses the the City’s approved Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) Framework as described in the memorandum “Chula Vista Fiscal Model Update – Overview and User’s Guide,” dated January 2015. A copy of the model used to perform this analysis is available upon request. Findings The annual impact of the potential removal of the planned office development represents a loss of revenues to the City’s General Fund, on average, of approximately $29,200 per year over a ten year evaluation period as well as the loss of approximately 1,900 jobs at project build out. All values are presented in constant 2015 dollars. The following table and Appendix presents the findings based on the mid-rent scenario described in detail below. Net Fiscal Impact - Potential Removal of 450,000 Square Feet of Office Development ($2015) Year 5 Year 10 10 Year Analysis10 Year Analysis Year 5 Year 10 Cumulative Average Revenues $715,418 $744,423 $6,590,694 $732,299 Expenditures $703,099 $703,099 $6,327,889 $703,099 Net Fiscal Impact $12,319 $41,324 $262,805 $29,201 Note: Totals may not add; References herein to fiscal impacts at an illustrative Year 5 and Year 10 would be realized by the City approximately 20 years in the future. Source: City of Chula Vista and Pro Forma Advisors Sensitivity Analysis While the baseline estimates are tied to contemporary market assumptions, Pro Forma Advisors provided additional analysis to demonstrate the range of impacts due to achievable office rents to provide a range of fiscal impacts for the City. The following rent scenarios have been used: ‣Low-Rent Scenario: Average $2.50 per square foot. ‣Mid-Rent Scenario: Average $2.70 per square foot. ‣High-Rent Scenario: Average $2.85 per square foot. memo Pro Forma Advisors LLC Los Angeles T 310.616.5079 Hartford T 203.604.9007 F 888.696.9716 www.ProFormaAdvisors.com 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 75 Rent Sensitivity Analysis - Potential Removal of 450,000 Square Feet of Office Development ($2015) Low-Rent Scenario (Year 10) Mid-Rent Scenario (Year 10) High-Rent Scenario (Year 10) Revenues $713,508 $744,423 $767,610 Expenditures $703,099 $703,099 $703,099 Net Fiscal Impact $10,409 $41,324 $64,511 Note: Note: Totals may not add; References herein to fiscal impacts at an illustrative Year 10 would be realized by the City approximately 20 years in the future Source: City of Chula Vista and Pro Forma Advisors Based on this analysis the potential removal of 450,000 square feet of office space would result in the loss of $10,400 to $64,500 in net fiscal revenue to the City on an annual basis. Key Assumptions Specific assumptions include the following building program, employment, value, and equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) calculation. It should be noted that although the office development’s net leasable square feet has not been adjusted, adjustments have been made to be consistent with the new FIA Framework that defaults to a 90 percent occupancy and one employee for every 300 square feet of leased office space. This change from 93 percent occupancy in the previous analysis to 90 percent is made to be conservative, while the change from one employee for every 300 square feet to 200 square feet in this analysis reflects a contemporary employment density factor for higher intensity Class A office development1. The model has applied the full Public Work department expense2 to the pro rata share of lane miles associated with the office development. While it is assumed that the community facilities district (CFD14M) will contribute to various aspects of infrastructure and street frontage maintenance, these financial contributions will not offset any of the City’s Public Work costs associated with street maintenance in the General Fund. It should be noted that this is very likely a conservative assumption as in addition to CFD14M, the Millenia Master Community Association is obligated to maintain a number of elements within the street rights of way pursuant to recorded Grants of Easement, License and Maintenance agreements (“GELMAs”) with the City. Pro Forma Advisors used a methodology to estimate the current tax value of the 5.1-acres of undeveloped land based on a pro rata share of the project’s 2015-2016 total assessed value. An adjustment of the undeveloped office land’s assessed value was made to 2011 dollars. Proposition 13 limits properties’ annual value to increase at the inflation rate, which is measured by the lesser of the California CPI or 2 percent. The memo - 2 - 1 This reflects the new base employment density in the revised Fiscal Impact Framework 2 Per lane mile 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 76 California CPI was used because between 2011 and 2015 the annual increase averaged less than 2 percent a year (1.6 percent). All other model assumptions are consistent with the City’s approved FIA Framework. Office Development Assumptions Gross Square Feet 450,000 Building Efficiency 94% Leasable Square Feet 423,000 Occupancy 90% Occupied SF 380,700 Employees per Occupied SF 200 Employees 1,904 Rent per SF (NNN)$2.50 to $2.85 Capitalization Rate 6.0% New Lane Miles 0.20 Undeveloped Land Assessed Value ($2015)$1,873,000 Note: Original analysis used a employee per occupied office square feet of 300 and an occupancy rate of 93 percent. Source: City of Chula Vista and Pro Forma Advisors Office Development EDU Calculation Household Population 0 Occupied Dwelling Units 0 Persons Per Occupied Dwelling Unit (ODU)3.2 Employees (Non Resident)1,315 Employment Resident Equivalent 35% Employment Resident Equivalents 460 Employment Resident Equivalents/ Persons Per ODU 142 Induced ODU from Employment (New Residents Households)454 Equivalent Dwelling Units 596 Source: City of Chula Vista and Pro Forma Advisors memo - 3 - 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 77 Other Considerations It is useful to quantify the relative impact of the potential removal of 450,000 square feet of office space within the Millenia project. Using the City approved Eastern Urban Center Fiscal Analysis, dated March 31, 2009, the potential removal of the office space would yield a potential loss of $25,600 in net revenue per year (in 2008 dollars). This suggests that at project buildout the office component under consideration would represent less than one percent (0.5) of the total net City revenues generated by the Millenia project. memo - 4 - 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 78 Summary of FIA - Potential Removal of 450,000 Square Feet of Office Development The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank appendix - 3 - 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 79 Summary of FIA - Potential Removal of 450,000 Square Feet of Office Development The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank appendix - 3 - 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 80 Summary of FIA - Potential Removal of 450,000 Square Feet of Office Development The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank appendix - 3 - 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 81 Summary of FIA Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Appendix - Page 1 PFAID: 10-808 Table 1 - Revenue Summary Revenue Estimate (2011 Dollars)Base Year Account Category Allocation Rate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Charges for Services Zero Forecast - Expenditures Development Impact Fees Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties EDU $18.64 Per EDU -$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ 11,117$ Licenses and Permits EDU $16.81 Per EDU -$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ 10,027$ Other Local Taxes Business License Tax Employee $23.86 Per Employee -$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ 45,424$ Franchise Fees EDU $115.48 Per EDU -$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ 68,883$ Real Property Transfer Tax Special Model -$ 100,970$ 5,048$ 5,048$ 5,048$ 5,048$ 5,048$ 5,048$ 5,048$ 5,048$ Sales Tax Special Model -$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ 71,556$ Transient Occupancy Tax Special Model -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Utility Taxes EDU $47.64 Per EDU -$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ 28,415$ Other Revenue EDU (65% Percent Variable)$103.54 Per EDU -$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ 61,762$ Property Taxes Current Taxes Secured Special Model -$ 193,098$ 196,765$ 200,316$ 203,754$ 207,084$ 210,308$ 213,430$ 216,452$ 219,379$ Current Taxes Unsecured EDU $11.25 Per EDU -$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ 6,708$ Delinquent Taxes EDU $1.03 Per EDU -$ 614$ 614$ 614$ 614$ 614$ 614$ 614$ 614$ 614$ Prop Tax in Lieu EDU $0.19 Per EDU -$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$ State Secured Unitary EDU $11.41 Per EDU -$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ 6,808$ Revenue from Other Agencies MLFV Special Model -$ 143,394$ 146,116$ 148,753$ 151,307$ 153,779$ 156,173$ 158,491$ 160,736$ 162,909$ Sales Tax Household Population $3.25 Per HH Population -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Transfers In Zero Forecast Use of Money & Property Zero Forecast Total -$ 748,889$ 659,357$ 665,545$ 671,537$ 677,339$ 682,957$ 688,397$ 693,664$ 698,764$ NA = Not Applicable Note: References herein to fiscal impacts at an illustrative Year 10 would be realized by the City approximately 20 years in the future. Source: City of Chula Vista; Pro Forma Advisors 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 82 Summary of FIA Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Appendix - Page 2 PFAID: 10-808 Table 2 - Expenditures Summary Expenditures Estimate (2011 Dollars)Base Year Department Allocation Rate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Administration EDU $14.78 Per EDU $0 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 $8,819 Boards and Commissions EDU $0.00 Per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 City Attorney EDU $25.19 Per EDU $0 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 $15,028 City Clerk EDU $5.60 Per EDU $0 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 $3,343 City Council EDU $9.56 Per EDU $0 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 $5,703 Community Development EDU $0.00 Per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering EDU $0.00 Per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance EDU $37.97 Per EDU $0 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 $22,648 Fire Special Model $0 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 $186,319 General Services EDU $15.52 Per EDU $0 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 $9,259 Human Resources EDU $16.45 Per EDU $0 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 $9,813 Information Technology Srvcs EDU $26.61 Per EDU $0 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 $15,876 Library HH Population $11.48 Per HH Pop $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nature Center EDU $0.00 Per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Departmental EDU $0.00 Per EDU $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Planning & Building Services EDU $28.10 Per EDU $0 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 $16,764 Police Special Model $0 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 $352,848 Public Works Lane Mile $16,158.81 Per Lane Mile $0 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 $3,301 Recreation EDU $17.19 Per EDU $0 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 $10,252 Total $0 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 $659,974 Note: References herein to fiscal impacts at an illustrative Year 10 would be realized by the City approximately 20 years in the future. Source: City of Chula Vista; Pro Forma Advisors 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 83 Summary of FIA Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Appendix - Page 3 PFAID: 10-808 Table 3 - Net Fiscal Impact General Fund (Adjusted to 2015 Year Dollars)Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Revenues -$ 797,824$ 702,442$ 709,034$ 715,418$ 721,599$ 727,584$ 733,380$ 738,991$ 744,423$ Expenditures -$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ 703,099$ Net Fiscal Impact Estimate -$ 94,725$ (657)$ 5,935$ 12,319$ 18,500$ 24,485$ 30,281$ 35,892$ 41,324$ Note: References herein to fiscal impacts at an illustrative Year 10 would be realized by the City approximately 20 years in the future. Source: City of Chula Vista; BLS; Pro Forma Advisors 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 84 RESOLUTION NO. MPA15-0009 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADDENDUM (IS-15-0003)TO EIR 07-01AND APPROVEAMENDMENTS TO THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THEMILLENIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND MILLENIA STREETREMOVAL. WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on June29, 2015 by SLF IV-Millenia, LLC (the “Applicant,” “Owner” and “Developer” requesting approval of an EUC Sectional Planning Area (SPA)Plan and Form Based Code (FBC) amendment to relocate the Milleniaelementary school site intothemixed use Civic/OfficeCore District 5 in response to the Chula Vista Elementary School District’s (School District) request to select thissite as their preferred school site in the Millenia project; and to give the Director of Development Services the authority to approve the Millenia Parking Management Plan and to remove Millenia streets;and WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in previously adopted Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01. The Director of Development Services has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Director of Development Services has prepared an addendum to the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Addendum (IS-15-0003)to EIR #07-01 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, theDirector of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertisedin the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 85 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THATTHE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BYTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,this 13th of July, 2016, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Yolanda Calvo, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________ Pat Laughlin, Secretary 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 86 SECONDREADING AND ADOPTION ORDINANCE NO.______________ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN PLAN (FORM BASED CODE) FOR 207 ACRES OF LAND IN THE EASTERN URBAN CENTER PORTION OF THE OTAY RANCH RELATING TO THE RELOCATION OF THE MILLENIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, DELETION OF A PORTION OF MONTAGE AVENUE, REVISING THE PARKING RATESAND STANDARDS AND CLARIFYING THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUBSEQUENT PARKING RATES, AND FUTURE STREET DELETIONS I.RECITALS A.Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Ordinance, and commonly known as the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 207 acres locatedadjacent to and east of SR-125, adjacent to and west of Eastlake Parkway, south of Birch Road and the Otay Ranch Town Center, and north of the future extension of Main Street (“Project Site”); and B.Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on June 29, 2015 by SLF IV-Millenia, LLC (the “Applicant,” “Owner” and “Developer” requesting 1) approval of an EUC Sectional Planning Area (SPA)Plan and Form Based Code (FBC) amendment to relocate the primary school site from District 9 to District 5: and 2) clarifying the approval process for the deletion of street segments and for the approval of the Parking Management Plan within Millenia; and C.Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the SPA plan approved by the City in September of 2009 included two potential school sites: A preferred six acre site in the South-Central Residential District (District 9) and an alternative site in the Southwestern Neighborhood District (District 10) should the primary site be rejected by the School District. In September 2012, the School District provided formal confirmation that the alternative site in District 10 was no longer needed; therefore, in March 2013 a SPA plan amendment 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 87 Ordinance No. __________ Page 2 included the elimination of the alternative school site (Resolution 2013-038 and ordinance 3257); and D.Environmental Determination WHEREAS,The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in previously adopted Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01. The Director of Development Services has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Director of Development Services has prepared an addendum to the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Addendum (IS 15-0003) to EIR 07- 01 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and E.Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services setthe time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project Siteat least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing onJuly 13, 2016 onthe Project to adopt Resolution MPA15-0009recommending thatthe City Council amend the EUC SPA Plan; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Project and the minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and F. City CouncilRecord of Application WHEREAS,the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notices of said hearing, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Siteat least ten (10) daysprior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the duly noticed and called public hearing on the Project was held before the City Councilinthe Council Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 88 Ordinance No. __________ Page 3 276 Fourth Avenue, to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. II.NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: A.CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN The City Council finds that the proposed amendment to the EUC Planned Community District Regulations and Form Based Codeare consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The General Plan contains a “floating” location for a required elementary school within the overall 207-acre EUC. The proposed amendment is to allow for the relocation of the primary school site from District 9 to District 5.The deletion of a segmentofMontage Avenueis consistent with the General Plan in that it is not considered a circulation element road. The approval authority for future street deletions and for the Parking Management Plan is administrative in nature and therefore isalso consistentwith the General Plan. The adoption of parking rates will replace existing parking rates already established in the SPA. B.APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby approves the amendments to the Eastern Urban Center PlannedCommunity District Regulations and Design Guidelines (Form Based Code) as represented in Exhibit Battached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. III.EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by: _____________________________________________ Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins Director ofDevelopment Services City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 89 SR - 1 2 5 - T O L L R O A D PARK P 2 PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE C URRE NT SC HOOL SITE PARK P5 Otay Ranch Town Center DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 9 FIRESTATIO N OFFICE COMPLEX LOCATOR NORTH MPA15-0009 Attachment 1 L:\Gabe Files\Projects by Requestor\PF\EUC_SPA Plan & PC Regs.ai.6.17.16 LOCATOR NORTH Eastern Urban Center (EUC) SPA Plan & Form Base Code Second ammendment CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MILLENIA E A S T L A K E P W DIS C O V E R Y F A L L S D R WINDING W A LK ST S O L S T I C E A V HUNT E P W STYLUS ST ARTISAN ST OR I O N A V BIRCH RD A VANT S T M O N T A G E A V MILLENIA AV 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 90 July 2016 Page 10 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 91 July 2016 Page 11 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 92 July 2016 Page 12 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 93 July 2016 Page 13 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 94 July 2016 Page 14 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 95 July 2016 Page 15 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 96 July 2016 Page 16 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 97 July 2016 Page 17 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 98 July 2016 Page 18 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 99 July 2016 Page 19 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 100 July 2016 Page 20 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 101 July 2016 Page 21 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 102 July 2016 Page 22 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 103 July 2016 Page 23 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 104 July 2016 Page 24 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 105 July 2016 Page 25 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 106 July 2016 Page 26 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 107 July 2016 Page 27 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 108 July 2016 Page 28 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 109 July 2016 Page 29 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 110 July 2016 Page 30 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 111 July 2016 Page 31 of 312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 112 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0323, Item#: 3. ORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTADELETINGSECTION15.24.070,SMALL RESIDENTIALROOFTOPSOLARENERGYSYSTEMS,OFTHECHULAVISTAMUNICIPALCODE ANDADDINGCHAPTER15.29,EXPEDITEDPERMITPROCESSING,RELATEDTOPERMITS FORSMALLRESIDENTIALROOFTOPSOLARENERGYSYSTEMSANDELECTRICVEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY GovernmentCode(GC)65850.5requiredlocaljurisdictionstoadoptanordinancebySeptember30, 2015thatexpeditesthereviewofpermitsforsmallresidentialrooftopsolarenergysystems.In response,onAugust18,2015,CityCounciladoptedOrdinance3353addingSection15.24.070to Chapter15.24.Recently,legislatorspassedAssemblyBill(AB)1236(2015)whichaddedGC Section65850.7requiringlocaljurisdictions,bySeptember30,2016,toadoptanordinance expeditingthereviewofpermitsforelectricvehiclechargingstations.BothGCsectionscontain similarrequirements;therefore,staffisproposingtodeleteSection15.24.070andadoptanew chapter that contains the two expedite processes required by GC Sections 65850.5 and 65850.7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice TheProjectqualifiesforaClass8CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15308(Actionsby RegulatoryAgenciesforProtectionoftheEnvironment)oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct State Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheprojectqualifiesforaClass 8CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15308(ActionsbyRegulatoryAgenciesforProtection oftheEnvironment)oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecausetheproposalinvolvesadoptionofan ordinancetoestablishproceduresresultinginfurtherprotectionoftheenvironment.Thus,nofurther environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. DISCUSSION GovernmentCode(GC)65850.5requiredlocaljurisdictionstoadoptanordinancebySeptember30, 2015thatexpeditesthereviewofpermitsforsmallresidentialrooftopsolarenergysystems.In response,onAugust18,2015,CityCounciladoptedOrdinance3353addingSection15.24.070to City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 113 File#:16-0323, Item#: 3. response,onAugust18,2015,CityCounciladoptedOrdinance3353addingSection15.24.070to Chapter15.24.Recently,legislatorspassedAssemblyBill(AB)1236(2015)whichaddedGC Section65850.7requiringlocaljurisdictions,bySeptember30,2016,toadoptanordinance expeditingthereviewofpermitsforelectricvehiclechargingstations.BothGCsectionscontain similarrequirements;therefore,staffisproposingtodeleteSection15.24.070andadoptanew chapterthatcontainsthetwoexpediteprocessesrequiredbyGCSections65850.5and65850.7. Anotherreasonforproposinganewchapterdedicatedtoexpeditedprocessesisthatstaff anticipatesfutureStatelegislationmandatingsimilarrequirementsforenergystoragebatteriesand other renewable energy and carbon emission reduction technologies. Small residential rooftop solar energy systems As defined in GC Section 65850.5, a small residential rooftop solar energy system is: a.Asolarenergysystemthatisnolargerthan10kilowattsalternatingcurrentnameplaterating or 30 kilowatts thermal. b.Asolarenergysystemthatconformstoallapplicablestatefire,structural,electrical,andother buildingcodesasadoptedoramendedbytheCityandallstateandCityhealthandsafety standards. c.A solar energy system that is installed on a single or duplex family dwelling. d.Asolarpanelormodulearraythatdoesnotexceedthemaximumlegalbuildingheightas defined by the City. Section 65850.5 of the GC provides that in developing an expedited permitting process, the City shall: a.Adoptachecklistofallrequirementswithwhichsmallrooftopsolarenergysystemsmustcomplywithtobe eligible for expedited review. b.Theexpeditedprocess,standardplan(s),andchecklist(s)shallsubstantiallyconformtorecommendations containedinthemostcurrentversionofthe CaliforniaSolarPermittingGuidebook (CSPG)adoptedbythe Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. c.Alldocumentsrequiredforthesubmissionofanexpeditedsolarenergysystemapplicationshallbemade available on the publicly accessible City website. d.ElectronicsubmittaloftherequiredpermitapplicationanddocumentsbytheInternettobemadeavailabletoall small residential rooftop solar energy system permit applicants. e.Onlyoneconsolidatedinspectiontoberequiredanddoneinatimelymanner.Re-inspectionsareallowedifthe system fails inspection. Staffhasdevelopedeligibilitychecklistsandimplementedexpeditedprocessesforeligibleresidentialroof-topsystems. Thechecklists,standardplans,andprocessesdosubstantiallyconformtothecurrentversionoftheCSPG.Inaddition, staffdevelopedawebpageontheCity’swebsitededicatedtothestreamlinedprocesscontainingallrequiredsubmittal documentsandreferencetoresources.Furthermore,staffdevelopedanonlinesubmittalprocesswhereapplicantscan submit the application and documents, and pay fees via the City’s Citizen Access portal. Electric vehicle charging stations AsdefinedinGCSection65850.7,anelectricvehiclechargingstationmeansanylevelofelectricvehiclesupply equipmentstationthatisdesignedandbuiltincompliancewiththeCaliforniaElectricalCode,anddeliverselectricityfrom a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. Section 65850.7 of the GC provides that in developing an expedited permitting process, the City shall: a.Adoptchecklistsofallrequirementswithwhichelectricvehiclechargingstationsmustcomplywithtobeeligible for expedited review. b.Alldocumentsrequiredforthesubmissionofanexpeditedelectricvehiclechargingstationapplicationshallbe City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 114 File#:16-0323, Item#: 3. b.Alldocumentsrequiredforthesubmissionofanexpeditedelectricvehiclechargingstationapplicationshallbe made available on the publicly accessible City website. c.ElectronicsubmittaloftherequiredpermitapplicationanddocumentsbytheInternettobemadeavailableto electric vehicle charging stations permit applicants. Staffhasdevelopedeligibilitychecklistsandisintheprocessofimplementingexpeditedprocessesforeligibleelectric vehiclechargingstations.Inaddition,staffdevelopedawebpageontheCity’swebsitededicatedtothestreamlined processcontainingallrequiredsubmittaldocumentsandreferencetoresources.Furthermore,staffwillbedevelopingan onlinesubmittalprocesswhereapplicantscansubmittheapplicationanddocuments,andpayfeesviatheCity’sCitizen Access portal. TheproposedOrdinanceauthorizesthebuildingofficialtodevelopandmaintaintheeligibilitychecklists.Anapplication thatsatisfiestherequirementsoftheeligibilitychecklists,asdeterminedbythebuildingofficial,willbedeemedcomplete andeligiblefortheexpeditedpermittingprocess.Uponconfirmationbythebuildingofficialoftheapplicationand supportingdocumentationbeingcompleteandconformingtoallapplicablelocal,state,andfederalhealthandsafety requirements, the building official will administratively approve the application and issue the required permits. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-specificand consequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18705.2(a)(11),isnotapplicableto thisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthe Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofanyotherfactthatmay constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,HealthyCommunity,Strongand SecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.TheproposedordinancesupportstheHealthyCommunitygoalas itseekstofacilitatetheinstallationofrenewableenergyandcarbonemissionreductionsystemsthatwillhelptheCityand State reach their energy and environmental goals. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Therearenoincreasesinfeesproposedinthisadoptionandstaffdoesnotanticipateanimpactoncurrentresources.If such impact materializes, staff will return to City Council requesting additional resources. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Ifatalatertime,CityCouncilauthorizesadditionalresourcesthatareneededinordertofacilitatetheexpediteprocesses, building permit fees will be updated to recover the cost of any ongoing additional resources. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance Staff Contact: Lou El-Khazen, Building Official, Development Services City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 115 ORDINANCE NO. __________ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DELETING SECTION 15.24.070, SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING CHAPTER 15.29, EXPEDITED PERMIT PROCESSING, RELATED TO PERMITS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Subdivision (g)(1) of Section 65850.5 of the California Government Code provides that, on or before September 30, 2015, every city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance, consistent with the goals and intent of subdivision (a) of Section 65850.5, that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems, and WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordnance 3353 on August 18, 2015 adding Section 15.24.070 Small Residential Rooftop Solar Energy Systems to Chapter 15.24, and WHEREAS, Subdivision (g)(1) of Section 65850.7 of the California Government Code provides that, on or before September 30, 2016, the City shall adopt an ordinance, consistent with the goals and intent of subdivision (a) of Section 65850.7, that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, and WHEREAS, Section 65850.5 and 65850.7 of the California Government Code have similar requirements for local adoption of an ordinance that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems and electric vehicle charging stations leading staff to propose combining the expedited processes under one chapter, and WHEREAS, staff is proposing to delete Section 15.24.070 from Chapter 15.24 and adopting the new Chapter 15.29, incorporating the requirements of both Sections 65850.5 and 65850.7. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. Delete Section 15.24.070 Small residential rooftop solar energy systems. That Chapter 15.24 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 15.24 ELECTRICAL CODE AND REGULATIONS* Sections: 15.24.010 California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, adopted by reference. 15.24.035 Previously used materials. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 116 15.24.045 Distribution panels – Separate required when. 15.24.050 Circuit cards to be posted when. 15.24.055 Electric fences – Defined – Prohibited. 15.24.060 Phase arrangement – Amended. 15.24.065 Photovoltaic pre-wiring requirements. 15.24.070 Small residential rooftop solar energy systems. * For statutory provisions exempting electrical contractors from licensing under an electrical repairman’s statute, see Bus. and Prof. Code § 9804. For statutory provisions authorizing cities to regulate the materials used in wiring structures for electricity and in piping them for water, gas or electricity, and to regulate the manner of such piping, see Gov. Code § 38660. 15.24.010 California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, adopted by reference. There is hereby adopted by reference the California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 3, as copyrighted by the National Fire Protection Association and the California Building Standards Commission. Said document is hereby adopted as the electrical code of the City of Chula Vista, regulating the installation, repair, operation and maintenance of all electrical wiring and electrical apparatus of any nature whatsoever, whether inside or outside of any building within the City, excepting such portions as are hereinafter deleted, modified, or amended. Chapter 15.06 CVMC shall serve as the administrative, organizational and enforcement rules and regulations for this chapter. 15.24.035 Previously used materials. Previously used materials shall not be reused in any work without approval by the Building Official. 15.24.045 Distribution panels – Separate required when. Each store in a store building, each flat in a flat building, and each building used as a dwelling shall be so wired that each store, apartment, flat or dwelling shall have separate lighting and/or power distribution panels. Such panels shall not serve other portions of the building. Hotels, motels, hotel apartments and similar types of buildings may be wired from one or more distribution panels. 15.24.050 Circuit cards to be posted when. When requested by the Building Official, a complete schedule of circuits showing the number, kind and capacity of each outlet on each circuit shall be posted on each job prior to rough inspection. 15.24.055 Electric fences – Defined – Prohibited. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 117 A. As used herein, the term “electric fence” includes all fences which in any way use electrical energy as an additional deterrent or have wires charged with electricity which are not covered with adequate insulation to protect persons and animals coming in contact therewith. B. No electric fence may be constructed, maintained or operated within the City. 15.24.060 Phase arrangement – Amended. Section 408.3(E) of the California Electrical Code is hereby amended to read: Phase Arrangement. The phase arrangement on three-phase buses shall be A, B, C from front to back, top to bottom, or left to right, as viewed from the front of the switchboard or panelboard. The C phase shall be that phase having the higher voltage ground on three-phase, four-wire delta-connected systems. Other busbar arrangements may be permitted for additions to existing installations and shall be marked. 15.24.065 Photovoltaic pre-wiring requirements. All new residential units shall include electrical conduit specifically designed to allow the later installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system which utilizes solar energy as a means to provide electricity. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements of this section and the Chula Vista Photovoltaic Pre-Wiring Installation Requirements are incorporated into the approved building plans. The provisions of this chapter can be modified or waived when it can be satisfactorily demonstrated to the Building Official that the requirements of this section are impractical due to shading, building orientation, construction constraints or configuration of the parcel. 15.24.070 Small residential rooftop solar energy systems. A. Definitions. The following definitions are adopted from California Government Code Section 65850.5, as may be amended from time to time. These definitions shall apply to this chapter and are restated here for reference. 1. A “feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact” includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the city on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. The city shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code. 2. “Small residential rooftop solar energy system” means all of the following: a. A solar energy system that is no larger than 10 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating or 30 kilowatts thermal. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 118 b. A solar energy system that conforms to all applicable state fire, structural, electrical, and other building codes as adopted or amended by the City and all state and City health and safety standards. c. A solar energy system that is installed on a single or duplex family dwelling. d. A solar panel or module array that does not exceed the maximum legal building height as defined by the City. 3. “Solar energy system” means either of the following: a. Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. b. Any structural design feature of a building whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. 4. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. B. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to adopt an expedited solar permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems pursuant to Government Code Section 65850.5(g). C. Applicability. This section applies to the permitting of eligible small residential rooftop solar energy systems in the City. D. Permitting. Applicants desiring to qualify for the expedited review shall submit an application to the City, in a form approved by the City’s Building Official. The Building Official is authorized to administratively act on such applications, pursuant to this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, decisions made by the Building Official pursuant to this chapter may be appealed to the Planning Commission. E. Eligibility Checklists. The City Building Official is authorized and directed to develop checklists of all requirements with which small rooftop solar energy systems shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. The initial checklists shall be developed on or before September 30, 2015, and shall be the City’s adopted checklists, in accordance with Government Code Section 65850.5. The Building Official shall maintain the checklists to substantially conform with the recommendations contained in the most current version of the California Solar Permitting Guidebook and adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. F. An application that satisfies the requirements of the eligibility checklists, as determined by the Building Official, shall be deemed complete and eligible for the expedited permitting process. Upon receipt of an incomplete application, the Building Official shall issue a written correction 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 119 notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information required to be eligible for the expedited permitting process. G. Upon confirmation by the Building Official of the application and supporting documentation being complete and that the solar energy system substantially conforms to all applicable local, state, and federal health and safety requirements, the Building Official shall administratively approve the application and issue required permits. Such approval does not authorize an applicant to connect the small residential rooftop energy system to the local utility provider’s electricity grid. The applicant is responsible for obtaining such approval or permission from the local utility provider. H. For a small residential rooftop solar energy system eligible for expedited review, one consolidated building inspection shall be required, which shall be done in a timely manner. If a small residential rooftop solar energy system fails inspection, re-inspections are required. I. Fees. Permit fees for eligible small residential rooftop solar systems shall be as specified in the Master Fee Schedule of the City of Chula Vista. J. Use Permit. If the Building Official makes a finding, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact on the public health and safety, the Building Official may require the applicant to apply for a use permit. K. Denial. The City may deny an application if it makes written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. Section II. Added Chapter 15.29 That Chapter 15.29 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 15.29 EXPEDITED PERMIT PROCESSING 15.29.010 Definitions 15.29.020 Small residential rooftop solar energy systems 15.29.030 Electric vehicle charging stations 15.29.040 Fees 15.29.050 Use Permit 15.29.060 Denial * For statutory provisions regarding expedited permit processing requirements, see Gov’t Code §§ 65850.5 and 65850.7. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 120 15.29.010 Definitions “A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact” includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the City on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. The City shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code. “Electric vehicle charging station” or “charging station” means any level of electric vehicle supply equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with the California Electrical Code, and delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. “Small residential rooftop solar energy system” means all of the following: a. A solar energy system that is no larger than 10 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating or 30 kilowatts thermal. b. A solar energy system that conforms to all applicable state fire, structural, electrical, and other building codes as adopted or amended by the City and all state and City health and safety standards. c. A solar energy system that is installed on a single or duplex family dwelling. d. A solar panel or module array that does not exceed the maximum legal building height as defined by the City. “Solar Energy System” means either of the following: a. Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. b. Any structural design feature of a building, whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 15.29.020 Small residential rooftop solar energy systems A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to adopt an expedited solar permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems pursuant to Government Code 65850.5(g). 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 121 B. Applicability. This section applies to the permitting of eligible small residential rooftop solar energy systems in the City. C. Permitting. Applicants desiring to qualify for the expedited review shall submit an application to the City, in a form approved by the City’s building official. The building official is authorized to administratively act on such applications, pursuant to this section. Decisions of the building official may be appealed to the Planning Commission. D. Eligibility checklists. The City shall adopt checklists of all requirements with which small rooftop solar energy systems shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. The checklists, standard plans and expedite process shall substantially conform with the recommendations contained in the most current version of the California Solar Permitting Guidebook and adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The building official is hereby authorized to develop and maintain the eligibility checklists. E. An application that satisfies the requirements of the eligibility checklists, as determined by the building official, shall be deemed complete and eligible for the expedited permitting process. Upon receipt of an incomplete application, the building official shall issue a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information required to be eligible for the expedited permitting process. F. Upon confirmation by the building official that the application and supporting documentation are complete and that the solar energy system substantially conforms to all applicable local, state, and federal health and safety requirements, the building official shall administratively approve the application and issue required permits. Such approval does not authorize an applicant to connect the small residential rooftop energy system to the local utility provider’s electricity grid. The applicant is responsible for obtaining such approval or permission from the local utility provider. G. For a small residential rooftop solar energy system eligible for expedited review, one consolidated building inspection shall be required, which shall be done in a timely manner. If a small residential rooftop solar energy system fails inspection, re-inspections are required. 15.29.030 Electric vehicle charging stations A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to adopt an expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations pursuant to Government Code 65850.7(g). B. Permitting. Applicants desiring to qualify for the expedited review shall submit an application to the City, in a form approved by the City’s building official. The building official is authorized to administratively act on such applications, pursuant to this section. Decisions of the building official may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 122 C. Checklists. The City building official is authorized and directed to develop checklists of all requirements with which electric vehicle charging stations shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. An application that satisfies the requirements of the eligibility checklists, as determined by the building official, shall be deemed complete and eligible for the expedited permitting process. Upon receipt of an incomplete application, the building official shall issue a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information required to be eligible for the expedited permitting process. F. Upon confirmation by the building official of the application and supporting documentation being complete and that the electric vehicle charging stations substantially conforms to all applicable local, state, and federal health and safety requirements, the building official shall administratively approve the application and issue required permits. 15.29.040 Fees Permit fees for eligible small residential rooftop solar energy systems and electric vehicle charging stations shall be as specified in the Master Fee Schedule of the City of Chula Vista. 15.29.050 Use Permit If the building official makes a finding, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed project could have a specific, adverse impact on the public health and safety, the building official may require the applicant to apply for a use permit. 15.29.060 Denial The City may deny an application if it makes written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. Section III. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section IV. Construction 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 123 The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. Section V. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section VI. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 124 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0373, Item#: RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAUTHORIZINGTHECITY MANAGERTOACTONBEHALFOFTHECITYTONEGOTIATEANDEXECUTEANAGREEMENT WITHTYLERTECHNOLOGIES,INC.FORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONANDLEASINGOF ENTERPRISERESOURCEPLANNINGSOFTWARE,ANDAPPROPRIATINGFUNDS ACCORDINGLY (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY TheCity’scurrentfinancialsystemhasbeeninplacesince1998.CityStaffhasanticipatedtheneed toprocureareplacementofthefinancialaccountingsystemwithanEnterpriseResourcePlanning (ERP)systemforsometime.TheFinanceDepartmentrecentlycompletedacompetitivebidprocess foranewsystem.TylerTechnologies,Inc.wasthelowbidderandrankedasthebestERPsolution ofthequalifiedbidderstoupgradethesystem.TylerproposedtheMunisERPsystemwithutilization of cloud technology over a seven year contract period. TylerwillreplacemorethantheCity’sIntegratedFinancialAccountingSystem(IFAS).Duetothe enhancedcapabilitiesoftheTylerMunissystem,theCitywillbeabletoreplaceotherenterprise softwaresystemswhichcurrentlydonotinterfacewithIFAS.Thiswillultimatelyresultinfewer enterprisesoftwaresystemstobemaintained(bothhardwareandsoftware),fewersystemstotrain staffon,andasignificantreductionintheduplicationofworkthatoccursutilizingtwosystemswhich not no interface nor have proper work flow connecting the systems. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysical changeintheenvironment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 125 File#:16-0373, Item#: DISCUSSION TheCityhasutilizedtheSunGardIFASEnterpriseResourcePlanning(ERP)Systemfornearlytwo decades.However,withthedevelopmentandefficiencygainsofpublicsectorERPsystemsinthe lastseveralyears,IFAS,likemanyofitscontemporaries,hasessentiallyreachedtheendofits usable life when compared to modern ERP systems. CityStaffhasexploredmultiplewaystoelevatetheorganization’sERPcapabilities,including exploringIFAS’successorERP.Ultimately,Staffdeterminedthebestwaytoyieldanoptimalsolution wasaformalRequestforProposal(RFP)processthatwasconductedinspring2016togainan understandingoftheoverallpublicsectorERPoptions.FourfirmsrepliedtotheRFPwithqualified bids,andeachwasscoredbytheProjectSteeringCommittee.TylerTechnologies’MunisERP, deliveredviaacloudbasedplatformcalled(SaaS)orSoftwareasaServicewasrankedunanimously asthefirstchoicebythecommitteeandwasalsothelowestbidder.TylerTechnologiesisthelargest publicsectorERPproviderinthenationandhasbeenintheindustrysince1966.TheMunissolution isutilizedthroughoutthenationbymunicipalitiesofsimilarsizetoChulaVista.Inaddition,anumber of other agencies within the County use it as well. TylerMuniswillreplacemorethanIFAS,giventhatanumberofancillarysystemscurrentlyusedin theCitywillalsobephasedoutwiththenewERP.TheenhancedcapabilitiesoftheTylerMunis systemwillallowtheCitytoreplaceotherenterprisesoftwaresystemswhichcurrentlydonot interfacewithIFAS.Thiswillultimatelyresultinfewerenterprisesoftwaresystemstobemaintained (bothhardwareandsoftware),fewerenterprisesystemstotrainstaffon,andasignificantreduction intheduplicationofworkthatoccursutilizingtwosystemswhichdonotinterfacenorhaveproper workflowconnectingthetwosystems.TheMunismodules/functionstobeimplementedinclude: GeneralAccounting,AccountsReceivable,CashManagement,EmployeeExpenseReimbursement, FixedAssets,GeneralBilling,HRManagement,BusinessAnalytics&Reporting,Payroll,Project& Grant Accounting, Purchasing, Cashiering, and Forms Processing. Staffhasreceivedanon-sitedemonstrationfromTylerontheMunisSaaSERP,andisconvincedit representstheCity’sbestopportunitytomoveforwardwithadvancedERPtechnology.Additionally, StaffhasparedbacktheoriginalTylerproposaltoonlytheERPmodulesthatCityStaffcanfully utilizeinanefforttocontrolprojectcostsandmaximizeshort-termuseofthesystem,asreferenced above. TheproposedMunisERPviaSaaSagreementisforaperiodofseven(7)yearsatatotalestimated costof$2,600,564.Theagreementisstructuredtoauto-renewannuallyforone-yearterms,afterthe initialseven-yearperiod,atthethen-currentSaaSfee.However,theCitydoeshavetheabilityto terminatetheagreementafterthisinitialperiodwitha60daynoticetoTyler.Thesevenyeartotal estimated cost is broken down over the initial contract duration as follows: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 All Years FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Munis software lease via SaaS $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $2,183,067 Implementation Consulting Costs $237,831 $108,214 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $346,045 Misc. Forms, Conversions & Hardware $71,452 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,452 Total Costs $621,150 $420,081 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $2,600,564 City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 126 File#:16-0373, Item#: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 All Years FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Munis software lease via SaaS $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $2,183,067 Implementation Consulting Costs $237,831 $108,214 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $346,045 Misc. Forms, Conversions & Hardware $71,452 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,452 Total Costs $621,150 $420,081 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $311,867 $2,600,564 Staffisrequestingbudgetamendmentsreallocatingexistingappropriationstofinancethefiscalyear 2016-17(Year1)expensesof$621,150.InYears2-7,expendituresavingscreatedbyeliminating othersystemsandstaff-timesavingsduetoincreasedefficiencyinoperationswilloffsetthecostof the new system resulting in no net impacts to the General Fund. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite- specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2, section18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdetermininga disqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Procurementofthis ERPwillgreatlyenhancetheCity’soperationalefficiencyandaccuracy,therebyincreasingitsability toprovidegreatcustomerservicetoallofitsstakeholders,mostnotably,itscitizens,whichinturn contributes to greater Operational Excellence and Economic Vitality. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT FinanceStaffhasworkeddiligentlytobringforwardanewERPsystemagreementwithnonetfiscal impacttotheGeneralFund.Thecostisproposedtobefinancedviabudgetamendmentsofexisting appropriationsasfollows.ThecostofthenewERPtechnologyinthefirstyearisanticipatedtototal $621,150, of which $515,753 is the General Fund share and $105,397 is Other Funds share. GeneralFund -TheGeneralFund’sshareofthefirstyearcostis$515,753.Includedinthefiscal year2015-2016adoptedbudgetwas$159,316tofundaNon-CIPProjectforanERPupgrade (Project4126110100).ThisfundingisstillavailableandreducestheamountneededintheGeneral Fund to $356,437. Staffisrecommendingthefollowingbudgetamendmentstothefiscalyear2016-2017GeneralFund budget to fund the remaining General Fund portion. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 127 File#:16-0373, Item#: Department Description Expense Revenue Net Cost Non-Departmental Increase in Non-CIP Project Expenditures Category for New ERP 356,437$ -$ 356,437$ Non-Departmental Decrease in Transfers Out category as a result of COP Refundings (2006 and 2010)(126,683)$ -$ (126,683)$ Various Decrease in Personnel Services due to unanticipated Personnel Services savings (229,754)$ -$ (229,754)$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL GENERAL FUND TheCityisrecognizingsavingsasaresultoftheCitysuccessfullyrefinancingvariousCertificatesof Participations(COPs).Staffisrequestingthissavingsbetransferred,intheamountof$126,683, fromtheTransferOutcategorytotheNon-CIPProjectExpenditurecategoryoftheNon- Departmental budget. Staffisalsorequestingatransferof$229,754fromPersonnelServicesinvariousdepartmentstothe Non-CIPProjectExpenditurecategoryoftheNon-Departmentalbudget.Thistransferisasaresult of unanticipated savings within the Personnel Services category. The above recommended changes in the General Fund will result in a no net impact. OtherFunds(EnvironmentalServicesFund,DevelopmentServicesFund,SewerServiceRevenue Fund,2004COPand2006COP)-StaffhasidentifiedunanticipatedsavingswithinthePersonnel Servicescategoryofeachfund.StaffisrequestingthatthePersonnelServicessavingsbe transferredtotheNon-CIPProjectExpenditurecategoryofeachfundtofunditsshareofthenew ERP system. AlsorequestedatthistimeareadjustmentstovariousCOPfundsinordertobalancetheinterfund- Transfers related to the refinancing of various COPs as mentioned above. Thefollowingbudgetamendmentsarerecommendedtothefiscalyear2016-2017OtherFunds budgets. The recommended changes in the Other Funds results in no net impact to the funds. Fund Description Expense Revenue Net Cost Environmental Services Fund Transfer of $5,478 in Personnel Services to Non- CIP Project Expenditures.-$ -$ -$ Development Services Fund Transfer of $32,281 in Personnel Services to Non-CIP Project Expenditures.-$ -$ -$ Sewer Service Revenue Fund Transfer of $67,638 in Personnel Services to Non-CIP Project Expenditures.-$ -$ -$ 2006 COP Reductions as a result of savings achieved from COP Refinancing (12,758)$ (12,758)$ -$ 2010 COP Reductions as a result of savings achieved from COP Refinancing (113,925)$ (113,925)$ -$ (126,683)$ (126,683)$ -$ TOTAL OTHER FUNDS City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 128 File#:16-0373, Item#: ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Theproposedagreementisforaninitialperiodofseven(7)yearswithanestimatedtotalcostof$2.6 million.Aftertheinitialperiod,theagreementisstructuredtoauto-renewatthethen-currentSaaS fee,howevertheCityhastheabilitytoterminatetheagreementatthattimewith60days’noticeto Tyler.Thetablebelowoutlinestheongoingfiscalimpactoftheagreementintheinitialperiod(Years 1-7.)AftertheYear1budgetamendments,theERPsystemisanticipatedtofullyfunditselfthrough the retirement of legacy information technology systems and staff-time efficiency gains. Appropriationsfortheremainingcontractamounts(Years2-7)willbeconsideredbytheCityCouncil aspartofthenormalbudgetprocessfortheremainingyears.Again,Staffanticipatesthatthe savingsgeneratedduetoexistingsystemsreplacementuponfullimplementationwillresultinno fiscal impacts. ATTACHMENTS Tyler Technologies, Inc. Sales Quote Staff Contact: Mike Sylvia, MBA, CPFO, Finance & Purchasing Manager City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 129 Quoted By:Henrik Beijar Date:8/3/2016 Quote Expiration:1/14/2017 Quote Name:City of Chula Vista-ERP-Munis Quote Number:2016-21859 Quote Description:7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS Sales Quotation For City of Chula Vista 276 4th Ave Chula Vista, California 91910 Phone (619) 691-5031 SaaS One Time Fees Description # Years Annual Fee Impl. Days Impl. Cost Data Conversion Financial: Accounting/GL/BG/AP 7$68,459.0046 @ $1,275.00$58,650.00$17,000.00 Cash Management 7 $14,229.00 9 @ $1,275.00 $11,475.00 $0.00 Employee Expense Reimbursement 7$8,488.002 @ $1,275.00$2,550.00 $0.00 Fixed Assets 7 $20,608.00 3 @ $1,275.00 $3,825.00 $0.00 Project & Grant Accounting 7$15,198.008 @ $1,275.00$10,200.00$7,000.00 Purchasing 7 $35,114.00 21 @ $1,275.00 $26,775.00 $4,000.00 Payroll/HR: HR Management 7$12,550.0016 @ $1,275.00$20,400.00 $0.00 Payroll w/ESS 7 $28,938.00 32 @ $1,275.00 $40,800.00 $11,800.00 Revenue: Accounts Receivable 7$18,014.008 @ $1,275.00$10,200.00 $0.00 General Billing 7 $8,570.00 3 @ $1,275.00 $3,825.00 $0.00 Tyler Cashiering 7$26,656.009 @ $1,275.00$11,475.00 $0.00 Productivity: 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 1 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 130 SaaS One Time Fees Description # Years Annual Fee Impl. Days Impl. Cost Data Conversion Munis Analytics & Reporting (SaaS)7$40,909.0016 @ $1,275.00$20,400.00 $0.00 Tyler Content Manager SE 7 $26,043.00 8 @ $1,275.00 $10,200.00 $0.00 Tyler Forms Processing 7$11,540.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $0.00 Additional: Payroll Tax Table Updates 7$1,000.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sub-Total:$336,316.00 $230,775.00$39,800.00 Less Discount:$24,449.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL:$311,867.00 181$230,775.00$39,800.00 Other Services Description Quantity Unit Price Unit Discount Extended Price AP/PR Check Recon Import 1$1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 AP Positive Pay Export Format 1 $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Contingency Training 21$1,275.00 $0.00 $26,775.00 Decentralized Training 7 $1,275.00 $0.00 $8,925.00 P-Card Import Format 1$5,500.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 Project Planning Services 1 $11,000.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 PR Positive Pay Export Format 1$3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Tyler Forms Library - Financial 1 $2,800.00 $0.00 $2,800.00 Tyler Forms Library - General Billing 1$2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 Tyler Forms Library - Payroll 1 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Tyler Forms Library - Personnel Action 1$1,400.00 $0.00 $1,400.00 Tyler Forms Processing Configuration 1 $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 VPN Device 1$4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 TOTAL:$74,400.00 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 2 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 131 3rd Party Hardware, Software and Services Description Quantity Unit Price Unit Discount Total Price Unit Maintenance Unit Maintenance Discount Total Year One Maintenance Cash Drawer 1$230.00$0.00 $230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Hand Held Scanner - Model 1900GSR 1 $385.00 $0.00 $385.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Hand Held Scanner Stand 1$25.00$0.00 $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ID Tech MiniMag USB Reader 1 $62.00 $0.00 $62.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Printer (TM-S9000)1$1,600.00$0.00$1,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Tyler Secure Signature System with 2 Keys 1 $1,650.00 $0.00 $1,650.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3rd Party Hardware Sub-Total:$0.00$3,952.00 $0.00 TOTAL:$3,952.00 $0.00 Summary One Time FeesRecurring Fees Total SaaS $0.00 $311,867.00 Total Tyler Software $0.00 $0.00 Total Tyler Services $344,975.00 $0.00 Total 3rd Party Hardware, Software and Services $3,952.00 $0.00 Summary Total $348,927.00 $311,867.00 Contract Total (Excluding Estimated Travel Expenses) $2,531,996.00 Estimated Travel Expenses $68,570.00 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 3 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 132 Detailed Breakdown of Conversions (included in Contract Total) Description Unit Price Unit Discount Extended Price Accounting Opt 1 - Actuals $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Accounting Opt 2 - Budgets $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Accounting Standard COA $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Accounts Payable Opt 1 - Checks $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Accounts Payable Opt 2 - Invoice $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 Accounts Payable Standard Master $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Payroll - Option 1 Deductions $2,800.00 $0.00 $2,800.00 Payroll - Option 2 Accrual Balances $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 Payroll - Option 5 Earning/Deduction Hist $3,500.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 Payroll - Standard $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Project Grant Accounting Opt 1 - Actuals $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Project Grant Accounting Opt 2 - Budgets $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Project Grant Accounting Standard $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Purchasing - Purchase Orders - Standard $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 TOTAL:$39,800.00 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 4 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 133 Optional SaaS One Time Fees Description # Years Annual Fee Impl. Days Impl. Cost Data Conversion Financial: Bid Management 7$8,861.00 7$8,925.00 $0.00 BMI Asset Track Interface 7 $3,522.00 5 $6,375.00 $0.00 BMI CollectIT Interface 7$3,522.00 5$6,375.00 $0.00 Contract Management 7 $8,861.00 7 $8,925.00 $6,000.00 Inventory 7$20,510.00 14$17,850.00$6,200.00 Performance Based Budgeting 7 $25,078.00 26 $33,150.00 $0.00 Payroll/HR: Professional Development 7$4,696.00 3$3,825.00 $0.00 Productivity: eProcurement 7$13,239.00 1$1,275.00 $0.00 Transparency Portal 7 $13,000.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 Tyler Content Manager Auto Indexing and Redaction (SE)7$2,940.00 2$2,550.00 $0.00 Tyler Content Manager Self-Service (SE)7 $4,368.00 2 $2,550.00 $0.00 Additional: CAFR Statement Builder 7$10,879.00 4$5,100.00 $0.00 Sub-Total:$119,476.00 $96,900.00$12,200.00 Less Discount:$927.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL:$118,549.00 76$96,900.00$12,200.00 Optional Tyler Software & Related Services Description License Impl. Days Impl. Cost Data Conversion Module Total Year One Maintenance Additional: 3yr Detail GL History Conversion $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$40,000.00$40,000.00 $0.00 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 5 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 134 Optional Tyler Software & Related Services Description License Impl. Days Impl. Cost Data Conversion Module Total Year One Maintenance Fixed Assets Opt 1 - History - F $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 Fixed Assets Std Master - F $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$4,500.00$4,500.00 $0.00 General Billing Opt 1 - Recurring Invoices - F $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 General Billing Opt 2 - Bills - F $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$5,000.00$5,000.00 $0.00 General Billing Std CID - F $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 10 Certifications - D $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$2,000.00$2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 11 Education - D $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 3 Accumulators - D $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$2,000.00$2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 4 Check History - D $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 6 Applicant Tracking - D $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$2,000.00$2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 7 PM Action History - D $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 8 Position Control - D $0.000 @ $1,275.00 $0.00$2,000.00$2,000.00 $0.00 Payroll - Option 9 State Retirement Tables - D $0.00 0 @ $1,275.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 TOTAL:$0.00 0 $0.00$74,200.00$74,200.00 $0.00 Optional Other Services Description Quantity Unit Price Discount Extended Price Project Management Services 18$5,100.00 $0.00 $91,800.00 TOTAL:$91,800.00 Optional Conversion Details (Prices Reflected Above) Description Unit Price Unit Discount Extended Price 3yr Detail GL History Conver $40,000.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 Contracts $6,000.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 Fixed Assets Opt 1 - History $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 Fixed Assets Std Master $4,500.00 $0.00 $4,500.00 General Billing Opt 1 - Recurring Invoices $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 General Billing Opt 2 - Bills $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 6 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 135 Optional Conversion Details (Prices Reflected Above) Description Unit Price Unit Discount Extended Price General Billing Std CID $2,200.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 Inventory Opt 1 - Commodity Codes $2,200.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 Inventory Std Master $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 Payroll - Option 10 Certifications $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 11 Education $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 3 Accumulators $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 4 Check History $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 6 Applicant Tracking $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 7 PM Action History $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 8 Position Control $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 Payroll - Option 9 State Retirement Tables $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 TOTAL:$86,400.00 Optional 3rd Party Hardware, Software and Services Description Quantity Unit Price Unit Discount Total Price Unit Maintenance Unit Maintenance Discount Total Year One Maintenance BMI AssetTrak Additional Barcode/RFID Data Terminal (MC3190Z) 1$3,895.00 $0.00 $3,895.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BMI AssetTrak FA Bar Code/RFID Scanning System 1 $8,030.00 $0.00 $8,030.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BMI CollectIT Additional Barcode Data Terminal (PA692) 1$2,975.00 $0.00 $2,975.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BMI CollectIT Barcode PrinterKit 1 $795.00 $0.00 $795.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BMI CollectIT Inventory Bar Code Scanning System 1$6,490.00 $0.00 $6,490.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3rd Party Hardware Sub-Total:$0.00$22,185.00 $0.00 TOTAL:$22,185.00 $0.00 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 7 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 136 Unless otherwise indicated in the contract or Amendment thereto, pricing for optional items will be held for Six (6) months from the Quote date or the Effective Date of the Contract, whichever is later. Customer Approval:Date: Print Name:P.O. #: All primary values quoted in US Dollars 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 8 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 137 Comments Tyler recommends the use of a 128-bit SSL Security Certificate for any Internet Web Applications, such as the MUNIS Web Client and the MUNIS Self Service applications if hosted by the Client. This certificate is required to encrypt the highly sensitive payroll and financial information as it travels across the public internet. There are various vendors who sell SSL Certificates, with all ranges of prices. Conversion prices are based on a single occurrence of the database. If additional databases need to be converted, these will need to be quoted. Tyler's quote contains estimates of the amount of services needed, based on our preliminary understanding of the size and scope of your project. The actual amount of services depends on such factors as your level of involvement in the project and the speed of knowledge transfer. Unless otherwise noted, prices submitted in the quote do not include travel expenses incurred in accordance with Tyler's then-current Business Travel Policy. Tyler's prices do not include applicable local, city or federal sales, use excise, personal property or other similar taxes or duties, which you are responsible for determining and remitting. In the event Client cancels services less than two (2) weeks in advance, Client is liable to Tyler for (i) all non-refundable expenses incurred by Tyler on Client's behalf; and (ii) daily fees associated with the cancelled services if Tyler is unable to re-assign its personnel. Tyler provides onsite training for a maximum of 12 people per class. In the event that more than 12 users wish to participate in a training class or more than one occurrence of a class is needed, Tyler will either provide additional days at then-current rates for training or Tyler will utilize a Train-the-Trainer approach whereby the client designated attendees of the initial training can thereafter train the remaining users. In the event Client acquires from Tyler any edition of Tyler Content Manager software other than Enterprise Edition, the license for Content Manager is restricted to use with Tyler applications only. If Client wishes to use Tyler Content Manager software with non-Tyler applications, Client must purchase or upgrade to Tyler Content Manager Enterprise Edition. Tyler's form library prices are based on the actual form quantities listed, and assume the forms will be provided according to the standard Munis form template. Any forms in addition to the quoted amounts and types, including custom forms or forms that otherwise require custom programming, are subject to an additional fee. Please also note that use of the Tyler Forms functionality requires the use of approved printers as well. You may contact Tyler's support team for the most current list of approved printers. Financial library includes: 1 A/P check, 1 EFT/ACH, 1 Purchase order, 1 Contract, 1099M, 1099INT, 1099S, and 1099G. General Billing library includes: 1 invoice, 1 statement, 1 general billing receipt and 1 miscellaneous receipt. Programming for check reconciliation import and positive pay export assumes one bank format each. Multiple bank formats are extra. Includes digitizing two signatures, additional charges will apply for additional signatures. Project Management includes project planning, kickoff meeting, status calls, task monitoring, verification and transition to support. Tyler Forms Payroll Core library includes: 1 PR check, 1 direct deposit, 1 vendor from payroll check, 1 vendor from payroll direct deposit, W2, W2c, 1099 R, ACA 1095B and ACA 1095C. 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 9 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 138 Comments Personnel Actions Forms Library includes: 1 Personnel Action form - New and 1 Personnel Action Form - Change. Tyler's cost is based on all of the proposed products and services being obtained from Tyler. Should significant portions of the products or services be deleted, Tyler reserves the right to adjust prices accordingly. Tyler Content Manager SE includes up to 150GB of storage. Should additional storage be needed it may be purchased as needed at an annual fee of $5,000 per TB. AssetTrak PPC Software, MC3190Z Portable Data terminal, Integrated RFID reader & Laser scanner, USB Com/Charging cradle w/ps, PDT Users Licenses for TrakSync and AssetTrak PPC Includes: 1 year phone support & software upgrades, Up to 4 hours of remote Install/training via GoToMeeting. Additional Scanner, MC3190Z, 48 key, SDIO with program settings, Integrated Laser & RFID reader, Battery, USB com-charging cradle w/ps, AssetTrak PPC & TrakSync PDT Users Licenses. The MUNIS Accounts Payable module utilizes a label printer for batch-scanned document indexing. This printer is to be provided by the client and must support multi-page Adobe PDF files, such as the Brother QL-700. The SaaS fees are based on 100 concurrent users. Should the number of concurrent users be exceeded, Tyler reserves the right to re-negotiate the SaaS fees based upon any resulting changes in the pricing categories. EnerGov monthly fees are rounded, excluding cents. The Tyler Software Product Tyler Forms Processing must be used in conjunction with a Hewlett Packard printer supported by Tyler for printing checks. BMI CollectIT w/ data validation enabled - USB, 802.11b/g Wireless Data Com Utility for WM 6.1/6.5 devices w/ remote Install/training up to 4 hrs & (1) yr phone support, Subsequent support and upgrade plans are available directly through BMI Inccludes a Unitech PA 690 PDT Kit with WIN 6.5, 26 Key keypad, laser, 807 MHZ Processor, 2 batteries, Power Supply, Pistol Grip, Cradle, 802.11b/g radio & BMI Collect-IT PDT Users License Includes: 1 yr Phone support/upgrades for CollectIT and 1 yr depot parts and Labor warranty on the PA 690 Portable Data Terminal. Travel related expenses are estimates only and actual expenses are billed as incurred. 2016-21859 - 7-18-16 Chula Vista v.2f SaaS 10 of 10 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 139 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-__________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE,AND EXECUTEAN AGREEMENT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND LEASING OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE; AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS ACCORDINGLY WHEREAS, City Staff has researched various methods to modernize the City’s current Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, which was originally implemented in 1998; and WHEREAS, City Staff conducted a formal competitive bidding process via Request for Proposal (RFP) to determine the optimal ERP solution for City operations; and WHEREAS, the ERP Project Steering Committee independently ranked all four qualified proposals across a weighted criterion scoresheet and determined Tyler Technologies (“Tyler”) was both the low bidder and highest ranked qualified bidder;and WHEREAS, the current budget includes $159,316 in the IFAS Upgrade –1 Solution,a Non-CIP project to upgrade the City’s current ERP system; the project will be renamed ERP Upgrade -Munis; and WHEREAS, City Staff facilitated the refunding of the 2006 and 2010 Certificates of Participation (COPs), which yielded fiscal year 2016-17 General Fund savings of $126,683; and WHEREAS, unanticipated savings in Personnel Services of $335,151(General Fund: $229,754, and other funds: $105,397) have been realized;and WHEREAS, City staff is in negotiations with Tyler regarding the terms of an agreement for the ERP system, the primary components of which include: a term of seven-years, with automatic annual renewals thereafter unless terminated 60-days prior; a total seven-year cost of $2,600,564, with a Year 1 cost of $621,150; and the provision of services by Tyler, as detailed in the Tyler Sales Quote, attached to the Staff Report accompanying this item; and WHEREAS, City staff will continue negotiations based on the City Council’s direction, with the City Manager having authority to approve the final terms of the agreement and execute the agreement on behalf of the City, in an agreementform approved by the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it authorizes the City Manager to negotiate the terms of an agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc., for the implementation and leasing of Tyler Technologies’ Munis Enterprise Resource Planning softwarevia a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform, the primary components of which agreement shall include: a term of seven-years, with automatic annual renewals thereafter unless terminated 60-days prior; a total seven-year cost of $2,600,564, with a Year 1 cost of $621,150; and the provision of services by Tyler, as detailed in the Tyler Sales 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 140 Resolution No. 2016-__________ Page 2 Quote, in the form presented, acopy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement with Tyler Technologies, in a form approved by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council authorizes the budget adjustments listed as follows to fund Year 1 of the ERP project. Renaming the IFAS Upgrade –1 Solution Non-CIP project to ERP Upgrade - Munis General Fund Department/Fund Personnel ServicesTransfers Out Other Expenses Non-CIP Project Expenditures Total Expense Total Revenue Net Cost Non-Departmental -$ (126,683)$ -$ 356,437$ 229,754$ -$ 229,754$ Various General Fund Departments(229,754)$ -$ -$ -$ (229,754)$ -$ (229,754)$ TOTAL GENERAL FUND (229,754)$ (126,683)$ -$ 356,437$ -$ -$ -$ Other Funds Department/Fund Personnel ServicesTransfers Out Other Expenses Non-CIP Project Expenditures Total Expense Total Revenue Net Cost Environmental Services Fund (5,478)$ -$ -$ 5,478$ -$ -$ -$ Development Services Fund (32,281)$ -$ -$ 32,281$ -$ -$ -$ Sewer Service Revenue Fund (67,638)$ -$ -$ 67,638$ -$ -$ -$ 2006 COP -$ -$ (12,758)$ -$ (12,758)$ (12,758)$ -$ 2010 COP -$ -$ (113,925)$ -$ (113,925)$ (113,925)$-$ TOTAL OTHER FUNDS (105,397)$ -$ (126,683)$ 105,397$ (126,683)$ (126,683)$-$ Presented by:Approved as to form by: __________________________________________________________________ David Bilby, MSBA, CPFO Glen R. Googins Director of Finance / Treasurer City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 141 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0378, Item#: 5. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAUTHORIZINGTHE PURCHASEOFTWODUMPTRUCKSINACCORDANCEWITHTHETERMSANDCONDITIONS OFNATIONALJOINTPOWERSASSOCIATIONCONTRACTNUMBER102811ANDTHE ISSUANCEOFAPURCHASEORDERTONATIONALAUTOFLEETGROUPINTHEAMOUNTOF $250,621 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY TheFiscalYear2016-17SewerServiceRevenueFundbudgetprovidesforthereplacementofa 2001International5-cubicyarddumptruck,anda2001Volvo10-cubicyarddumptruck.TheCityof ChulaVistaMunicipalCodeSection2.56.140andCouncilResolutionNo.6132authorizetheCityto participateincooperativebidswithothergovernmentagenciesforthepurchaseofmaterialsof commonusage,providedthatthePurchasingAgentdeterminesthatthecompetitiveprocessusedfor thecooperativebidwasconsistentwithgoodpurchasingpractices.TheCityhasanopportunityto participate in a current National Joint Powers Association (NJPA) contract for such vehicles. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysical changeintheenvironment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION TheFiscalYear2016-17SewerServiceRevenueFundbudgetprovidesforthereplacementofa 2001International5-cubicyarddumptruck,anda2001Volvo10-cubicyarddumptruck.Using technicalspecificationsthatweredevelopedbyCitystaffthroughrepeatedusageovermanyyears,it wasdeterminedthatvehiclesmeetingtheneedsofthewastewatermaintenanceprogramare availableviaacurrentMJPAcontractatacompetitivecostandonfavorableterms.Inaccordance City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 142 File#:16-0378, Item#: 5. availableviaacurrentMJPAcontractatacompetitivecostandonfavorableterms.Inaccordance withCVMCsection2.56.140,thePurchasingAgenthasreviewedNationalJointPowersAssociation ContractNumber102811anddeterminedthatthecompetitiveprocessusedforthecooperativebid under that Contract was consistent with good purchasing practices. Replacingtheexistingdumptrucksatthistimewillyieldimprovementsintheabilityofthe wastewatermaintenancestafftomaintaintheCity’sassetsthatarerepresentedbysewerlines,and willleadtolowercostsofmaintainingsuchassetsintheimmediatefuture,andtoextendtheuseful life of these assets. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationssection18704.2 (a)(1),isnotapplicabletothisdecision.Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformed byanyCityofChulaVistaCityCouncilmember,ofanyotherfactthatmayconstituteabasisfora decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Thisactionsupports thegoalofprovidingHealthyCommunities,ashavingservicevehiclesingoodworkingcondition allows staff to maintain and operate community and neighborhood wastewater facilities. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Thenettotalcostincludingtaxesis$248,610.Sufficientfundshavebeenbudgetedinthecurrent fiscal year budget. There is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund by approving this resolution. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Sincethesearereplacementvehiclesforexistingagingfleetvehicles,maintenancecostsarealready includedinthecurrentfiscalyearbudget.Thereisnoongoingfiscalimpactbyapprovingthis resolution. ATTACHMENTS National Auto Fleet Group quote. Staff Contact: Steve Dorsey, Fleet Manager, Public Works City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 143 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO DUMPTRUCKSIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION CONTRACT NUMBER 102811 AND THE ISSUANCE OFA PURCHASE ORDER TO NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,621 WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Service Revenue Fund budget provides for the replacement of a 2001International 5-cubic yard dumptruck, and a 2001 Volvo 10-cubic yard dump truck; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the City to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage, provided that the Purchasing Agent determines that the competitive process used for the cooperative bid was consistent with good purchasing practices; and WHEREAS, the City has an opportunity to participate in a current National Joint Powers Association (NJPA) contract (NJPA Contract No. 102811) for suchvehicles; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CVMC section 2.56.140, the Purchasing Agent has reviewed NJPA Contract No. 102811 and has determined that the competitive process used for the cooperative bid under that Contract was consistent with good purchasing practices. WHEREAS, replacing the existing dumptrucksat this time will yield improvements in the ability of the wastewater maintenance staffto maintain the City’s assets that are represented by sewer lines, andwill lead to lower costs of maintaining such assets in the immediate future, and to extend the useful life of these assets; and WHEREAS, this action supports the goal of providing Healthy Communities, as having service vehicles in good working conditionallows staff to maintain and operate community and neighborhood wastewater facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it authorizesthe purchase of two dumptrucksin accordance with the terms and conditions of National Joint Powers Association contract number 102811 and the issuance of a purchase order to National Auto Fleet Group in the amount of $250,621. Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 144 Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 145 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 146 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 147 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 148 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 149 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0384, Item#: 6. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2016 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council accept the report. SUMMARY TransmittedherewithistheCity’sinvestmentreportforthequarterendedJune30,2016.Tomeet thereportingrequirementssetforthintheCaliforniaGovernmentCodeSections53600etseq.and theCityofChulaVistaInvestmentPolicyandGuidelines,aseparatereportwasdistributedtothe City Council in July. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”in accordancewithSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitinvolvesonlyacceptanceof theQuarterlyInvestmentReport;thereforeitisanorganizationaloradministrativeactivityof governmentthatwillnotresultinadirectorindirectphysicalchangeintheenvironment;therefore, pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelinestheactivityisnotsubjecttoCEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. DISCUSSION ThetotalcashandinvestmentportfolioheldbytheCityasofJune30,2016was$247,784,563and total cash and investments held by the trustees was $39,228,087. ThecashandinvestmentsheldbytheCityarecomposedofthefollowingcomponents:Cash/Time Deposits($55,830,832),ManagedInvestmentPortfolio($155,304,664),StateofCALocalAgency InvestmentFund($1,642,189),andCountyofSanDiegoPooledInvestmentFund($34,701,005). CashandinvestmentsheldbytheCityandthetrusteescontinuetobeinvestedinaccordancewith theGovernmentCodeandtheCouncilInvestmentPolicyasadoptedbyResolution2016-046on March 15, 2016. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 150 File#:16-0384, Item#: 6. Duringthequarter,twoinvestmentsmaturedtotaling$6,900,000andseveninvestmentstotaling $16,525,000weresoldpriortotheirmaturitydates.Ninepurchasesweremadetoreplacethose investmentsandinvestidlecash.Purchasedinvestmentsinclude:fourcorporatenotesissuedby MorganStanley($450,000),GeneralElectric($1,500,000),GeneralElectric($1,500,000),and Pepsico($2,000,000);fourtreasurynotestotaling($17,530,000);andoneasset-backedsecurity issuedbyAlly($530,000).PublicFinancialManagement(PFM),theCity'sinvestmentadvisor, continuestomonitortheportfolioandwillmakerecommendationsasfinancialandeconomic conditionswarrant.Thereisnofurtheractivitytoreportonotherthanroutineinvestmentsbythe City's fiscal agents. TheFederalOpenMarketCommittee(FOMC)maintainedtheFedFundstargetrateatarangeof 0.25%to0.50%throughJune.Two-yearTreasuriesyielding0.72%atthebeginningofthequarter ended lower at the end of the quarter at 0.59%. AsofJune30,2015,theYieldtoMaturityatCostontheManagedInvestmentPortfoliowas1.30%, which was an increase of seven basis points from the previous quarter. Attheendofthisquarter,theweightedaveragematurityoftheManagedInvestmentPortfoliowas 2.47 years which is an increase from 2.39 the previous quarter and is within the Council Policy. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasdeterminedthattheactioncontemplatedbythisitemisministerial,secretarial,manual,or clericalinnatureand,assuch,doesnotrequiretheCityCouncilmemberstomakeorparticipatein makingagovernmentaldecision,pursuanttoCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18704(d) (1).Consequently,thisitemdoesnotpresentaconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Theinvestment portfoliosupportstheOperationalExcellencegoalasitseekstomaintainthesafetyandliquidityof the City’s cash while contributing investment earnings to the bottom line. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT ConsideringtheprojectedtimingofcashreceiptsanddisbursementsandthestructureofthePooled InvestmentPortfolio,theCityshouldbeabletocomfortablymeetoverallcashflowneedsoverthe next six months. There is no direct fiscal impact by this action. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact by this action. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 151 File#:16-0384, Item#: 6. ATTACHMENTS Summary of Cash and Investments as of June 30, 2016 PFM Investment Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Staff Contact: David Bilby, Director of Finance/Treasurer, Finance Department City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 152 % of Investment Type Par Value Market ValueBook ValuePortfolio Investment Portfolio BNY Custodial Cash Account 235,216 235,216216,2250.07% U.S. Treasury Bond/Note 69,945,000 71,518,47270,419,02224.26% Federal Agency Collateralized Mtg Ob.1,375,000 1,389,7951,388,7690.48% Federal Agency Bond/Note 41,000,000 41,034,32741,000,00014.13% Corporate Notes 33,501,000 34,186,10733,739,58711.62% Certificates of Deposit 5,400,000 5,402,8925,400,0001.86% Asset Back Securities/Collateralized Mtg Ob.3,140,000 3,155,3323,141,0611.08% State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund1,642,189 1,643,2091,642,1890.57% County of San Diego Pooled Investment Fund34,701,005 34,701,00534,701,00511.96% Subtotal190,939,410 193,266,355191,647,85866.03% Cash/Time Deposits $55,830,832 $55,830,832$55,830,83219.23% Total Cash & Investments Held by the City $246,770,242 $249,097,187$247,478,69085.26% Held by Bank Trustee/Fiduciary Funds (1) Investment Agreements 2,112,065 2,112,0652,112,0650.73% Mutual Funds 39,871,160 39,872,16539,871,16013.74% Cash with Fiscal Agents 21,881 21,88121,8810.01% Restricted Cash 778,342 778,342778,3420.27% U.S. Gov't 0 0 00.00% Total Held by Bank Trustee/Fiduciary Funds $42,783,448 $42,784,453$42,783,44814.74% Total Portfolio $289,553,691 $291,881,641 $290,262,139 100.00% Notes: 1. Reflects bond proceeds and tax levy revenues held by trustee in accordance with bond covenants. 2. Par value is the principal amount of the investment on maturity. 3. Market values contained herein are received from sources we believe are reliable, however we do not guarantee their accuracy. 4. LAIF market value on the PFM statement does not include the market value factor as included in the market value above. 5. Book value is par value of the security plus or minus any premium or discount and accrued interest included in purchase price. 6. Earned interest yield is caclulated using total market value of portfolio divided total interest earned in the quarter. Summary of Cash and Investments as of June 30, 2016 City of Chula Vista 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 153 City of Chula Vista Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Security Type1 Market Value2 % of Portfolio Policy Limits U.S. Treasuries $71,518,472 37%100% Federal Agencies $41,034,327 21%100% Federal Agency CMOs $1,389,795 1%100% Municipal Obligations $0 0%100% Commercial Paper $0 0%25% Negotiable CDs $5,402,892 3%30% Corporate Notes $34,186,107 18%30% Asset-Backed Securities $3,155,332 2%20% Money Market Fund $235,216 <1%20% San Diego County Pool $34,701,005 18%100% LAIF $1,642,189 1%$50 Million Totals $193,265,335 100% Par Value Unannualized Amortized Cost Chula Vista Past Quarter 0.82% Weighted Average Maturity (years)BAML 1-5 Yr TSY Index 0.81% Effective Duration (years)Annualized Yield to Maturity at Cost Chula Vista Past Quarter 3.32% Yield to Maturity at Market BAML 1-5 Yr TSY Index 3.29% Notes: 1. End of quarter trade-date market values of portfolio holdings. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 2. Balances held in LAIF and the San Diego County Investment Pool are not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. 4. Yields, weighted average maturity, and effective duration exclude balances not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. 5. Performance is measured on a total return basis, which takes into account interest income, realized gains and losses, and unrealized gains and losses due to changes in market value. Returns excludes balances not managed by PFM Asset Management LLC. Returns for periods less than 1 year are unannualized. Returns on trade date basis, gross (i.e., before fees), in accordance with the CFA Institute’s Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML) Indices provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets. Annualized return for quarter assumes the portfolio generates the same unannualized return for four quarters. 0.91% Summary of Portfolio Characteristics and Key Statistics Sector Distribution Credit Quality (S&P Ratings)Maturity Distribution Key Statistics4 Total Return5 $190,939,410 $191,577,972 2.47 2.32 1.30% 3. Nissan ABS is not rated by S&P, but is rated Aaa by Moody's. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are rated BBB+ by S&P, but Goldman Sachs is rated A3 by Moody's, Morgan Stanley is rated A3 b Moody's and Citigroup is rated A by Fitch. U.S. Treasuries 37% Federal Agencies 21% Federal Agency CMOs 1% Negotiable CDs 3% Corporate Notes 18% Asset- Backed Securities 2% Money Market Fund, <1% San Diego County Pool 18%LAIF 1% AAA 1% AA 66% A 10% BBB3 1% A-1+/A-1 (Short-term) 3% Money Market Fund <1% AAAf/S1 (San Diego County) 18% Not Rated3 <1% Not Rated (LAIF) 1% 31% 4% 13% 20%19% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Under 6 Months 6 - 12 Months 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4 - 5 Years Pe r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l P o r t f o l i o 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 154 QUARTERLY MARKET SUMMARY For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Fixed Income Management Second Quarter 2016 Summary • On June 23, the British public voted to leave the European Union (EU) – so-called “Brexit” referendum – after forty-three years of membership. This historic vote was the first of its kind, shocking markets and triggering outsized market reactions. Bond yields fell sharply, sending 10- and 30-year Treasury yields to all-time lows. Equity indexes saw a sharp pullback following the vote, but pared losses by month-end amid anticipated central bank accommodation. Meanwhile, the British pound fell to its lowest level since 1985 against the U.S. dollar. • Amid the uncertainty caused by Brexit, central banks around the world are expected to remain accommodative, keeping rates lower for longer and seemingly boosting equity prices – despite the potential slowdown of British and European economies. • The Federal Reserve (Fed) left policy rates unchanged at both its second- quarter meetings. In June, even before the Brexit vote, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) once again lowered its expectation for rate hikes in 2016 via the so-called “dot plot.” By quarter-end, the market was pricing in a 0% chance of a rate hike in July, and less than a 10% chance for a hike this year. Economic Snapshot • The modest U.S. economic expansion continued, and unemployment ended the quarter below 5%. However, measures of economic strength in the U.S. remained mixed. • U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a 1.1% rate in the first quarter of 2016, driven by improving trade and business investment, which more than compensated for weakness in consumer spending. Economic growth is expected to rebound in the second quarter to around 2.5%, with a preliminary reading to be released in late July. • Job growth decelerated for four straight months before a sharp rebound in June. The U.S. economy added 287,000 jobs in June, the largest gain since October 2015. Year-to-date, the economy added over 1 million jobs, but it is nearly 300,000 behind last year’s pace. The unemployment rate ended the quarter at 4.9%. • Inflation pressures remained relatively unchanged in the second quarter as the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index, the Fed’s favored metric of inflation, rose 1.6% for the year ended May. Oil prices settled into a $40 to $50 per barrel range, while home prices rose 5.4% year-over-year. Average hourly earnings, an important measure of wages, grew 2.6% over the past 12 months, matching a nearly 7-year high. Interest Rates • Interest rates ended the quarter significantly lower amid the Fed’s dovish tone during the quarter and the flight to safety stimulated by the Brexit vote. Declines were led by longer maturity yields, flattening the yield curve. The spread between the two-year and 10-year Treasury yields fell to 89 basis points (0.89%) compared to 105 basis points (1.05%) at the end of the first quarter. The two-year Treasury yield fell 14 basis points (0.14%) during the quarter, while the yield on the 10-year Treasury fell 30 basis points (0.30%). • In the money market space, shorter Treasuries posted modest increases, while short-term credit instruments, like commercial paper and bank certificates of deposit (CDs), continued to offer unusually wide yield spreads. Sector Performance • U.S. Treasury indexes posted another quarter of strong returns as rate declines boosted market values. Because the yield curve flattened, longer maturity issues performed best. • Non-callable federal agency securities performed generally in line with comparable maturity Treasuries. • Corporate yield spreads tightened throughout most of the second quarter as credit conditions stabilized from the first quarter’s energy price-driven volatility. Post Brexit, corporates experienced a brief spike in spreads, but quickly recovered by quarter end. The sector generated strong outperformance relative to Treasuries, adding to its 2016 return advantage. • Mortgage-backed securities underperformed Treasuries for the second straight quarter. Declining interest rates, which drove accelerated prepayment expectations, continued to hurt the sector. © 2016 PFM Asset Management LLC2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 155 QUARTERLY MARKET SUMMARY For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Fixed Income Management LAST_UPDATE_DT 6/30/2016 3/31/2015 Labor Market Mar 2016Jun 2015 Unemployment Rate Jun'16 4.9%5.0%5.3% Change In Non-Farm Payrolls Jun'16287,000186,000228,000 Average Hourly Earnings (YoY)Jun'16 2.6%2.3%2.0% Personal Income (YoY)May'16 4.0%4.6%4.6% Initial Jobless Claims (week)7/1/16 254,000276,000280,000 Growth Real GDP (QoQ SAAR)2016Q1 1.1%1.4%0.6% GDP Personal Consumption (QoQ SAAR)2016Q1 1.5%2.4%1.8% Retail Sales (YoY)May'16 2.5%1.7%2.1% ISM Manufacturing Survey (month)Jun'16 53.2 51.8 53.1 Existing Home Sales SAAR (month)May'165.53 mil.5.36 mil.5.41 mil. Inflation / Prices Personal Consumption Expenditures (YoY)May'16 0.9%0.8%0.3% Consumer Price Index (YoY)May'16 1.0%0.9%0.1% Consumer Price Index Core (YoY)May'16 2.2%2.2%1.8% Crude Oil Futures (WTI, per barrel)Jun 30 $48.33$38.34$59.47 Gold Futures (oz.)Jun 30 $1,321$1,234$1,172 1. Data as of Fourth Quarter 2015 2. Data as of First Quarter 2015 Note: YoY = year over year, QoQ = quarter over quarter, SAAR = seasonally adjusted annual rate, WTI = West Texas Intermediate crude oil Latest 0 50K 100K 150K 200K 250K 300K 350K 400K 2% 4% 6% 8% 6/30/13 12/31/13 6/30/14 12/31/14 6/30/15 12/31/15 6/30/16 Unemployment Rate (left) vs. Change in Nonfarm Payrolls (right) Change In Non-Farm Payrolls Unemployment Rate -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 3/31/13 9/30/13 3/31/14 9/30/14 3/31/15 9/30/15 3/31/16 Real GDP (QoQ) -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 6/30/13 12/31/13 6/30/14 12/31/14 6/30/15 12/31/15 Consumer Price Index CPI (YoY)Core CPI (YoY) 2 2 1 1 Economic Snapshot Source: Bloomberg © 2016 PFM Asset Management LLC2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 156 QUARTERLY MARKET SUMMARY For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Fixed Income Management Source: Bloomberg Interest Rate Overview U.S. Treasury Note Yields U.S. Treasury Yield Curve U.S. Treasury Yields Yield Curves as of 6/30/16 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3- m o 1- y r 2- y r 3- y r 5- y r 7- y r 10 - y r 30 - y r Yi e l d Maturity U.S. Treasury Yield Curve June 30, 2016 March 31, 2016 June 30, 2015 Maturity 6/30/163/31/16 Change over Quarter 6/30/15 Change over Year 3-month 0.26%0.20%0.06%0.01%0.25% 1-year0.44%0.58%(0.14%)0.27%0.17% 2-year 0.58%0.72%(0.14%)0.65%(0.07%) 5-year1.00%1.21%(0.21%)1.65%(0.65%) 10-year1.47%1.77%(0.30%)2.35%(0.88%) 30-year2.29%2.61%(0.32%)3.12%(0.83%) 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1- y r 2- y r 3- y r 5- y r 7- y r 10 - y r 25 - y r 30 - y r Yi e l d Maturity Yield Curves as of 6/30/2016 U.S. Treasury Federal Agency Industrial Corporates, A Rated 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3/31/16 4/30/16 5/31/16 6/30/16 Yi e l d U.S. Treasury Note Yields 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year © 2016 PFM Asset Management LLC2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 157 QUARTERLY MARKET SUMMARY For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Fixed Income Management Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Indices Duration Yield 3 Month 1 Year3 Years 1-3 Year Indices U.S. Treasury 1.90 0.60%0.53%1.31%0.98% Federal Agency 1.58 0.72%0.41%1.27%1.04% U.S. Corporates, A-AAA rated 1.94 1.35%0.83%2.24%1.79% Agency MBS (0 to 3 years)2.22 1.22%0.65%2.50%1.92% Taxable Municipals 2.04 2.15%1.38%3.71%2.21% 1-5 Year Indices U.S. Treasury 2.74 0.72%0.81%2.43%1.65% Federal Agency 2.06 0.81%0.59%1.94%1.59% U.S. Corporates, A-AAA rated 2.77 1.57%1.14%3.32%2.74% Agency MBS (0 to 5 years)3.35 1.75%1.02%3.37%3.01% Taxable Municipals 2.67 1.90%1.78%4.88%3.01% Master Indices (Maturities 1 Year or Greater) U.S. Treasury 6.62 1.13%2.24%6.67%3.83% Federal Agency 3.83 1.13%1.34%3.92%2.89% U.S. Corporates, A-AAA rated 7.11 2.44%2.90%7.89%5.37% Agency MBS (0 to 30 years)3.47 1.81%1.12%4.38%3.73% Taxable Municipals 4.17 2.36%2.61%7.12%4.25% Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Indices Returns for Periods ended 6/30/2016As of 6/30/2016 © 2016 PFM Asset Management LLC BofA Merrill Lynch Index Returns 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 158 QUARTERLY MARKET SUMMARY For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2016 Fixed Income Management Disclosures The views expressed within this material constitute the perspective and judgment of PFM Asset Management LLC (PFMAM) at the time of distribution and are subject to change. Information is obtained from sources generally believed to be reliable and available to the public; however, PFMAM cannot guarantee its accuracy, completeness, or suitability. This material is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendation. The information contained in this report is not an offer to purchase or sell any securities. PFMAM is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. PFMAM’s clients are state and local governments, non-profit corporations, pension funds, and similar institutional investors. Further distribution is not permitted without prior written consent. PFM Asset Management LLC PFM ® © 2016 PFM Asset Management LLC2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 159 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/MaturityCUSIP RatingRatingDateDate Costat CostInterest Cost Value CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/Description S&PMoody's OriginalYTMAccruedAmortized MarketTradeSettle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2011 1.000% 09/30/2016 2,989,814.81 2,987,965.00 7,503.28 3,009,836.13 08/27/1408/26/14AaaAA+ 2,985,000.00 912828RJ1 0.60 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2013 1.375% 07/31/2018 4,570,663.50 4,530,454.34 25,837.91 4,544,648.44 07/06/1507/02/15AaaAA+ 4,500,000.00 912828VQ0 1.05 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2011 1.750% 10/31/2018 3,994,201.76 3,954,376.63 11,483.90 3,977,008.01 08/05/1508/04/15AaaAA+ 3,895,000.00 912828RP7 1.09 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/02/2013 1.250% 11/30/2018 8,088,707.55 7,988,808.55 8,443.48 7,994,314.46 07/06/1507/02/15AaaAA+ 7,975,000.00 912828A34 1.18 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 01/31/2012 1.250% 01/31/2019 1,014,766.00 996,044.10 5,219.78 994,023.44 02/23/1502/19/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828SD3 1.41 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 06/02/2014 1.500% 05/31/2019 8,691,913.00 8,532,989.95 10,799.18 8,543,828.13 07/06/1507/02/15AaaAA+ 8,500,000.00 912828WL0 1.36 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/01/2012 1.000% 09/30/2019 2,080,406.97 2,046,036.84 5,190.71 2,039,348.83 04/27/1504/23/15AaaAA+ 2,065,000.00 912828TR1 1.29 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/01/2012 1.000% 09/30/2019 3,072,756.05 3,014,250.77 7,666.67 3,001,867.19 05/04/1505/01/15AaaAA+ 3,050,000.00 912828TR1 1.37 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 1.500% 10/31/2019 1,534,921.50 1,494,972.32 3,790.76 1,493,496.09 06/29/1506/26/15AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828F62 1.60 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 1.500% 10/31/2019 8,697,888.50 8,500,558.88 21,480.98 8,500,664.06 07/06/1507/02/15AaaAA+ 8,500,000.00 912828F62 1.50 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/30/2012 1.000% 11/30/2019 3,019,569.00 2,954,549.43 2,540.98 2,940,468.75 05/28/1505/26/15AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 912828UB4 1.46 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/28/2013 1.250% 02/29/2020 1,217,906.40 1,196,891.58 5,013.59 1,196,296.88 10/13/1510/08/15AaaAA+ 1,200,000.00 912828UQ1 1.32 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/28/2013 1.250% 02/29/2020 1,217,906.40 1,196,754.14 5,013.59 1,196,156.25 10/23/1510/23/15AaaAA+ 1,200,000.00 912828UQ1 1.33 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/28/2013 1.250% 02/29/2020 3,090,437.49 3,008,816.72 12,721.98 3,002,774.41 11/13/1511/13/15AaaAA+ 3,045,000.00 912828UQ1 1.59 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 160 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/MaturityCUSIP RatingRatingDateDate Costat CostInterest Cost Value CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/Description S&PMoody's OriginalYTMAccruedAmortized MarketTradeSettle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/15/2010 2.625% 11/15/2020 6,996,281.18 6,883,547.13 21,892.36 6,890,170.31 05/31/1605/26/16AaaAA+ 6,530,000.00 912828PC8 1.35 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 4,137,656.00 4,066,069.12 190.22 4,067,187.50 06/02/1606/01/16AaaAA+ 4,000,000.00 912828N48 1.37 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 01/31/2016 1.375% 01/31/2021 3,561,932.50 3,523,642.29 20,096.15 3,523,925.78 06/10/1606/07/16AaaAA+ 3,500,000.00 912828N89 1.22 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2016 1.250% 03/31/2021 3,540,743.50 3,502,975.70 10,997.27 3,503,007.81 06/10/1606/07/16AaaAA+ 3,500,000.00 912828Q37 1.23 185,882.79 71,518,472.11 70,379,703.49 1.29 70,419,022.47 69,945,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 DTD 10/01/2015 1.646% 09/01/2019 1,389,794.59 1,386,044.30 1,886.04 1,388,769.11 10/30/1510/07/15AaaAA+ 1,375,000.00 3136AQDQ0 1.08 1,886.04 1,389,794.59 1,386,044.30 1.08 1,388,769.11 1,375,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Bond / Note FHLMC BONDS (CALLED, OMD 01/03/2018) DTD 01/03/2013 0.875% 07/03/2016 2,999,994.00 3,000,000.00 12,979.17 3,000,000.00 01/03/1301/03/13AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3134G32V1 0.88 FFCB BONDS (CALLED, OMD 10/10/2017) DTD 10/10/2012 0.900% 07/07/2016 4,000,124.00 4,000,000.00 8,100.00 4,000,000.00 10/10/1210/10/12AaaAA+ 4,000,000.00 3133EA3J5 0.90 FHLB NOTES (CALLED, OMD 11/28/2016) DTD 11/28/2012 0.590% 07/11/2016 3,000,042.00 3,000,000.00 1,622.50 3,000,000.00 11/28/1211/28/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 313381C78 0.59 FHLB BONDS (CALLED, OMD 10/23/2017) DTD 10/23/2012 0.900% 07/12/2016 3,000,078.00 3,000,000.00 5,100.00 3,000,000.00 10/23/1210/23/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 313380Z34 0.90 FFCB BONDS (CALLED, OMD 10/18/2017) DTD 10/18/2012 0.870% 07/15/2016 3,000,009.00 3,000,000.00 5,292.50 3,000,000.00 10/18/1210/16/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3133EA5A2 0.87 FFCB BONDS (CALLED, OMD 05/30/2017) DTD 05/30/2013 0.750% 07/15/2016 4,000,108.00 4,000,000.00 2,583.33 4,000,000.00 05/30/1305/30/13AaaAA+ 4,000,000.00 3133ECQT4 0.75 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 161 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/MaturityCUSIP RatingRatingDateDate Costat CostInterest Cost Value CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/Description S&PMoody's OriginalYTMAccruedAmortized MarketTradeSettle Par Federal Agency Bond / Note FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 12/19/2012 0.730% 06/19/2017 3,000,225.00 3,000,000.00 730.00 3,000,000.00 12/19/1212/19/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3133ECAL8 0.73 FFCB NOTES DTD 09/21/2012 0.830% 09/21/2017 3,007,401.00 3,000,000.00 6,916.67 3,000,000.00 09/21/1209/21/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3133EAY28 0.83 FREDDIE MAC (EX-CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 12/26/2012 0.850% 12/26/2017 3,007,806.00 3,000,000.00 354.17 3,000,000.00 12/26/1212/26/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3134G32L3 0.85 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 12/27/2012 0.900% 12/27/2017 2,999,355.00 3,000,000.00 300.00 3,000,000.00 12/27/1212/27/12AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3136G14X4 0.90 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 01/30/2013 1.030% 01/30/2018 3,000,201.00 3,000,000.00 12,960.83 3,000,000.00 01/30/1301/30/13AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3135G0TV5 1.03 FREDDIE MAC (EX-CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 05/29/2013 1.000% 05/29/2018 3,014,130.00 3,000,000.00 2,666.67 3,000,000.00 05/29/1305/29/13AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3134G45W4 1.00 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 06/06/2013 1.125% 06/06/2018 3,004,854.00 3,000,000.00 2,343.75 3,000,000.00 06/06/1306/06/13AaaAA+ 3,000,000.00 3135G0XS7 1.13 61,949.59 41,034,327.00 41,000,000.00 0.87 41,000,000.00 41,000,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note PFIZER INC GLOBAL NOTES DTD 06/03/2013 0.900% 01/15/2017 2,001,286.00 2,000,933.04 8,300.00 2,002,620.00 07/08/1507/02/15A1AA 2,000,000.00 717081DD2 0.81 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY NOTES DTD 05/15/2013 1.300% 05/15/2018 427,673.68 424,169.39 705.97 423,763.25 07/27/1507/23/15Aa2AA 425,000.00 084664BW0 1.41 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY NOTES DTD 05/15/2013 1.300% 05/15/2018 1,354,467.69 1,346,227.85 2,235.86 1,346,336.50 07/15/1507/10/15Aa2AA 1,346,000.00 084664BW0 1.29 BANK OF AMERICA BANK NOTES DTD 06/05/2015 1.750% 06/05/2018 805,335.20 800,863.35 1,011.11 801,160.00 10/23/1510/20/15A1A 800,000.00 06050TMC3 1.69 CHEVRON CORP GLOBAL NOTES DTD 06/24/2013 1.718% 06/24/2018 1,517,523.00 1,514,915.33 501.08 1,523,610.00 04/27/1504/23/15Aa2AA- 1,500,000.00 166764AE0 1.21 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 162 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/MaturityCUSIP RatingRatingDateDate Costat CostInterest Cost Value CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/Description S&PMoody's OriginalYTMAccruedAmortized MarketTradeSettle Par Corporate Note GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC NOTES DTD 07/19/2013 2.900% 07/19/2018 1,000,515.75 997,181.00 12,723.75 1,004,298.75 10/28/1510/28/15A3BBB+ 975,000.00 38147MAA3 1.77 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES DTD 09/26/2013 2.500% 09/26/2018 994,324.50 987,552.47 6,432.29 991,233.75 10/28/1510/28/15Baa1BBB+ 975,000.00 172967HC8 1.91 US BANCORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 11/07/2013 1.950% 11/15/2018 3,062,997.00 3,015,982.83 7,475.00 3,021,840.00 08/19/1508/17/15A1A+ 3,000,000.00 91159HHE3 1.72 BANK OF NY MELLN CORP (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 11/18/2013 2.100% 01/15/2019 1,022,333.00 1,005,547.86 9,683.33 1,007,240.00 09/21/1509/18/15A1A 1,000,000.00 06406HCP2 1.87 IBM CORP NOTE DTD 02/12/2014 1.950% 02/12/2019 1,536,882.00 1,519,672.88 11,293.75 1,528,290.00 04/27/1504/23/15Aa3AA- 1,500,000.00 459200HT1 1.44 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP DTD 02/19/2016 1.700% 02/19/2019 1,549,556.46 1,529,838.37 9,537.00 1,529,816.40 02/19/1602/16/16Aa3AA- 1,530,000.00 89236TCU7 1.70 CISCO SYSTEMS INC GLOBAL NOTES DTD 03/03/2014 2.125% 03/01/2019 1,540,593.00 1,504,610.79 10,625.00 1,506,270.00 06/29/1506/26/15A1AA- 1,500,000.00 17275RAR3 2.01 APPLE INC GLOBAL NOTES DTD 05/06/2014 2.100% 05/06/2019 1,543,668.00 1,508,569.97 4,812.50 1,511,475.00 06/29/1506/26/15Aa1AA+ 1,500,000.00 037833AQ3 1.89 AMERCIAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP NOTES DTD 08/15/2014 2.250% 08/15/2019 1,020,818.00 1,003,090.64 8,500.00 1,003,820.00 09/21/1509/18/15A2A- 1,000,000.00 0258M0DP1 2.15 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAP CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/09/2015 2.200% 01/09/2020 1,546,057.50 1,532,790.12 15,766.67 1,533,555.00 06/01/1605/26/16A1AA+ 1,500,000.00 36962G7M0 1.56 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 01/23/2015 2.250% 01/23/2020 1,013,753.00 994,404.97 9,875.00 993,230.00 09/21/1509/18/15A3A- 1,000,000.00 46625HKA7 2.41 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) DTD 01/23/2015 2.250% 01/23/2020 1,520,629.50 1,503,662.40 14,812.50 1,504,815.00 04/27/1504/23/15A3A- 1,500,000.00 46625HKA7 2.18 WELLS FARGO & CO DTD 02/02/2015 2.150% 01/30/2020 1,016,964.00 998,353.13 9,018.06 998,000.00 09/21/1509/18/15A2A 1,000,000.00 94974BGF1 2.20 WELLS FARGO & CO DTD 02/02/2015 2.150% 01/30/2020 1,525,446.00 1,500,042.99 13,527.08 1,500,045.00 03/27/1503/26/15A2A 1,500,000.00 94974BGF1 2.15 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 163 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/MaturityCUSIP RatingRatingDateDate Costat CostInterest Cost Value CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/Description S&PMoody's OriginalYTMAccruedAmortized MarketTradeSettle Par Corporate Note AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP NOTES DTD 03/13/2015 2.150% 03/13/2020 1,545,798.00 1,504,569.99 9,675.00 1,506,045.00 03/27/1503/26/15A1A+ 1,500,000.00 02665WAU5 2.06 AMERICAN EXP CREDIT CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 05/26/2015 2.375% 05/26/2020 1,534,711.50 1,488,044.57 3,463.54 1,485,135.00 06/29/1506/26/15A2A- 1,500,000.00 0258M0DT3 2.59 BNY MELLON CORP NOTE (CALLABLE) DTD 08/17/2015 2.600% 08/17/2020 1,555,572.00 1,522,121.04 14,516.67 1,525,875.00 10/09/1510/08/15A1A 1,500,000.00 06406HDD8 2.22 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CB DTD 09/24/2015 2.450% 09/24/2020 1,038,583.00 1,004,890.42 6,601.39 1,005,680.00 10/09/1510/08/15A1A+ 1,000,000.00 02665WAZ4 2.33 PEPSICO INC CORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 10/14/2015 2.150% 10/14/2020 2,055,912.00 2,032,032.62 9,197.22 2,032,540.00 06/06/1606/01/16A1A 2,000,000.00 713448DC9 1.76 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 454,707.00 452,825.01 2,187.50 452,893.50 05/16/1605/11/16A3BBB+ 450,000.00 61746BEA0 2.36 202,477.27 34,186,106.78 33,692,893.03 1.83 33,739,587.15 33,501,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit RABOBANK NEDERLAND NV CERT DEPOS DTD 04/27/2015 1.070% 04/21/2017 2,399,712.00 2,400,000.00 4,993.33 2,400,000.00 04/27/1504/22/15P-1A-1 2,400,000.00 21684BXH2 1.07 SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD DTD 11/17/2015 1.480% 11/16/2017 3,003,180.00 3,000,000.00 27,996.67 3,000,000.00 11/17/1511/16/15P-1A-1 3,000,000.00 83050FBG5 1.48 32,990.00 5,402,892.00 5,400,000.00 1.30 5,400,000.00 5,400,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation HONDA ABS 2016-1 A3 DTD 02/25/2016 1.220% 12/18/2019 752,192.33 749,905.07 330.42 749,893.43 02/25/1602/16/16NRAAA 750,000.00 43814NAC9 1.23 NISSAN ABS 2015-C A3 DTD 10/14/2015 1.370% 05/15/2020 864,769.04 859,910.30 523.64 859,890.52 10/14/1510/06/15AaaNR 860,000.00 65478AAD5 1.38 ALLY ABS 2016-3 A3 DTD 05/31/2016 1.440% 08/15/2020 532,355.90 529,949.39 339.20 529,948.54 05/31/1605/24/16AaaAAA 530,000.00 02007LAC6 1.44 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 164 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/MaturityCUSIP RatingRatingDateDate Costat CostInterest Cost Value CITY OF CHULA VISTA Security Type/Description S&PMoody's OriginalYTMAccruedAmortized MarketTradeSettle Par Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation BANK OF AMER CREDIT CARD TR 2015-A2 DTD 04/29/2015 1.360% 09/15/2020 1,006,015.00 1,001,156.54 604.44 1,001,328.12 10/28/1510/26/15AaaAAA 1,000,000.00 05522RCU0 1.30 1,797.70 3,155,332.27 3,140,921.30 1.33 3,141,060.61 3,140,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 154,361,000.00 155,088,439.34 1.30 486,983.39 154,999,562.12 156,686,924.75 Managed Account Sub-Total $154,361,000.00 $155,088,439.34 $486,983.39 $154,999,562.12 $156,686,924.75 1.30% $157,173,908.14 $486,983.39 Total Investments Accrued Interest Securities Sub-Total 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 165 For the Month Ending April 30, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CUSIP CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/LRealized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method INTEREST 04/25/16 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 DTD 10/01/2015 1.646% 09/01/2019 3136AQDQ0 0.00 1,886.04 1,886.04 1,375,000.00 04/01/16 04/04/16 MONEY MARKET FUND MONEY0002 0.00 11.24 11.24 0.00 04/04/16 04/10/16 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 10/10/2012 0.900% 10/10/2017 3133EA3J5 0.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 4,000,000.00 04/10/16 04/15/16 NISSAN ABS 2015-C A3 DTD 10/14/2015 1.370% 05/15/2020 65478AAD5 0.00 981.83 981.83 860,000.00 04/15/16 04/15/16 BANK OF AMER CREDIT CARD TR 2015-A2 DTD 04/29/2015 1.360% 09/15/2020 05522RCU0 0.00 1,133.33 1,133.33 1,000,000.00 04/15/16 04/18/16 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 10/18/2012 0.870% 10/18/2017 3133EA5A2 0.00 13,050.00 13,050.00 3,000,000.00 04/18/16 04/18/16 HONDA ABS 2016-1 A3 DTD 02/25/2016 1.220% 12/18/2019 43814NAC9 0.00 762.50 762.50 750,000.00 04/18/16 04/21/16 RABOBANK NEDERLAND NV CERT DEPOS DTD 04/27/2015 1.070% 04/21/2017 21684BXH2 0.00 12,840.00 12,840.00 2,400,000.00 04/21/16 04/23/16 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 10/23/2012 0.900% 10/23/2017 313380Z34 0.00 13,500.00 13,500.00 3,000,000.00 04/23/16 04/30/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2011 1.750% 10/31/2018 912828RP7 0.00 34,081.25 34,081.25 3,895,000.00 04/30/16 04/30/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 1.500% 10/31/2019 912828F62 0.00 63,750.00 63,750.00 8,500,000.00 04/30/16 04/30/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 04/30/2013 0.625% 04/30/2018 912828UZ1 0.00 9,375.00 9,375.00 3,000,000.00 04/30/16 04/30/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 1.500% 10/31/2019 912828F62 0.00 11,250.00 11,250.00 1,500,000.00 04/30/16 180,621.19 180,621.19 0.00 33,280,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total 0.00 180,621.19 180,621.19 Managed Account Sub-Total 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 166 For the Month Ending April 30, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CITY OF CHULA VISTA Total Security Transactions $180,621.19 $180,621.19 $0.00 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 167 For the Month Ending May 31, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CUSIP CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/LRealized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method BUY 05/16/16 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 61746BEA0 (452,893.50)(781.25)(453,674.75) 450,000.00 05/11/16 05/31/16 ALLY ABS 2016-3 A3 DTD 05/31/2016 1.440% 08/15/2020 02007LAC6 (529,948.54) 0.00 (529,948.54) 530,000.00 05/24/16 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/15/2010 2.625% 11/15/2020 912828PC8 (6,890,170.31)(7,452.72)(6,897,623.03) 6,530,000.00 05/26/16 06/01/16 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAP CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/09/2015 2.200% 01/09/2020 36962G7M0 (1,533,555.00)(13,016.67)(1,546,571.67) 1,500,000.00 05/26/16 (21,250.64)(9,427,817.99)(9,406,567.35) 9,010,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total INTEREST 05/25/16 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 DTD 10/01/2015 1.646% 09/01/2019 3136AQDQ0 0.00 1,886.04 1,886.04 1,375,000.00 05/01/16 05/03/16 MONEY MARKET FUND MONEY0002 0.00 12.34 12.34 0.00 05/03/16 05/06/16 APPLE INC GLOBAL NOTES DTD 05/06/2014 2.100% 05/06/2019 037833AQ3 0.00 15,750.00 15,750.00 1,500,000.00 05/06/16 05/15/16 US BANCORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 11/07/2013 1.950% 11/15/2018 91159HHE3 0.00 29,250.00 29,250.00 3,000,000.00 05/15/16 05/15/16 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY NOTES DTD 05/15/2013 1.300% 05/15/2018 084664BW0 0.00 8,749.00 8,749.00 1,346,000.00 05/15/16 05/15/16 NISSAN ABS 2015-C A3 DTD 10/14/2015 1.370% 05/15/2020 65478AAD5 0.00 981.83 981.83 860,000.00 05/15/16 05/15/16 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/15/2014 1.250% 05/15/2017 36962G7J7 0.00 9,375.00 9,375.00 1,500,000.00 05/15/16 05/15/16 BANK OF AMER CREDIT CARD TR 2015-A2 DTD 04/29/2015 1.360% 09/15/2020 05522RCU0 0.00 1,133.33 1,133.33 1,000,000.00 05/15/16 05/15/16 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY NOTES DTD 05/15/2013 1.300% 05/15/2018 084664BW0 0.00 2,762.50 2,762.50 425,000.00 05/15/16 05/18/16 HONDA ABS 2016-1 A3 DTD 02/25/2016 1.220% 12/18/2019 43814NAC9 0.00 762.50 762.50 750,000.00 05/18/16 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 168 For the Month Ending May 31, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CUSIP CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/LRealized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method INTEREST 05/26/16 AMERICAN EXP CREDIT CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 05/26/2015 2.375% 05/26/2020 0258M0DT3 0.00 17,812.50 17,812.50 1,500,000.00 05/26/16 05/28/16 FNMA (CALLED, OMD 02/28/18) NOTES DTD 02/28/2013 1.150% 05/28/2016 3135G0UN1 0.00 8,625.00 8,625.00 3,000,000.00 05/28/16 05/28/16 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 11/28/2012 0.590% 11/28/2016 313381C78 0.00 8,850.00 8,850.00 3,000,000.00 05/28/16 05/29/16 FREDDIE MAC (EX-CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 05/29/2013 1.000% 05/29/2018 3134G45W4 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 3,000,000.00 05/29/16 05/30/16 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 05/30/2013 0.750% 05/30/2017 3133ECQT4 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 4,000,000.00 05/30/16 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/30/2012 1.000% 11/30/2019 912828UB4 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 3,000,000.00 05/31/16 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/31/2011 1.750% 05/31/2016 912828QP8 0.00 34,125.00 34,125.00 3,900,000.00 05/31/16 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/02/2013 1.250% 11/30/2018 912828A34 0.00 53,125.00 53,125.00 8,500,000.00 05/31/16 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 06/02/2014 1.500% 05/31/2019 912828WL0 0.00 63,750.00 63,750.00 8,500,000.00 05/31/16 301,950.04 301,950.04 0.00 50,156,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total MATURITY 05/28/16 FNMA (CALLED, OMD 02/28/18) NOTES DTD 02/28/2013 1.150% 05/28/2016 3135G0UN1 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 05/28/16 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/31/2011 1.750% 05/31/2016 912828QP8 3,900,000.00 0.00 3,900,000.00 (93,539.06) 0.00 3,900,000.00 05/31/16 0.00 0.00 (93,539.06) 6,900,000.00 6,900,000.00 6,900,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total SELL 05/31/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/02/2013 1.250% 11/30/2018 912828A34 528,219.73 0.00 528,219.73 1,948.25 2,279.21 SPEC LOT 525,000.00 05/23/16 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 169 For the Month Ending May 31, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CUSIP CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/LRealized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method SELL 06/01/16 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/15/2014 1.250% 05/15/2017 36962G7J7 1,503,450.00 833.33 1,504,283.33 1,770.00 2,868.42 SPEC LOT 1,500,000.00 05/26/16 833.33 5,147.63 3,718.25 2,032,503.06 2,031,669.73 2,025,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total (474,897.62) 281,532.73 (193,364.89)(89,820.81) 5,147.63 Managed Account Sub-Total Total Security Transactions ($89,820.81)($193,364.89)$281,532.73 ($474,897.62)$5,147.63 Bolded items are forward settling trades. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 170 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CUSIP CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/LRealized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method BUY 06/01/16 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAP CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 01/09/2015 2.200% 01/09/2020 36962G7M0 (1,533,555.00)(13,016.67)(1,546,571.67) 1,500,000.00 05/26/16 06/02/16 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 912828N48 (4,067,187.50)(29,615.38)(4,096,802.88) 4,000,000.00 06/01/16 06/06/16 PEPSICO INC CORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 10/14/2015 2.150% 10/14/2020 713448DC9 (2,032,540.00)(6,211.11)(2,038,751.11) 2,000,000.00 06/01/16 06/10/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2016 1.250% 03/31/2021 912828Q37 (3,503,007.81)(8,487.02)(3,511,494.83) 3,500,000.00 06/07/16 06/10/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 01/31/2016 1.375% 01/31/2021 912828N89 (3,523,925.78)(17,319.71)(3,541,245.49) 3,500,000.00 06/07/16 (74,649.89)(14,734,865.98)(14,660,216.09) 14,500,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total INTEREST 06/01/16 MONEY MARKET FUND MONEY0002 0.00 7.91 7.91 0.00 06/01/16 06/25/16 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 DTD 10/01/2015 1.646% 09/01/2019 3136AQDQ0 0.00 1,886.04 1,886.04 1,375,000.00 06/01/16 06/05/16 BANK OF AMERICA BANK NOTES DTD 06/05/2015 1.750% 06/05/2018 06050TMC3 0.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 800,000.00 06/05/16 06/06/16 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 06/06/2013 1.125% 06/06/2018 3135G0XS7 0.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 3,000,000.00 06/06/16 06/15/16 ALLY ABS 2016-3 A3 DTD 05/31/2016 1.440% 08/15/2020 02007LAC6 0.00 318.00 318.00 530,000.00 06/15/16 06/15/16 BANK OF AMER CREDIT CARD TR 2015-A2 DTD 04/29/2015 1.360% 09/15/2020 05522RCU0 0.00 1,133.33 1,133.33 1,000,000.00 06/15/16 06/15/16 NISSAN ABS 2015-C A3 DTD 10/14/2015 1.370% 05/15/2020 65478AAD5 0.00 981.83 981.83 860,000.00 06/15/16 06/18/16 HONDA ABS 2016-1 A3 DTD 02/25/2016 1.220% 12/18/2019 43814NAC9 0.00 762.50 762.50 750,000.00 06/18/16 06/19/16 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS(CALLABLE) BOND DTD 12/19/2012 0.730% 06/19/2017 3133ECAL8 0.00 10,950.00 10,950.00 3,000,000.00 06/19/16 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 171 For the Month Ending June 30, 2016Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest CUSIP CITY OF CHULA VISTA Transaction Type Trade Settle Security Description Par Proceeds Principal Accrued Interest Total Cost Realized G/LRealized G/L Sale Amort Cost Method INTEREST 06/24/16 CHEVRON CORP GLOBAL NOTES DTD 06/24/2013 1.718% 06/24/2018 166764AE0 0.00 12,885.00 12,885.00 1,500,000.00 06/24/16 06/26/16 FREDDIE MAC (EX-CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 12/26/2012 0.850% 12/26/2017 3134G32L3 0.00 12,750.00 12,750.00 3,000,000.00 06/26/16 06/27/16 FANNIE MAE (CALLABLE) BONDS DTD 12/27/2012 0.900% 12/27/2017 3136G14X4 0.00 13,500.00 13,500.00 3,000,000.00 06/27/16 06/30/16 US TREASURY N/B DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 912828N48 0.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 4,000,000.00 06/30/16 114,049.61 114,049.61 0.00 22,815,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total SELL 06/01/16 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP NOTES (CALLABLE) DTD 05/15/2014 1.250% 05/15/2017 36962G7J7 1,503,450.00 833.33 1,504,283.33 1,770.00 2,868.42 SPEC LOT 1,500,000.00 05/26/16 06/02/16 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS DTD 01/28/2014 1.100% 06/28/2017 3133EDEB4 4,012,480.00 18,822.22 4,031,302.22 12,480.00 12,480.00 SPEC LOT 4,000,000.00 06/01/16 06/06/16 PEPSICO, INC CORPORATE NOTE DTD 08/13/2012 1.250% 08/13/2017 713448CB2 2,006,080.00 7,847.22 2,013,927.22 2,000.00 3,757.90 SPEC LOT 2,000,000.00 06/01/16 06/10/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2013 1.375% 07/31/2018 912828VQ0 4,047,656.25 19,793.96 4,067,450.21 7,968.75 19,845.09 SPEC LOT 4,000,000.00 06/07/16 06/10/16 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 04/30/2013 0.625% 04/30/2018 912828UZ1 2,991,210.94 2,088.99 2,993,299.93 6,679.69 2,862.04 SPEC LOT 3,000,000.00 06/07/16 49,385.72 41,813.45 30,898.44 14,610,262.91 14,560,877.19 14,500,000.00 Transaction Type Sub-Total (99,338.90) 88,785.44 (10,553.46) 30,898.44 41,813.45 Managed Account Sub-Total Total Security Transactions $30,898.44 ($10,553.46)$88,785.44 ($99,338.90)$41,813.45 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 172 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0385, Item#: 7. A.RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAACCEPTINGTHE 2015/2016SANDIEGOCOUNTYGRANDJURYREPORTONCITIZENOVERSIGHT BOARDSOFPOLICEBEHAVIORANDAUTHORIZINGTHEMAYORTOSIGNTHE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL B.RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAACCEPTINGTHE 2015/2016SANDIEGOCOUNTYGRANDJURYREPORTONTHECHULAVISTAJAILAND AUTHORIZINGTHEMAYORTOSIGNTHERESPONSEONBEHALFOFTHEMAYORAND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolutions. SUMMARY OnMay25,2016,theSanDiegoCountyGrandJuryfiledareportentitled“CitizenOversightBoards ofPoliceBehavior”withtheClerkoftheCourt.TheGrandJury’sreportcontainedtwo(2) recommendationsdirectedtotheMayorsandCityCouncilsofsevencitiesinthecounty,including Chula Vista. OnMay31,2016theGrandJuryfiledanotherreportentitled“ChulaVistaJail”withtheClerkofthe Court.TheGrandJury’sreportcontainedseven(7)findingsandmadeseven(7)recommendations directed to the Chula Vista Mayor and City Council. Understatelaw,theCityofChulaVistamustrespondwithin90daystothefindingsand recommendations in the Grand Jury’s report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION OnMay25,2016,theSanDiegoCountyGrandJuryfiledareportentitled“CitizenOversightBoards ofPoliceBehavior”(Attachment“A”)withtheClerkoftheCourt.TheGrandJury’sreportcontained two(2)recommendationsdirectedtotheMayorsandCityCouncilsofsevencitiesinthecounty, City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 173 File#:16-0385, Item#: 7. including Chula Vista. OnMay31,2016theGrandJuryfiledanotherreportentitled“ChulaVistaJail”(Attachment“C”)with theClerkoftheCourt.TheGrandJury’sreportcontainedseven(7)findingsandmadeseven(7) recommendations directed to the Chula Vista Mayor and City Council. Understatelaw,theCityofChulaVistamustrespondwithin90daystothefindingsand recommendations in the Grand Jury’s report. CaliforniaPenalCodeSection933(c)statesinpartthat,“Nolaterthan90daysafterthegrandjury submitsafinalreportontheoperationsofanypublicagencysubjecttoitsreviewingauthority,the governingbodyofthepublicagencyshallcommenttothepresidingjudgeofthesuperiorcourtonthe findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.” StaffhascarefullyreviewedbothGrandJuryreportsandpreparedresponses(Attachments“B”and “D”)totheHonorableJeffreyB.Barton,PresidingJudgeoftheSanDiegoSuperiorCourt,addressing the findings and recommendations listed on the Grand Jury reports. ItisrequestedthattheMayorandCouncilreviewtheGrandJury’sreportsandtheprepared responses.ItisfurtherrequestedthattheMayorandCityCouncilaccepttheresponsesand authorize the Mayor to sign the letters as completed responses from the City of Chula Vista. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite- specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section 18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Theresponsetothe GrandJury’sreportismandatedbystatute.However,thetopicsaddressedbytheGrandJury’s reportandansweredbytheCity’sresponsesimpactthegoalsofOperationalExcellence,Economic Vitality,HealthyCommunity,andStrongandSecureNeighborhoods.TheresponsestotheGrand Jury’sreportshighlightthePoliceDepartment’shistoryandongoingeffortstopromotethesegoalsof the City’s Strategic Plan. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact accepting the Grand Jury reports. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact accepting the Grand Jury reports. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 174 File#:16-0385, Item#: 7. ATTACHMENTS A.Grand Jury Report: “Citizen Oversight Boards of Police Behavior” B.Mayor response letter to the “Citizen Oversight Boards of Police Behavior” Grand Jury Report C.Grand Jury Report: “Chula Vista Jail” D.Mayor response letter to the “Chula Vista Jail” Grand Jury Report Staff Contact: Captain Vern Sallee and Lieutenant Phil Collum, Police Department City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 175 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON CITIZEN OVERSIGHT BOARDS OF POLICE BEHAVIOR AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, on May 25, 2016, the San Diego County Grand Jury filed a report entitled “Citizen Oversight Boards of Police Behavior” with the Clerk of the Court; and WHEREAS, the Grand Jury’s report contained two (2)recommendations directed to the Mayorsand City Councils of seven cities in the county, including Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, under state law, the City of Chula Vista must respond within 90 days to the recommendations in the Grand Jury’s report; and WHEREAS, city staff has carefully reviewed theGrand Juryreportand prepared a responseto the Honorable Jeffrey B. Barton, Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, as required, addressing the recommendations listed in the Grand Jury report; and WHEREAS, it isrequestedthat the Mayor and City Council accept the Grand Jury report and authorize the Mayor to sign the letteras a completed responsefrom the City of Chula Vista. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista acceptsthe 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury Report on Citizen Oversight Boards of Police Behavior and authorizesthe Mayor to sign the response on behalf of the Mayor and City Council. Presented by Approved as to form by David Bejarano Glen R. Googins Police Chief City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 176 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE CHULA VISTA JAIL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, on May 31, 2016 the Grand Jury filed a report entitled “Chula Vista Jail” with theClerk of the Court; and WHEREAS, the Grand Jury’s report contained seven (7) findings and made seven (7) recommendations directed to the Chula Vista Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, under state law, the City of Chula Vista must respond within 90 days to the findings and recommendations in the Grand Jury’s report; and WHEREAS, city staff has carefully reviewed theGrand Juryreportand prepared a responseto the Honorable Jeffrey B. Barton, Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, as required, addressing the findings and recommendations listed on the Grand Jury report; and WHEREAS, it isrequestedthat the Mayor and City Council accept the Grand Jury report and authorize the Mayor to sign the letteras a completed responsefrom the City of Chula Vista. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista acceptsthe 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury Report on the Chula Vista Jailand authorizesthe Mayor to sign the response on behalf of the Mayor and City Council. Presented by Approved as to form by David Bejarano Glen R. Googins Police Chief City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 177 J ' s ,,, MAY 19 :20!6 GRAND JURY County Of San Diego Hall of Justice 330 W. Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego, CA 92101-3830 619-515-8707 FAX 619-515-8696 .http:llwww.sdcounty.ca..qov/.qrandiury iVIELINDA J. RICHARDS, Foreperson May 19, 2016 CONFIDENTIAL See Attached Mailing List Re: Grand Jury Report: "Citizen Oversiqht Boards of Pofice Behavior'; Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The 201.512016 San Diego County Grand Jury herewith provides the referenced report for your review and comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code of California §933(c). This report was prepared pursuant to §§925, 925(a) and 919 of the Penal Code. in accordance with Penal Code §933.05(e), a copy of this report is being provided to affected agencies at least two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that §933.05(e) specifies that no officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release. This report will be filed with the Clerk of the Court and releas&d to the public on Wednesday, May 25, 2016. Sincerely, A _ , - MELINDA J. RICHARD , Foreperson 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY M JR:In eric. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 178 Attac,ed Mai/inq List San Diego County Board of Supervisors City of San Diego Mayor City of San Diego City Council Mayor, City' CounciI--Carlsbad Mayor, City Council--Chula Vista Mayor, City Council--Coronado Mayor, City Council--El Cajon Mayor, City Council--Escondido Mayor, City Oouncil--La Mesa Mayor, City Council--Oceanside 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 179 CITIZEN OVERSIGHT BOARDS OF POLICE BEHAVIOR ,.:." -',.-.:,, ,.... ..... ...z.:.-.: .,..,. ,,r, .-;,-%L;::- i .CO ..... -." -t.::!-. A Report by the 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury May 25, 2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 180 CITIZEN OVERSIGHT BOARDS OF POLICE BEHAVIOR S UMMAR Y The 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury investigated several citizen complaints regarding police officer behavior in local jurisdictions and found there are differing methods for handling citizen complaints. All local jurisdictions meet California requirements for reviewing complaints regarding police behavior, though several cities have no formal citizen oversight board. Ill San Diego County, there are two models for citizens' review boards, the City of San Diego Citizens' Review Board (CRB) and the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB). The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in the county establish independent citizens' review boards to investigate complaints against law enforcement officers. The openness and transparency of the complaint process, including citizen oversight and the prompt resolution of complaints, are essential to maintaining citizen trust in law enforcement. The Grand Jury recommends the following: The City of San Diego: • Provide independent legal cotmseI to the CRB • Prepare and submit armual reports of its actions Revise the recruitment and appointment processes for board members to encourage broader citizen involvement • Provide limited compensation for board member time and involvement The County of San Diego: • Review CLERB recruitment and appointment processes to encourage broader citizen involvement • Provide limited compensation for board member time and involvement Cities 0fE1 Cajon, La Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, and Coronado: • Establish a Citizen Review Board or Commission or consider the formation of regional review boards that serve more than one jurisdiction INTR OD UCTION In response to several citizen complaints the Grand Jury reviewed practices and procedm'es for resolving complaints against law enforcement officers for all eighteen cities in San Diego Cotmty and the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. SAN DIEGO COUNTy GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 181 PR 0 CED URE The Grand Jury interviewed members of CLERB and CRB, San Diego City Council members, police chiefs and Sheriff's Department command staff. The jury surveyed the seven cities in San Diego County (El Cajon, La Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, and Coronado) that do not have CRBs. The jury received a response from every city. The survey asked police departments to respond to the following items: ® The procedure to file a complaint against a police officer o How complaints are investigated - Who decides whether a complaint is sustained o The process followed once a finding is reached o The appeal process if a citizen disagrees with the outcome of the complaint o If the city is considering implementing a citizens' oversight board The Jury reviewed: ® The 2011/2012 Grand Jury report concerning the San Diego Citizens' Review Board • Guidelines from the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) ® The Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21 st Century Policing DISCUSSION Federal Involvement NACOLE is a national non-profit organization that assists with establishment and improvement of citizen oversight of police officer behavior.The organization is dedicated to promoting greater police accountability through citizen oversight agencies. They do not promote a specific model but offers advice and support to citizen boards. The Task Force on 21 st Century Policing, established by President Obama, was created to "stren hen community policingand trust among law enforcement officers and the communities they serve, especially in light of recent events around the country that have underscored the need for and importance of lasting collaborative relationships between local police and the public.''2 The Executive Summary of the Final Report of President's Task Force on 21 st Century Policing, dated May 2015, states: "Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential in a democracy. It is key to the stability of our commtmities, the integity of our criminal justice system, and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.''3 http://www.nacole.org/ 2 www.cops.usdoj.gov/pd/taskforce/taskforce fmalreport.pdf ibid SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 182 The report makes a variety of recommendations to improve that trust, including item 2.2.6: "Law enforcement agencies should establish a Serious Incident Review Board comprising sworn staff and community members to review cases of officer involved shooting and other serious incidents that have the potential to damage community trust or confidence in.the agency. The purpose of this board should be to identify any administration, supervisory, training, and tactical or policy issues that need to be addressed.''4 State of Catiforn& Involvement California Penal Code §832.5 requires that all local agencies have a written procedure for handling citizen complaints against law enforcement officers. California tias a procedure for processing citizen complaintJ. However, it is the policy of the California Department of Justice that local government has primary responsibility for citizen complaints against law enforcement agencies or employees of law enforcement agencies, and that appropriate local resources (e.g. sheriff or police department, district attorney, citizens' review commissions and/or grand jury) be utilized for resolution of such complaints prior to request for intervention by the Attorney General. San Diego County Of the eighteen cities in San Diego County, San Diego and National City have Citizens' Review Boards to respond to complaints and advise their respective police departments. The other seven cities with independent police departments (listed above) investigate citizen complaints internally. The nine remaining cries (Santee, Vista, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, DeI Mar, Solana Beach, Imperial Beach and Encinitas) contract with the SherifFs Department for law enforcement services and so use CLERB to investigate citizen complaints. CLERB also investigates deaths-in-custody in county jails and juvenile detention facilities. The complaint review model used by each of tlaese law enforcement agencies complies with state requirements, but there remain concerns about the independence, openness and accountability of the complaint processes, evidenced by the compiaints received by the Grand Jury, media reports, and statements by local politicians and citizens. The following dispositions are determined for each complaint regardless of whether the review was by a board or internal: • SUSTAINED The investigation produced sufficient evidence to find that the officer(s) did commit the alleged act(s) of misconduct • NOT SUSTAINED the investigation failed to produce sufficient evi)tence to fred that the officer(s) did or did not commit the alleged acts(s) of misconduct 4 ibid 5 http://oa .ca, gov/contact/aeneral-colmnentquestion-or-complaint-fonn SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 183 o EXONERATED The investigation produced sufficient evidence to fred that the alleged act(s) occurred but was/were justified, legal and/or properly within department policy UNFOUNDED The investigation produced sufficient evidence to find that the officer(s) did not commit the alleged act(s) of misconduct San Diego County Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) In November 1990, a public vote established the Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board pursuant to County Charter §606.6 CLERB investigates complaints about the conduct of peace officers in the SherifFs Department, Detention Facilities, and the Probation Department. § 606 requires CLERB to receive, review, and investigate citizen complaints charging any of these actions: - Use of excessive force * Discrimination or sexual harassment ha respect to members of the public ® Improper discharge of firearms o Illegal search or seizure False arresto ® False reporting ® Criminal conduct ® Misconduct CLERB consists of not less than nine or more than fifteen members nominated by the Chief Administrative Officer and appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Members serve without compensation for a term not to exceed three years and are limited to no more than two consecutive full terms. In order to avoid the appearance of bias, county employees, peace officers, or custodial officers are ineligible to serve. CLERB reviews 125- 150 complaints each year. In 2014, CLERB sustained fourteen complaints, roughly ten percent. At present, CLERB has eleven members. It is Supported by a small staff of cotmty employees including two full-time independent investigators, allowing CLERB to act independently of Sheriff's Department internal investigations. CLERB i as the power to subpoena and require attendaace of witnesses and to administer oaths, though, according to interviewees, this power is rarely used. When CLERB was first established, officers were reluctant to cooperate or testify. In response, CLERB developed a procedure in which it submits written questions to the officers involved, who are allowed ten days to answer in writing. If, as a resuk of its preliminary investigation CLERB determines a potential finding, it can request a face-to-face interview. .http ://www. sand e go court _ty. gov/clerb/do cs/S ection606.pd f SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 184 FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: CLERB is a citizens' oversight committee that investigates complaints of behavior by Sheriff's Department officers in unincorporated San Diego County and nine county cities. Fact: Board members serve without compensation or reimbursement of expenses such as mileage. Finding 01: Due to the large geographic area under CLERB's jurisdiction, modest compensation and reimbursement of expenses to board members could encourage greater community involvement and increase board diversity. City of San Diego Citizens' Review Board (CRB) The purpose of the Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices "is to review and evaluate complaints brought by members of the public against officers ofthe Police Department of the City of San Diego (SDPD) and to review and evaluate theadministration of discipline arising from sustained complaints. The Board also reviews and evaluates officer involved shootings, all in-custody deaths, and all police actions that result in the death of ,7a person. CRB was established in the mid-1980s after a controversial police shooting. Plmmed as a temporary commission, it proved successful and its existence extended. In 1988, San Diego voters approved Proposition G, which gave the City Manager authority to cr.ate and establish a Citizens' Review Bom-d on Police Practices to review and evaluate citizen's complaints against police officers and the discipline arising from such complaints.''8 CRB is not incorporated into the City Charter. cRB has twenty-three appointed members and twenty-three prospective members. All members serve as non-compensated volunteers. Members are selected by an interview committee, appointed by the Mayor, and approved by the City Council to renewable one year terms, to a maximum of eight years. As of this writing, there are no prospective members. Three-member teams review each case; the Chair and the 1st Vice Chair do not participate in review teams. Officials intelwiewed by the Grand Jury expressed concern over the Iack of adequate diversity among current members. This concern is not limited to race, ethnicity or gender, but includes the perception that CRB members have a pro-police bias which may influence their decision making. The 2011/2012 Grand Jury report was also critical of the lack of CRB diversity. Providing CRB members with modest compensation for the 7 http ://www.sandieso. sov/citizenreviewboard/about/index.xshtml s http://articles.1atimes.com/1988-11-11/local/me-662 1 _police-review SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 185 significant time and work commitment required of members, such as a stipend, mileage reimbursement, and paid parking, could increase and diversify the pool of nominees. CRB relies exclusively on the investigations prepared by the SDPD Internal Affairs Unit (IA). CRB does not have professional independent investigators, does not have the power to subpoena witnesses, and does not independently interview witnesses or complainants. This complete reliance on the Internal Affairs Unit has generated criticism both from the public and the 2011/2012 San Diego County Grand Jury. Staff and commission members interviewed by the Grand Jury asserted that SDPD has been responsive and forthcoming to CRB requests. They did not see the need or benefit of paid independent investigators, dr the.need for subpoena power. Interviewed officials expressed dissatisfaction with the legal services provided by the office of the City Attorney, which serves as legal counsel for the CRB. The City Attorney also defends the Police Department; creating a potential conflict of interest. CRB staff has fallen significantly behind in preparing annual reports as required by ordinance. These reports need to be cmTent to improve accountability with the public. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Legal counsel is provided to the CRB by the City Atton ey's Office, which alsodefends SDPD. Finding 02: Using the City Attorney as legal counsel to CRB while also defending SDPD represents a potential conflict of interest. Fact: Board members serve without compensation or reimbursement of expenses. Finding 03: Modest compensation and reimbursement of expenses to board members could encourage greater community fiwolvement and increase board diversity. Fact- Required annual reports of CRB activities have not been kept cmrent. Finding 04: Annual reports provide the public with timely information on CRB activities and increase transparency. National City Community and Police Relations Commission In October, 2003, the City CounciI of National City established the Community and Police Relations Commission (CPRC).9 The CPRC gives citizens a forum to voice their 9 http://www.ci.national-city.ca.us/index.aspx?recordid=3073 &page= 111 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (fried May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 186 concerns about police conduct, practices, and policies, and improves communication - between residents and the National City Police Department (NCPD). Complaints of alleged NcPD misconduct are reviewed by CPRC, which also recommends changes to department policies aiad procedures. This long-standing volunteer commission does not employ independent investigators but reviews and comments onthe investigations by the NCPD Internal Affairs Unit. The commission has complete access to information gathered by the NCPD. CPRC consists of eight individuals appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Seven are voting members, ofwhich five must be residents of National City. The non-voting member is a member of the National City Police Officers' Association. The make-up of the current CPRC is diverse. Cities without a Community Review Board or Commission Seven San Diego county cities (listed above) have Police Departments but do not have a community review board or commission. Complaints are investigated internally. The Grand. Jury distributed a written survey to the police departments in these seven cities. All stated that they have policies and procedures in place for the receipt and investigation of citizen complaints against police officers. None of them have plans to establish an oversight board or commission. One reason given for maintaining the status quo is the low number of complaints received; a second reason given is existing citizen input into comp!aint resolution. Chula Vista does have a Police Chief's Advisory Commission (CAC) that includes Chula Vista citizens. The group meets quarterly to discuss subjects of concern with the Police Chief and senior staff. The department provides the CAC with complaint statistics and discusses complaint procedures. In its survey response, Chula Vista stated that the CAC, which has extensive insight into department operations and is in the best position to represent the concerns of the citizens of Chula Vista, has not advocated for or pressed for a citizens' review board and one is not being considered at this time. This jury has received complaints from citizens in several of these cities who felt there was inadequate resolution of their grievances, suggesting the current process needs improvement. The presence of a review board gives citizens a means to seek justice in dealing with law enforcement; the absence of a citizens' review board can seriously erode public trust in its police department. If a city decides to establish a review board, there is more than one model available, as this report shows. Extensive public participation in adopting a model appropriate for the specific needs of the conmmnity and police will help ensure the board's effectiveness. It will also comply with California Department of Justice Policy that holds local government responsible for dealing with citizen complaints. SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 187 The size of these cities makes it worthwhile to consider establishing regional citizen review boards tl ough Joint Powers Agreements. This might include one board that oversees complaints in northern San Diego County (Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad), one serving eastern San Diego County (El Cajon and La Mesa), and one serving southern cities (Coronado and Chula Vista, and possibly incorporating National City). FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Seven cities with separate police departments (El Cajon, La Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista and Coronado) do not have citizen oversight committees. Fact: Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential. Finding 05: Cities without a citizens' oversight board do not have public review of complaints of police behavior and risk losing the trust of their citizens. Fact: There are different models of law enforcement citizens' review boards available to local jurisdictions. Fact: California Department of Justice policy states that local government has primary responsibility for citizen complaints against law enforcement agencies. Finding 06: A review board shaped with citizen input will promote confidence in actionstiken by the board. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor and City Council of San Diego: 16-26:Prep are and publish annual reports on Citizens' Review B o ard actions. 16-27:Provide the Citizens' Review Board with independent legal counsel. 16-28 Provide modest compensation for board member time and expenses. The 2015/2016 Grand Jury recommends that the San Diego County Board of Supervisors" 16-29:Provide modest compensation for board member time and expenses. The 2015/2016 Grand Jury recommends that Mayors and City Councils of E1 Cajon, La Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, and Coronado: SAN DIEGO COUNT GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 188 16-30:Establish independent citizen commissions for oversight of police behavior. 16-31:Determine the specific commission model with community input to ensure acceptance, independence, and accountability. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) Asto each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees Wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a smmnary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 189 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors • shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the PenaI Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Mayor, City of San Diego Recommendations 16-26, 16-27, 16-28 Date 8/23116 City Council, City of San Diego 16-26, 16-27, 16-28 8/23/16 San Diego County Board of Supervisors 16-29 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--E1Cajon 1G30, 16-31 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--La Mesa 16730, 16-31 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--Carlsbad 16-30, 16-31 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--Chula Vista 16-30, 16-31 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--Coronado 16-30, 16-31 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--Escondido 16-30, 16-31 8/23/16 Mayor, City Council--Oceanside 16-30, 16-31 8/23/16 10 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015/2016 (filed May 25, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 190 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 191 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 192 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 193 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 194 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 195 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 196 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 197 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 198 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 199 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 200 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 201 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 202 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 203 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 204 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 205 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 206 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 207 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 208 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 209 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 210 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 211 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 212 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 213 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 214 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 215 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 216 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 217 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 218 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 219 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 220 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 221 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 222 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 223 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 224 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 225 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 226 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 227 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 228 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 229 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 230 MAYI.9 201a GRAND JURY County of San Diego : Hall of Justice 330 W. Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego, CA 92101-3830 619-515-8707 FAX 619-515-8696 .http://www.sdco u ntv. ca..qov/.q ran dju r MELINDA J. RICHARDS, Foreperson May 19, 2016 CONFIDENTIAL Chula Vista Mayor & City Council City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Grand Jurv Report: "Chum Vista Jail", Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury herewith provides the referenced report for your review and comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code of California §933(c). This report was prepared pursuan.t to §§919(b) and 925a of the Penal Code. in accordance with Penal Code §933.05(e), a copy of this report is being provided to affected agencies at least two working days prior to its public release and after being approved by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Please note that §933.05(e) specifies that no officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the reportprior to its public release: This report will be filed with the Clerk of the Court and released to the public on Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Sincerely, ,. ..-., ,/ " MELINDA J. RICHARES, Foreperson 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY M JR:In enc. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 231 CHULA VISTA JAIL A Report by the 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury May 31, 2016 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 232 CHULA VISTA JAIL SUMMARY The Chula Vista Police Department operates a jail in the basement of their police headquarters. The jail has two functions. It is a temporary holding facility for juvenile and adult arrestees being processed and or booked by the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD). It also serves as a 48-bed jail under contract with the U.S. Marshals Service to house pre-trial female inmates. The 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury found that Chula Vista loses money housing inmates for the U.S. Marshals Service and should either revise the contract rates, increase the number of inmates, or terminate the contract. The Grand Jury also questions the need to maintain a Type 11 facility that duplicates services provided by the Sheriff's Department. If Chula Vista Jail continues to function as a u.s. Marshals Service jail, the Grand Jury has several recommendations to improve operations: * Add a civilian to the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) oversight committee ® Establish a resource exchange with Chula Vista Public Library to allow inmates access to library materials * Provide educational opporttmities for the inmates ® Establish a strategic plan for use of IWF funds ® Add psychiatric care to the services available for inmates INTR OD UCTION California State Penal Code §919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury inquire into the condition and management of detention, facilities managed by San Diego County cities and the County jails. The 2008/2009 San Diego County Grand Jury reported on the Chula Vista Jail (CVJ) and determined that operating the jail as a drug treatment center under a contract with the Stateof California was not profitable. This Grand Jury reassessed the finances of CVJ as part of its review of the facility. PR 0 CED URE On December 15, 2015 Grand Jurors visited CVL Jurors inspected the jail and met with the Police Chief and senior staff members responsible for operation of the jail and administration of the U.S. Marshals Service contract. The Grand Jury also interviewed senior level department managers and reviewed financial documents, contracts, and materials provided by the CVPD and Chula Vista officials regarding operations of CVJ. The Grand Jury obtained the following information from the CVPD: i The definition of a Type I holding facility is one housing inmates for no more than 96 hours; a safekeeping facility; and/or an imnate working facility 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (fried May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 233 • Statistics on the number of federal inmates housed at the jail since the inception of the contract (March, 20 ! 0) - The dollar amount received from the U.S. Marshals Service since the inception of the contract - Costs to house the contracted inmates • A cost/benefit analysis of the contract • Copies of reports given to Chula Vista City Council regarding the contract • Copies of the US Marshals Service contract as well as contracts with the transportation service, phone service and meal providers • California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) inspection report dated 5/9/2014 DISCUSSION The Chula Vista Jail, which opened in 2004, is a 48-bed BSCC-approved Type I jail. As such, it is required to comply with Title 152 requirements s ecific to Type I facilities. It is the only city within San Diego County to maintain a functioning jail. All other police departments and Sheriff's Department substations maintain only temporary holding facilities and use the Sheriff's Department facilities for booking and housing arrestees. When the 2008/2009 San Diego County Grand Jury issued a report on CVJ it was under contract with the State of California to house inmates enrolled in an in-custody drug treatment program. In 2010; Chula Vista established a new contract with the U.S. Marshals Service to house adult federal female pre-trial detainees. The CVPD books their adult arrestees into CVJ and allows them the opportunity to make bail and be released, rather than being transported and booked into San Diego Central Jail or Las Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility (female facility). If, within 96 hours, arrestees are either not granted bail or are unable to pay it, they are transported to a Sheriff s Department facility. All other law enforcement agencies in the County transfer their an-estees to the Sheriff' s Department jails within a few hours of arrest. Maintaining a jail requires 24/7 staffing arid services for inmates, including meals and medical care. All other cities in San Diego County have decided that the cost to duplicate services already provided by the Sheriff' s Department is prohibitive. As an example, E1 Cajon has a jail in the basement of their police department headquarters. Since opening in 2011, it has been used only as a temporary holding facility. For now, staffing and services are needed at CVJ for the female detainees being housed for the U.S. Marshals Service. The CVJ has had 68,987 inmate days attributable to U.S. Marshals Service detainees since the inception of the contract; however, it has never been at full capacity. The daily census has averaged only 30 inmates. It should be noted that the inmate population 2 Title t5 -California Code of Regulations - Minimum standards for local detention facilities 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (flied May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 234 l declined in both 2015 and 2016, though in April 2016, CVPD reported that the population has increased. The CVPD told jurors that the break-even point is approximately 3 6 inmates per day. Through February 2016, the revenue to Chula Vista from the contract with the U.S. Marshals Service was $7,462,190 with expenses of $8,178,739, resulting in a net shortfall of $716,549. The CVPD calculates the current average cost for housing an inmate in CVJ at $155.71/day. The U.S. Marshals Service contract provides $110/day per inmate to Chula Vista (see appendix). The contract has a 90-day termination clause. The U.S. Marshals Service contract also pays Chula Vista $28/hour to transport inmates. To free up patrol officers, the CVPD contracts with a transportation service to transfer inmates to U.S. Marshals Service jails throughout the Southwest, as well as to medical appointments and court appearances. Costs for the transportation service are billed hourly; the current rate is $25/hour per guard. The contract requires two guards to be present for each inmate transfer, resulting in a $22/hour loss to Chula Vista. To decrease costs and keep the ratio of citizens to police officers low, the CVPD employment policy that supports officers patrolling neighborhoods while non-sworn, lower paid staff (Police Service Officers [PSO]) handle some administrative duties, and a transportation service ferries inmates and arrestees. While this seems an admirable model, it may not be cost-effective and might actually limit the number of officer positions available to the CVPD. CVPD estimates it has about six arrestees processed and/or booked daily. CVPD uses a contract transportation service to transfer arrestees to county jails. They calculated that this service has saved over 12,000 hours of police officer time over the life of the contract. They estimate a savings of $808,690, though how the hours ofpolice time were determined and how the amount of savings were calculated is not clear. While the hourly rate for the transportation service is less than the rate paid to police officers in Chula Vista, it is questionable that this transportation service is saving CVPD as much as it claims. The CVPD uses PSOs for supervision and management of inmates. These non-sworn staff also assist patrol officers with arrestees' processing/booking paperwork (photos, fingerprints, reports). The PSOs are currently in the jail 24/7. The CVPD estimates that to operate as a Type 1 96-hour holding facility that only books and houses local arrestees would require four to six PSOs. If contracted services for housing the U.S. Marshals Service pre-trial detainees ends, the average of only six arrestees per day makes it difficult to justify the need for CVPD to book and house their own arrestees. This is a duplication of services already provided by the Sheriff's Department. Itrequires expense for staffing and inmate services which may limit the number of patrol officer positions CVPD can provide. 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (filed May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 235 FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Since the initiation of the U.S. Marshals Service contract with Chula Vista, the jail has never been at maximum capacity of 48 inmates. Fact: Chula Vista receives $110/day per inmate from the U.S. Marshals Service, but has expenses of $155/day per inmate. Fact: The average daily inmate population over the life of the U.S. Marshals Service contract has been approximately 30 inmates. Fact: Under the current contract terms, CVJ would need around 3 6 inmates per day to break even on expenses. Finding 01: Chula Vista is losing money operating as a jail for the U.S. Marshals Service. Fact: CVPD estimates that four to six PSOs would be needed to staff a 96 hour Type I facility if CVJ ceases operating as a contract jail. Finding 02: The CVPD has not adequately demonstrated the need to operate a 24/7 Type I facility that duplicates services already provided by the Sheriff's Department. Inmate Services If Chula Vista decides to continue operating as a contracted jail for the U.S. Marshals Service, there are several issues regarding inmate services. While CVJ was constructed as and is rated as a Type I facility, it is currently functioning as a Type II3 facility for the U.S. Marshals Service. CVJ contracts for most of its inmate services including meals, medical care, phone service and the commissary. There is no onsite health care provider. CVPD Officers indicated that.psychiatric care/counseling is currently not provided for inmates, although some of the women experience depression. These federal detainees can remain in CVJ for up to one year while awaiting adjudication of their federal charges. Title 15, § 1208 requires Type I and Type II faciiities to provide inmates access to mental health services. However, the U.S. Marshals Service policy restricts payments for specific medical services during pre-trial detainment. Their policy is to provide only reasonable and medically necessary care until the individual is either sentenced and placed into a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility or released.4 Psychology/psychiatry is considered a non-authorized medical intervention/procedure. 3 A holding facility pending arraignment 4 http://www.usmarshals.gov/prisoner/healthcare.htm 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTYGRAND JURY (filed May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 236 Staff at CVJ discussed establishing an exchange with the Chula Vista Public Library to enhance reading/educational options for the inmates, who currently have no educational resources. Computer-based educational opportunities exist that can be started at any time and could be funded by the IWF. CVJ maintains an inmate welfare fired with revenue obtained from commissary purchases and inmate phone calls. The fund is established under California Penal Code §4025. The IWF is managed by a recently-formed committee of three staff members. As of 1/20/2016, the balance in the fund was $76,870.83, an amount that has increased over $21,000 since June 30, 2015. It is important to note that the Grand Jury did not find any issues with ac}ual expenditures made with IWF funds for the last three years. All purchases appear to comply with the intent of Penal Code §4025, which states that funds are to be expended primarily for the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates confined in the jail. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Inmates are not provided psychiatric care/counseling. Finding 03: The CVJ does not meet Title 15 requirements for psychiatric care. Fact: A branch of Chula Vista Public Library is located within a block of CVJ. Finding 04: Chula Vista's city council should establish a policy that provides inmates access to public library resources. Fact: On 1/20/2016 the IWF account balance was $76,870.83 and has been steadily increasing. Fact: There is no strategic plan for using the IW-F funding. Finding 05: Strategic plans ensure fiscal responsibility and transparencyl and facilitate long-range planning. Fact: The IWF committee consists of solely of CVPD staff. Finding 06: Staff-only oversight of IWF does not ensure transparency of the fund and public trust of its administration. Fact: There are no educational programs for inmates. Finding 07: I.WF funds can be used for educational programs for inmates. 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (fried May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 237 RE C OMMENDA TI 0 NS The 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Chula Vista Mayor and City Council: 16-32:Pursue the renegotiation of the current U.S. Marshals Service contract to increase the daily/annual reimbursement rate, increase the daily number of inmates, or negotiate a higher reimbursement rate for full cost recovery of future contract(s). If a renegotiation is not possible, Chula Vista should exercise its 90-day termination clause and cease having CVJ function as a Type II jail for the U.S. Marshals Service. 16-33:Perform a cosffbenefit analysis on the need for a Type I jail if Chula Vista cancels the contract with the U.S. Marshal's service. 16-34:Provide psychiatric care/counseling to inmates. 16-35:Allow inmates access to Chula Vista Public Library resources. 16-36:Develop a strategic plan for the IWF funds. 16-37:Add at least one civilian to the IWF oversight committee. Civilian members should have set terms of service. 16-38:Provide educational opportunities to inmates, possibly supported with IWF funds. RE Q UIREMENTS AND INS TR UCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (filed May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 238 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly orpartially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters .over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Chula Vista Mayor & Council Recommendations 16-32 through 16-38 Date, 9/28/16 7 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (filed May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 239 Z2IYI .Z; 0.. . .',-', i, -1 ,,...I[:R 10 C.O :u ,r.,.n, 4 _ L . ]r.. t.,o [ ' I -' ....... I A L .. I: . ,.a, ' li,.. -, ,,. NNg "2-, ".. a- '[._,. '--..t--41 r.,_ .., :r O0 _ -O-60 tT Oa i, ,.. -I " ;- NNo .t ¢ e N'n:g m ¢.o m" 2015/2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (filed May 31, 2016) 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 240 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 241 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 242 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 243 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 244 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 245 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 246 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 247 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 248 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 249 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 250 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0386, Item#: 8. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAMENDINGTHE AUTHORIZEDSTAFFINGLEVELOFTHEPOLICEDEPARTMENTTOREFLECTTHEADDITION OF2.0POLICESERGEANTPOSITIONSANDTHEELIMINATIONOF2.0POLICEAGENT POSITIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY ThePoliceDepartmentisrequestingtoaddtwoPoliceSergeantpositionsandeliminatetwoPolice Agentpositionsinitsauthorizedstaffinglevel.Thisrequestmeetsthecurrentstaffingneedsofthe Patrol Division, and results in no net fiscal impact to the General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION TheChulaVistaPoliceDepartmentconsistsof227authorizedswornofficers,145ofwhomservein thePatrolDivision.ThePatrolDivisionisthelargestdivisionofthepolicedepartmentandpatrol officersserveasthefirstresponderstopolicecallsforservice.ThePatrolDivisionhassixteams, eachwithtwosergeantsforatotalof12patrolsergeants.Theidealstaffingratio,orspanofcontrol, basedonnationalstandardsandbestpolicingpracticesis1sergeanttoevery5-7officers(1:5-7). Thisratioaffordssupervisorsamanageablespanofcontroltomonitortheirofficers’activityand ensuresuccessfulcallresolution.Patrolsergeantsserveacriticalfunctionastheyhavedirect oversightandsupervisionofthedepartment’sfirstresponders.Thisoversightincludesshift scheduling,monitoringcallsforservice,supervisingtacticalresponses,reportreviewandhandling citizencomplaints,tonamejustafew.AsCVPD’sstaffinghasimproved,CVPD’ssupervisoryspan ofcontrolhaswidened,therebyincreasingtheworkloadofitspatrolsergeants.Themajority(8)of CVPD’spatrolsergeantssupervise9officersandonesergeantsupervises10officers.Thiswide spanofcontrolmakesthepatrolsergeant’sjobmoredifficultandincreasesliabilityandtheriskof poorservice,officermisconductandcitizencomplaints.Addingsupervisoryresourcestothepatrol divisionwillmitigatesomeofthesepotentialproblemsbyincreasingsupervisoryoversightinthe most dynamic division of the Police Department. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 251 File#:16-0386, Item#: 8. AspartoftheDepartment’sStrategicPlaninitiatives,thePoliceDepartmentrecentlyconcludeda patrolsergeantworkloadstudy.Amongthesuggestionsbroughtforthintheworkloadstudywasa requesttolessentheburdenonpatrolsergeantsbyreducingthespanofcontroltomakeitmore manageable.Thesergeantworkloadstudyalsoidentifiedanissuewithanexcessiveamountof overtimeinthepatroldivisionduetosupervisoryandmanagerialminimumstaffingovertime.In short,becausetherearealwaysminimumstaffingrequirementsforpatrolsergeantsandWatch Commanders,thereisconsistentbackfillovertime.ThePoliceDepartmentanalyzedovertimeusage andhasdeterminedthatsignificantovertimesavingscanberealizedbyadding2PoliceSergeantsto thepatroldivisionfundedviaprojectedovertimesavingsrealizedbyaddingadditionalsergeantsto thetwolargestpatrolteams.ThePoliceDepartmentisproposingtocreatethese2patrolsergeant positionsbypromoting2PoliceAgents.ThePoliceAgentpositionswillnotbebackfilledandthe overtimeoffsetwillbeusedtofundtheincreasedcostsofthesupervisors.Therewillbenoincrease inoverallPoliceDepartmentswornstaffingandthefiscaldifferencewillbeoffsetbyreduced overtime costs. TheserequestsresultinnonetstaffingchangetothecurrentauthorizedlevelofthePolice Department,alongwithnonetfiscalimpacttotheGeneralFund.Theadditionalsalariesand benefitsoftwoPoliceSergeantpositionscomparedtotwoPoliceAgentpositionswillbecompletely offsetbyanticipatedovertimecostsavingsofaddingtwoPatrolSergeantpositions.Thetablebelow outlines the proposed staffing changes: Position Current Authorized Proposed Change Updated Staffing Police Agent 50 -2 48 Police Sergeant 24 2 26 TOTAL STAFFING 74 0 74 Becausethereisnofiscalimpactfortheproposedstaffingchanges,noadditionalappropriationsare requested. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite- specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section 18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Theadditionofthetwo PoliceSergeantpositionsandeliminationoftwoPoliceAgentpositionssupportsthegoalof OperationalExcellencebyimprovingdirectsupervision,addressingcomplaintsandimproving City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 252 File#:16-0386, Item#: 8. customer service. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT ApprovalofthisresolutionwillresultintheadditionoftwoPoliceSergeantpositionsandelimination oftwoPoliceAgentpositionsintheauthorizedstaffinglevelofthePoliceDepartment.Theadditional salariesandbenefitsoftwoPoliceSergeantpositionscomparedtotwoPoliceAgentpositions (approximately$40,000)willbecompletelyoffsetbyanticipatedminimumstaffovertimecostsavings ofaddingtwoPatrolSergeantpositions.Therequestedstaffingchangeshavenonetfiscalimpact and no additional appropriations are required. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT TheadditionoftwoPoliceSergeantpositionsandeliminationoftwoPoliceAgentpositionswillbe included in the proposed fiscal year 2017/2018 budget. ATTACHMENTS None. Staff Contact: Captain Vern Sallee, Police Department City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 253 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDINGTHE AUTHORIZED STAFFING LEVEL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENTTO REFLECT THE ADDITION OF 2.0 POLICE SERGEANT POSITIONS AND THE ELIMINATION OF 2.0 POLICE AGENT POSITIONS WHEREAS, as part of the Department’s Strategic Plan initiatives, the Police Department recently concluded a patrol sergeant workload study; and WHEREAS, Patrol sergeants serve a critical function as they have direct oversight and supervision of the department’s first responders; and WHEREAS, Patrol sergeants currently have a wide span of control and supervise as many as 10 officers; and WHEREAS, the ideal staffing ratio, or span of control, based on national standards and best policing practices is 1 sergeant to every 5-7 officers; and WHEREAS, the Police Department is requesting to addtwo Police Sergeantpositions and eliminate two Police Agentpositions to address the wide span of control; and WHEREAS, the additional salaries and benefits of two Police Sergeantpositions compared to two Police Agentpositions are completely offset by anticipated overtime cost savings of adding two Patrol Sergeants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the authorized staffing level of the Police Departmentto reflect the addition of two Police Sergeant positions and the elimination of two Police Agentpositions. Presented by Approved as to form by David Bejarano Glen R. Googins Police Chief City Attorney 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 254 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. CONSIDERATIONOFANAPPEALBYTHECORRIDORCOALITIONOFTHEPLANNING COMMISSION’SDECISIONTOADOPTANADDENDUMTOURBANCORESPECIFICPLAN FINALENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTANDMITIGATIONMONITORINGANDREPORTING PROGRAMFEIR06-01ANDAPPROVINGDESIGNREVIEW(URBANCOREDEVELOPMENT) PERMITDR15-0015TOREDEVELOPTHESITEAT795THIRDAVENUEWITH71RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMUNITSANDASSOCIATEDSITEIMPROVEMENTSANDTENTATIVEMAPPCS15 -006TOCONSOLIDATETWOPARCELSINTOONECONDOMINIUMLOTFOR71RESIDENTIAL UNITSANDONECOMMERCIALUNITFORINDIVIDUALOWNERSHIPON795THIRDAVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTADENYINGTHEAPPEAL BYTHECORRIDORCOALITIONANDREAFFIRMINGTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSION’S ADOPTIONOFTHEADDENDUMTOURBANCORESPECIFICPLANFINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORTANDMITIGATIONMONITORINGANDREPORTINGPROGRAMFEIR06-01 ANDAPPROVALOFDESIGNREVIEW(URBANCOREDEVELOPMENT)PERMITDR15-0015TO REDEVELOPTHESITEAT795THIRDAVENUEWITH71RESIDENTIALCONDOMINIUMUNITS ANDASSOCIATEDSITEIMPROVEMENTSANDAPPROVALOFTENTATIVEMAPPCS15-006TO CONSOLIDATETWOPARCELSINTOONECONDOMINIUMLOTFOR71RESIDENTIALUNITS ANDONECOMMERCIALUNITFORINDIVIDUALOWNERSHIPON795THIRDAVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. SUMMARY NikiProperties,LLC(Applicant)hassubmittedapplicationsforaDesignReviewPermitanda TentativeMapforredevelopmentofthe1.05-acresitelocatedatthenortheastcornerofThirdAvenue andKStreet(Site)withamixeduse,multi-familyresidential/commercialprojectknownasVistadel Mar(Project).TheProjectSiteislocatedwithintheC1ThirdAvenueSouthDistrictoftheUrban CoreSpecificPlanarea(seeAttachment1,LocatorMap).TheproposedTentativeMapwould consolidatetheSite(currentlycomposedoftwolegallotsperthe1911Map)intoonecondominium lot,whichwouldallowtheunitstobesoldindividually.AstheProjectwasbeingreviewedand evaluatedbyCitystaffforpresentationtoPlanningCommission,twolettersweresubmittedtothe City as detailed below: OnApril15,2016,CitystaffreceivedaletterfromMs.EvelynHeidelberg,aSanDiegolanduse attorney,onbehalfofMr.EarlJentz,aChulaVistapropertyowner.Thelettercontainsaseriesof commentsonvariousaspectsoftheProject,includingtheproposedbuildingsFloorAreaRatio (FAR),compliancewithdevelopmentregulations,consistencywithdesignguidelines,andthe City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 255 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. (FAR),compliancewithdevelopmentregulations,consistencywithdesignguidelines,andthe applicabilityofCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActprovisions.ThecommentsallegethattheProject doesnotcomplywiththeCity’sregulations,andthatcertainfindingscannotbemadebythe approvingauthority.CitystaffreviewedtheletterandpreparedamemorandumtothePlanning Commissionrespondingtothecommentsintheletter.Thememorandumandtheletterwere presentedtothePlanningCommissionatitshearingofJune22,2016,andtheyareincludedas Attachment12ofthePlanningCommissionReport(seeAttachment2ofthisreport).Staff’sresponse toeverycommentonthatletterdemonstrateshowtheProjectisconsistentwithandimplementsthe vision,objectivesandpoliciesoftheCity’sGeneralPlanandisconsistentwiththedevelopment regulationsandstandardsoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.Furthermore,staff’sresponseshowsthat all the findings required by the Project approval have been met and made. OnJune22,2016,thedayofthePlanningCommissionmeeting,twolettersweresubmittedtothe PlanningCommission.Oneoftheletterswas,onceagain,fromMs.EvelynHeidelbergonbehalfof BalboaEquityCapital,Inc.(Mr.EarlJentz);theotherletterwasfromMr.EverettDeLanowiththefirm ofDeLano&DeLanoonbehalfMr.Jentz.TheletterfromMs.Heidelbergagainallegesthatthe ProjectisinconsistentwiththeUrbanCoreSpecificPlanandthattherequiredfindingscannotbe made.TheletterfromMr.DeLanofocusesonandallegesthattheenvironmentaldocument (AddendumtoUCSPFEIR06-01)preparedontheProjectisinconsistentwiththeCalifornia Environmental Quality Act. StaffreviewedandpresentedtheproposedProjecttothePlanningCommissionatitsmeetingof June22,2016forconsiderationandrecommendedapproval.AspartoftheAgendapacket,staff includedamemorandumrespondingtoMs.Heidelberg’sApril15thletter(seeAttachment12ofthe PlanningCommissionAgendaPacket).ThecommentsintheJune22ndlettersfromMs.Heidelberg andMr.DeLanowereaddressedbystaffatthePlanningCommissionhearing.Afterconsideringall theinformationintheAgendapacket,staff’spresentation,andallpublictestimony,thePlanning Commission adopted the Addendum and approved the Project, subject to conditions. OnJuly6,2016,anAppeal(seeAttachment3tothisreport)onthePlanningCommission’sdecision wasfiledbytheCorridorCoalition,GlendadeVaney,MarthaCoulson,andEarlJentz(Appellants). TheappealisbasedonpreviouslystatedoppositiontotheproposedProjectduetoneighbors’ concernswiththeProjectfeatures.TheAppealstatesthat(1)thestatementsandevidencerelied uponbythePlanningCommissionwereinaccurate;(2)thereisnewinformationnotpreviously availablethatsupportsdenialoftheProject;and(3)thefindingsofthePlanningCommissionarenot supported by the information provided. StaffreviewedtheAppealanddeterminedthat(1)thedecisionofthePlanningCommissionwas basedonanaccurateinterpretationofthegoals,objectivesandpoliciesoftheCity’sGeneralPlan, UrbanCoreSpecificPlan,andtheChulaVistaMunicipalCode.(2)ThePlanningCommission consideredalltheinformationrelatedtotheProject,thegoals,objectives,andpoliciesoftheCity’s GeneralPlan,UrbanCoreSpecificPlan,aswellastheprovisionsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityAct.TheAppealdoesnotprovideanynewreliableinformationsupportingtheAppellant’s case.TheAppealisbasedonthesameinformationthatwaspresentedbytheAppellantstoCity staffandthePlanningCommissionatitsmeetingofJune22,2016.Theinformationpresentedto staffandtothePlanningCommissiondoesnotsupportdenialoftheProject.And(3)thefindings containedinthestaffreporttothePlanningCommissionandmadebythePlanningCommission supportapprovaloftheProject.StafffindsthatthereisnobasisforgrantingoftheAppeal,and,City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 2 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 256 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. supportapprovaloftheProject.StafffindsthatthereisnobasisforgrantingoftheAppeal,and, therefore, staff concludes that the Appeal should be denied. TheremainderofthisstaffreportdescribesthesubjectSiteandProject,andprovidesananalysisof theAppealandstaff’sdetailedresponsetotheAppellant’sarguments.Thedetailedanalysisofthe ProjectanditsconsistencywiththeGeneralPlanandUrbanCoreSpecificPlan,includingthe requiredfindings,iscontainedinthePlanningCommissionsagendapacket,whichisattachedtothis staff report, as well as in the City Council Resolution attached to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice TheproposedProjectwasadequatelycoveredinthepreviouslyadopted/certifiedUrbanCore SpecificPlanFinalEnvironmentalImpactReportandMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram FEIR 06-01. An Addendum to UCSP FEIR 06-01 has been prepared. Environmental Determination TheDevelopmentServicesDirectorhasreviewedtheproposedProjectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheproposedProjectwas adequatelycoveredinthepreviouslyadoptedUrbanCoreSpecificPlanFinalEnvironmentalImpact ReportandMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgramFEIR06-01,certifiedbytheChulaVista CityCouncilinMay2007.TheDevelopmentServicesDirectorhasfurtherdeterminedthatonly minortechnicalchangesoradditionstothisdocumentarenecessaryandthatnoneoftheconditions describedinSection15162oftheStateCEQAGuidelinescallingforthepreparationofsubsequent documentshaveoccurred;therefore,theDevelopmentServicesDirectorhaspreparedanAddendum to UCSP FEIR 06-01 (see Attachment 7 of the attached Planning Commission agenda packet). BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION At its meeting of June 22, 2016, the Planning Commission voted 5-1-1 to adopt the Addendum to UCSP FEIR 06-01, approve the Design Review/Urban Core Development Permit Resolution and the Tentative Map Resolution to develop the subject Site with the proposed Project with the condition that the “Applicant meet and confer with staff to develop and implement feasible and effective measures with respect to balconies on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors of the Project with sight-lines onto adjacent residential yards to further address potential adverse effects on the privacy of occupants of adjacent residential properties to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director.” The audio of the June 22, 2016 Planning Commission meeting is available at the following link: <http://cvapps.chulavistaca.gov/audio/PC/PC-06-22-2016.mp3? _ga=1.219794777.1781971708.1432660424>, which is incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, an audio CD of the June 22, 2016 Planning Commission meeting is available and also incorporated herein by the reference. (See Attachment 6 to this report concerning the audio recording and CD.) DISCUSSION Project Site Location and Characteristics: ThesitefortheproposedProjectislocatedintheC1ThirdAvenueSouthDistrictoftheUCSP.ThisCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 3 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 257 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. ThesitefortheproposedProjectislocatedintheC1ThirdAvenueSouthDistrictoftheUCSP.This DistrictconsistsofseveralblocksofThirdAvenuefrontagethatarelocatedbetweenIandLStreets (seeAttachment8ofthePlanningCommissionAgendapacket).TheDistricthasanareaof approximately53acres.ItconsistsprimarilyofprofessionalofficesnorthofJStreet,andamixof retailandprofessionalofficeusessouthofJStreet.Amongtheseofficeandretailusesaresixsites, thatinclude,aresidentialdevelopmentmixedwithcommercialfrontingonThirdAvenueincludingone single-familyhome,smallandmid-sizecondominiumcomplexes,andaseniorhousingcomplexthat contains75residentialunits.Behindthesefrontagedevelopmentsaresingle-familyhomes(eastof Third Avenue along Church Avenue) and multi-family complexes (west of Third Avenue). TheSitefortheproposedProjectconsistsoftwoassessor’sparcels(573-371-2300and573-371- 1200)withatotalareaof45,738square-feet(1.05acres).TheSiteiscurrentlyoccupiedbythree buildingswithacombinedareaofapproximately20,450square-feet,whichwerebuiltduringthe 1950’sand1960’s,andarecurrentlyoccupiedbyamartialartsgymnasium,aninsuranceoffice,a botanicalsalesstore,andachiropractor’soffice;oneofthebuildingsiscurrentlyvacant.Theexisting structureswouldbedemolishedtoallowconstructionoftheproposedProject.TheSiteisflat,hasa rectangular/L-shapeform,andfrontsalongThirdAvenue,KStreetandbacksontoChurchAvenue. TheSiteislocatedinthefullyurbanizedareaoftheCitythatispartoftheUrbanCore.TheSiteis surroundedbyavarietyofcommercialretail,restaurantandofficeusesalongThirdAvenue;acrossK StreetfromtheSiteisabank;andtothenorthandeastacrossChurchAvenuearesingle-family homes(formoredetailsseetablewithlanduseandzoninginformationonpage7ofthePlanning Commission Report). Project Description TheProjectconsistsoftheredevelopmentofthe45,738square-footpropertywithamixed-use,3to 5-story(34to60feetinheight)structure,with71residentialcondominiumunits(1and2bedrooms withanareabetween736sq.ft.and1,200sq.ft.),a1,770-square-footresidentialfitnesscenter, 1,004-square-feetoflobbyandelevatorspace,2,572-square-feetofresidentialloungespace,and 616square-feetofcommercialspace(seeproposedProjectplansinAttachment9ofthePlanning CommissionAgendapacket).TheProjectalsoincludestheconstructionof142parkingspaces (subterranean,streetlevelandenclosed),17,646square-feetofcommonandprivateopenspace, andapproximately8,500square-feetoflandscapedspace,aswellastheassociatedaccessand circulation areas. The use distribution within the building structure is as follows: •Underground floor - enclosed residential, commercial, and guest parking (74 spaces); •Firstfloor-enclosedresidentialparking(68spaces),residentialfitnesscenter,lobby/elevators, residentialloungespace,andcommercialspacewhichfrontsonthe1,700squared-footpublic plaza at the Third and K corner; trash, recycling, and bulky items deposit; •Second floor - 21 residential units and landscaped terrace; •Third floor - 21 residential units; •Fourth floor - 17 residential units; and •Fifth floor - 12 residential units. Partoftheproposedopenspaceisintheformofbalconiesinallunitsandalargeterraceonthe secondfloorofthebuilding.Theoutsideperimeteroftheterracecontainsplanterswithtreesand shrubstoscreentheviewsfromthestructuretotheneighboringresidences.Asix-foothighconcrete decorativewallwillbeconstructedalongthenorthernandeasternpropertyedgesoftheresidentialCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 4 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 258 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. decorativewallwillbeconstructedalongthenorthernandeasternpropertyedgesoftheresidential propertiesadjacenttotheProjectSite.A10to13-footbufferinsidethepropertylinewillbe landscapedwithtreesandshrubs.TheProjectwillalsoincludetheexcavationandexportof9,750 cubic yards of soil during the grading phase for the development of below-grade parking. Public Participation TheProjecthasgonethroughanintensereviewprocessbytheCityaswellasbythepublic.Given theinterestexpressedbythepublicasaresultoftheNoticeofApplication,twoneighborhood meetingswereheldbytheApplicantandCitystaffontheproposedProject.Thefirstmeetingwas heldonOctober15,2015atChulaVistaHighSchoolandapproximately50peopleattendedthe meeting.AsecondmeetingwasheldonDecember16,2015atHilltopDriveElementarySchool,and approximately70peopleattendedthismeeting.ThecommentsreceivedbyCitystaffatthese meetingsexpressedbothconcernswithaswellassupportfortheProject.CommentsontheProject continuedtobeforwardedtoCitystaffsubsequenttothemeetings.TheProjectApplicantresponded bymakingsignificantchangestotheProjectinordertoaddresstheconcernsfromthepublicaswell astoensurethattheProjectwasconsistentwithalltheobjectivesandpoliciesoftheCity’sGeneral PlanandthedevelopmentstandardsandregulationsoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.Adetailed descriptionofthepublicparticipationprocessandtheevolutionoftheProjectisincludedinthe Planning Commission report (pp. 3 and 4), attached to this report. Appeal OnFriday,July1,2016,thelawfirmofDeLano&DeLanosubmittedanAppealofthePlanning Commission’sJune22nddecisiononbehalfoftheAppellants.AfterreviewingtheAppeal documents,CitystaffdeterminedthattheAppealwasincompletebecausethedisclosurestatement fromoneoftheAppellants,Ms.deVaney,wasmissing.Therequireddisclosurestatementwas submitted to staff on Wednesday, July 6, 2016, still within the Appeal deadline of July 7th. ANALYSIS: StaffhasreviewedandanalyzedtheAppealandoffersthefollowinganalysis.TheAppellants indicatetheyareappealing“theprocedure,actionsandapproval”oftheProjectandAddendumby the Planning Commission because: a)The statements and evidence relied upon by the Planning Commission were inaccurate; b)There is new information not previously available that supports denial of the Project; and c)The findings of the Planning Commission are not supported by the information provided. Staff’sresponsetotheAppealisthatthesethreestatements,asbasisfortheAppeal,are unsupportableanddonotrepresentcausetoreversethePlanningCommission’sdecision.Staffhas analyzedandaddressedthethreestatementsbelow.a)Thefirstandthirdstatementsare unsupportedbecausetheAppellantsdonotprovideanynewspecificevidenceindicatingthatthe statementsandfindingsrelieduponbythePlanningCommissionareinaccurate.Exceptfor allegation’sconcerninggeologicevaluationandaccesstorecordsfortheProject,Appellant’sjust reiteratewhattheyprofferedatthePlanningCommissionhearing,whichstaffrebuttedtothe PlanningCommission’ssatisfaction.Staff’sanalysisandalltheinformationpresentedtothe PlanningCommissionintheagendapacketareaccurateandbasedonthevision,objectivesandCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 5 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 259 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. PlanningCommissionintheagendapacketareaccurateandbasedonthevision,objectivesand policiesoftheCity’s2005GeneralPlanandthedevelopmentstandards,regulations,anddesign guidelinescontainedintheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.AsshownintheattachedPlanning CommissionAgendaPacket(Report,Resolutions,andAttachments),incorporatedhereinbythis reference,theproposedProjectisconsistentwiththevision,objectivesandpoliciesoftheGeneral PlanandtheregulationsoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.TheGeneralPlanandtheUrbanCore SpecificPlanenvisiontheC1ThirdAvenueSouthDistrictasanareawithabalancedmixof commercialandresidentialusesthatcontributetocreateavibrantandattractivearea.Today,the majorityoftheparcelswithintheC1Districtaredevelopedwithretailorofficeuses.Thereislittle residentialdevelopmentwithintheDistrict,whichiswhytheGeneralPlancallsforadditional residential development within the District. Additionally,theproposedProjecthasbeendesignedtomeetthedevelopmentstandards, regulationsanddesignguidelinesoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan,asdetailedinpage8ofthe PlanningCommissionStaffReport.Regardingthebuilding’sFAR,theProjectprovidesthethree amenitiesrequiredbytheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan,asdescribedandanalyzedinthePlanning CommissionStaffReport,assuch,thePlanningCommissionmadetherequiredfindingsand approvedtheproposedFAR.Theprovidedamenities,andtheexceptiontherefor,allowtheProject toprovidealltheelementstorepresentawell-roundedandwelldesignedProjectwhichmeetsthe goalsandobjectivesoftheGeneralPlanandtheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.TheProjectiswell planned,incorporatingtheprincipalsofSmartGrowth(mixofuses,compactbuildingdesign,rangeof housingopportunities,walkableneighborhoods,etc.),“CompleteStreets”(safeandaccessibleforall users, reduces traffic congestion, connected to transit), and resource conservation. b)TheAppellantsallegeintheirsecondstatementthat“thereisnewinformationnotpreviously availablethatsupportsdenialoftheProject.”Asdiscussedabove,theAppealprovidesverylittlein terms of new information. The Appeal packet includes the following documents: •Appeal Application Form •Glenda de Vaney’s Disclosure Statement •Earl Jentz’s Disclosure Statement •Martha Coulsen’s Disclosure Statement •Appeal Letter signed by Mr. Everett DeLano with the following attachments: 1. Letter to City from Evelyn Heidelberg (4/15/16). 2. Letter to City from Everett DeLano (6/22/16). 3. Letter and materials to City from Evelyn Heidelberg (6/22/16). AfterreviewingtheAppealpacket,staffhasdeterminedthattheAppealapplicationform,Appeal letteranddisclosurestatementsaretheonlynewdocumentsintheAppealpacket.And,as discussedabove,exceptforallegation’sconcerninggeologicevaluationandaccesstorecordsfor theProject(allegation’sincludedintheAppealletter),Appellant’sjustreiteratewhattheyprofferedat thePlanningCommissionhearing,again,whichstaffrebuttedtothePlanningCommission’s satisfaction.Thereisnoothernewinformation.Thethreeattachmentsthatarepresentedasthe “basisorevidence”fortheAppealaredocumentsthatweresubmittedtotheCityonApril15,2016 andtothePlanningCommissiononJune22,2016.Asindicatedearlierinthisreport,theletterfrom Ms.HeidelbergwasreceivedbyCitystaffinAprilandwascompletelyrespondedtobystaff,i.e.,the allegation’sinMs.Heidelberg’sletterwerecompletelyaddressed.TheApril15thletterandstaff’sCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 6 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 260 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. allegation’sinMs.Heidelberg’sletterwerecompletelyaddressed.TheApril15thletterandstaff’s responsememorandumweresubmittedtothePlanningCommissionaspartofitsagendapacket (pleaseseeAttachment12ofthePlanningCommissionpacket)fortheCommission’sconsideration andapprovaloftheAddendumandtheProjectthatnight.TheotherlettersfromMs.Heidelbergand Mr.DeLanosubmittedtothePlanningCommissionthenightofthehearing(June22nd)werealso consideredbythePlanningCommissionaspartofitsdecisiontoadopttheAddendumandapprove theProject.Aspartofthedeliberationsatthemeeting,Citystaffcompletelyaddressedthecontents ofthetwoletters.SincetheresponsestotheJune22ndletterssubmittedtothePlanning Commissionweredeliveredverballybystaffatthehearing,staffprovidesthefollowingwritten responses for Council’s consideration. TheJune22ndletterfromMs.Heidelbergrepresentsanattempttorebutstaffanalysiscontainedin theReporttothePlanningCommission.ThebasicargumentsinMs.Heidelberg’sletterareonce againthatthefindingsfortheProject’sFARcannotbemadebecausetheProjectisnotconsistent withtheGeneralPlan’svision,objectivesandpolicies,andthattheProjectdoesnotmeettheUrban CoreSpecificPlan’sdevelopmentstandards,regulationsanddesignguidelines.Staffhasshownin detailedforminthePlanningCommission’sStaffReportandResolutions,whichareincorporated hereinbythisreference,thatallrequiredfindingsfortheProjecthavebeenmadeandthe developmentstandards,regulations,anddesignguidelineshavebeenmetbytheProject.Infact, staffanalysis,determinations,andconclusionontheProjecthavebeenconfirmedandratifiedbythe PlanningCommission’sdecisiontoadopttheAddendumandapprovetheProjectbasedonthe information and analysis contained in the Staff Report, Resolutions and Attachments. TheJune22ndletterfromMr.DeLanofocusesonandattemptstochallengetheProject’sapproval fromtheperspectiveoftheCEQA.First,theletterbroadlycontendsthattheProjectisnot“consistent withtheprogram,plan,policyorordinanceforwhichanenvironmentalimpactreporthasbeen preparedandcertifiedandwithapplicablelocallanduseplansandzoning.”Second,Mr.DeLano usesthisincorrectassumptiontoconcludethattheProjectcouldnotbecoveredbytheadoptedEIR fortheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.Asindicatedabove,theProjectisconsistentwiththevision, objectivesandpoliciesoftheCity’sGeneralanditisconsistentwiththedevelopmentstandards, regulationsanddesignguidelinesoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan(seeattachedPlanning CommissionReport).AsindicatedintheEnvironmentalSectionofthisreport,theDevelopment ServicesDirectorhasreviewedtheproposedProjectforcompliancewiththeCEQAandhas determinedthattheproposedProjectwasadequatelycoveredinthepreviouslyadoptedUrbanCore SpecificPlanFinalEnvironmentalImpactReportandMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram FEIR06-01,certifiedbytheChulaVistaCityCouncilinMay2007.TheDevelopmentServices Directorhasfurtherdeterminedthatonlyminortechnicalchangesoradditionstothisdocumentare necessaryandthatnoneoftheconditionsdescribedinSection15162oftheStateCEQAGuidelines callingforthepreparationofsubsequentdocumentshaveoccurred;therefore,theDevelopment ServicesDirectorpreparedanAddendumtoUCSPFEIR06-01(seeAttachment7oftheattached Planning Commission agenda packet). Mr.DeLano’slettercitesaseriesofMitigationMeasuresfromtheEIRpreparedfortheUrbanCore SpecificPlanandclaimsthattheProjectisnotconsistentwiththoseMitigationMeasures.Following isasummarizedlistofissuesintheletter(initalicizedfont)followedbyastaffresponseastohow thatissuewasaddressedaspartoftheProjectreviewprocess.Thebelowresponseswereprovided verbally at the Planning Commission hearing. City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 7 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 261 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. Noise “UCSPMitigationMeasure5.9-4requiresprojectswithcommercialusesto"demonstratecompliance withtheexistingperformancestandardsintheCity'sNoiseOrdinance"andrequires"compliancewith themixed-useprovisionsofChapterVIoftheUCSP”TheProjecthasfailedtodemonstratesuch compliance.” AnoisestudywaspreparedbyqualifiedacousticalconsultantEilarandAssociates,datedNovember 19,2015.ThenoisestudyindicatedthattheProjectwillmeetalloftheexistingperformance standardsintheCity'sNoiseOrdinanceandnotcauseanynoiseimpacteitheronoroffsite.The noisestudyaddressedinteriorsoundtransmissionanddeterminedthattheProjectcomplieswiththe mixed-useprovisionsofChapterVIoftheUCSPandthat,again,therewillbenonoiseimpact.The conclusionsofthisnoisestudyweresummarizedintheaddendumtoEIR-06-01thatwasprepared for the Project. Light and Glare UCSPMitigationMeasure5.2.5-2requirestheCitytoidentifytheprovisionsoftheUCSPwhichshall beincludedintheconditionsofapprovalinordertoreducepotentiallightandglareimpactstobelow significance.” The draft resolutions of approval fail to do so. TheDesignGuidelinesoftheUCSPcallforexteriorlightingtonotbeexcessivelybrightandtobe addressedinaprojectlightingplan.TheUSCPdoesnotprovidespecificlightingdesigndetailsfor theCorridorsDistrict.Section17.28oftheCVMCrequiresthatlightingbeshieldedandnotshine directlyontoadjoiningresidentialproperties.ConditionNo.15ofProjectapprovalrequiresthe submittalofalightingplanforCityreviewandapprovalpriortotheissuanceofbuildingpermitsfor the Project, to demonstrate consistency with the UCSP and Section 17.28 of the Municipal Code. Existing Building Historical Significance “UCSPMitigationMeasure5.3.5-4requiresadeterminationofhistoricalsignificance“forthose structures45yearsorolder."Andifastructureisfoundtobehistoricallysignificant,additional mitigationmeasuresmustbeimplemented,Thestaffreportindicatesthethreebuildingson-sitewere built during the 1950’s and 1960's," Despite this fact, no historical analysis was performed.” TheCity’shistoricalexpertconductedananalysisoftheexistingbuildingsanddeterminedthat existing structures on site are not historically significant. Traffic “UCSPMitigationMeasure5.8.5-4requiresthat“thetrafficassessmentpreparedtoquantifythe projects'potentialtrafficimpactswillalsoidentifyhowalternativemodesoftransportationwillbe accomplished.” The Project's traffic assessment failed to do so.” AtrafficstudywasperformedfortheProjectindicatingthattherewillbenoadversetrafficimpacts associatedwiththeProject.Itisimportanttonotethatalthoughatrafficstudywasnotrequiredfor theProjecttheapplicantsubmittedatrafficstudytoaddressneighborconcerns.Thesiteis convenientlylocatedinproximitytoabusstopforRoute929,whichrunsalongThirdAvenueand providesdirectaccesstoworkingandshoppingopportunitiesinDowntownSanDiego.Theproject incorporatessmartgrowthfeaturessuchashighdensitiesinproximitytotransit,widesidewalks, streettrees,andotherpedestrianfriendlyfeaturessuchasstreetfurniture,toencouragepedestrianCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 8 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 262 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. streettrees,andotherpedestrianfriendlyfeaturessuchasstreetfurniture,toencouragepedestrian activityanduseofalternativemodesoftransportation.ConditionNo.14ofResolutionDR15-0015 requirestheProjectApplicanttoinstalla“KeepClear”stripingdetailatthecombinedProject/Bankof AmericadrivewaytoensurethatvehiclesstoppedatThirdAvenueandqueuingwestboundonK Street do not block the Project driveway. Public Services “UCSPMitigationMeasure5.11.1-1requireseachprojectto"demonstratethatsignificantimpactsto policeservicesresultingfromanindividualprojectareaddressed"andrequireseachprojecttobe evaluated“foradequateaccessforpoIicevehicles...andintegrationofCrimePreventionThrough EnvironmentalDesign(CPTED)techniques....""TheProjecthasfailedtodemonstratesuch compIiance.” Theprojectsiteisfullyaccessibleforallemergencyvehiclesincludingpolicecars.Theprojectsite canbeaccessedbyemergencyvehiclesdirectlyfromThirdAvenue.TheProjectprovidesanon-site parkinggaragethatwillbeaccessibletopolice.Vehicularaccesstothesiteisfullyopen,asthere willnotbeadrivewaygate.Numerouspedestrianaccesspointsareprovidedonthesite,forpolice officerswhoareonfoot.TheprojectincorporatestheCPTEDdesignprincipalsof“eyesonthestreet” throughtheprovisionofwindowsandbalconiesonallsidesoftheproject,aswellas“territorial enforcement”throughthecreationofasenseofhometerritoryandprideofownershipforresidents. In addition, the Project will pay all applicable impact fees, which will address public safety. Preparation of Secondary Studies “UCSPEIRSection2.3.3provides:aseachnewdevelopmentisproposed,aSecondaryStudywiII bepreparedtodetermineifthe[UCSP]EIRadequatelyaddressthepotentialenvironmentalimpacts of the proposed development." UCSP EIR at 2-11. The City has failed to prepare a Secondary Study,” AsecondarystudywasperformedfortheProjectandisintheProjectfile.Eventhoughasecondary studywascompleted,whichindicatedthatnoadditionalenvironmentalreviewwouldberequired,out ofanabundanceofcautionandtobesuretofullyaddressanypotentialenvironmentalissues,staff didrequirethepreparationofanAddendumtotheoriginalEIR.Alltechnicalstudiesassociatedwith the Addendum are part of the secondary study for the Project. Construction Noise “Beyondtheseinconsistencies,theProjectwiIIleadtosignificantimpactsnotadequatelyaddressed intheUCSPEIR.Forexample,theAddendumacknowledgesthat"adjacentresidentialpopulationto theeastandcommercialpropertiestothenorthandsouthmaybeexposedtoexcessiveconstruction noise...”Addendumat7.Butthereisnoanalysisoftheseissuesbecause,theAddendumclaims, "constructionprojectsareShortterminnature.”Id.Themerefactthatconstructionimpactsmaybe temporarydoesnotmaketheminsignificant,SeeBerkeleyKeepJetsOverthe.BayComm.v,Board of Port Commissioners" (2001 ) 91Cal.App,4th 1344; 1380-81.” Constructionnoiseimpactswereaddressedinthenoisestudy.Thenoisestudyaddressestypical noisesourcesemanatingfromconstructionsitessuchasthisone,andprovidesexpecteddecibel levelsforsuchprojects.Theprojectwouldnotbeunusualintermsforconstructionnoisegeneration. ThenoisestudypointsoutthattheCityNoiseOrdinancelimitsconstructionnoisetothehoursof7 amto10pmonweekdays,and8amto10pmonweekends.Constructionnoiseisnotconsidered tobeapermanentimpactandisexemptfromtheCitynoiseordinance.Assuch,thenoisestudyCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 9 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 263 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. tobeapermanentimpactandisexemptfromtheCitynoiseordinance.Assuch,thenoisestudy determined that there would not be an impact associated with noise. Air Quality/Green House Gases “TheAddendumandUCSPEIRdonotaccountforexistingairqualityconditions.Assumed compliancewithairemissionsrequirementsdoesnotensurethatimpactswillnotbesignificant. Kings County Farm Bureau , City of Hanford (1990) 221 CalApp.3d 692, 718.” “OnApril29,2015GovernorBrownissuedExecutiveOrderB-30-I5;whichestablishesanewinterim statewidegreenhousegasemissionreductiontargettoreducegreenhousegasemissionsto40 percentbelow1990levelsby2030.NeithertheAddendumnortheUCSPEIRaddresscompliance with Executive Order B-30-15.” TheprojectisconsistentwiththeRegionalAirQualityStrategy(RAQS)fortheSanDiegoregion.A greenhousegasassessmentwasperformedfortheprojectandtheprojectwasfoundtonotgenerate a significant amount of GHG and a determination of no impact was made. Cumulative Impacts “WereotherprojectstodevelopatthelevelsandintensityassociatedwiththeProject,thecumulative impactswouldbesubstantial.TheseimpactswerenotanalyzedintheUCSPEIR,SeeCityofSantee v.CountyofSanDiego(1989)214Cal.App.3d1438,1452(“evenprojectsanticipatedbeyondthe near future should be analyzed for their cumulative effect"). CumulativeimpactswereanalyzedintheUCSPEIR.Sincetheprojectisconsistentwiththedensity analyzed in the UCSP EIR there is no cumulative impact associated with the project. Inadditiontotheabove,therearetwostatementsintheAppealletterthatcouldbeconstruedasnew informationthatispartoftheAppeal.OnestatementindicatesthattheCity“failedtoprovidecopies ofrecords;”theotherindicatesthattheGeotechnicalReportpreparedforthesite“failstomeet” UCSP EIR Mitigation Measure 5.4.5-1. These two statements are inaccurate. InregardtotherecordsrequestedbytheAppellant’srepresentative,Mr.DeLanocontactedstafffor thefirsttimeinthemiddleofJune2016tomakeanappointmenttoreviewtheVistadelMarProject files.StaffmetwithMr.DeLanoonJune15at11:30a.m.atthePublicServicesCounter,and providedafilewiththeProjectplansandanotherfilewiththetechnicalstudiespreparedforthe Project.Mr.DeLanoreviewedtheplansandaskedifhecouldhavecopiesofthestudies.Staff respondedthatthestudieswereavailableforhimtoreviewthere,andthatcopiesofsomeofthe studiescouldbeobtainedthroughaPublicRecords’Request.StaffaskedMr.DeLanospecificallyif he wanted to review the studies at that moment; he responded he did not. AfewdaysaftermeetingwithCitystaff,Mr.DeLanorequestedinformationfromstaffrelatedtothe Project.Athisrequest,staffprovidedalinktotheUrbanCoreSpecificPlanEnvironmentalImpact Report,copyofthePlanningCommissionAgendapacket,includingsomeofthetechnicalstudies thatwereincludedasattachmentstothePlanningCommissionStaffReport.Mr.DeLanoaskedfor copiesoftechnicalstudiesthatwereboundandhadthepreparer’sseal,whichstafftooktobea proprietarysealthatrequiredpermissionfromthepreparertocopy.StaffindicatedtoMr.DeLano thattechnicalstudiescouldnotbereleasedbyCitystaffwithoutthepermissionfromthepreparer,but thathecouldmakecopiesofthestudiesifhegotpermissionfromthestudies’preparers.OnJuneCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 10 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 264 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. thathecouldmakecopiesofthestudiesifhegotpermissionfromthestudies’preparers.OnJune 21st,arrangementsweremadeforMr.DeLanotosendanagenttomakecopiesofthestudiesthat hadnotbeendeliveredtohim.Ameetingwassetuptoreceivetheagentandprovidethestudiesfor copyingattheCityoffices;theagentdidnotshowupatthemeetingwithstaff.AtthatpointtheCity Clerkgotinvolvedandstartedlookingintowhetherstudieswiththepreparer’ssealcouldbe released.Unfortunately,duetothePlanningCommissionhearingontheProjectbeingscheduledfor thenextday,copiesofthedocumentscouldnotbetimelyprovidedtoMr.DeLanopriortothe hearing.Importantly,however,theClerk’sofficeofferedtomakethestudiesavailableforMr.DeLano toreviewintheClerk’soffice,whichMr.DelanotookadvantageofpriortothePlanningCommission hearing. ThestatementrelatedtotheGeotechnicalReportisalsoinaccurateinconcludingthattheReport failstomeettherequirementsofMitigationMeasure5.4.5-1oftheUCSPEIR.First,the GeotechnicalReportwaspreparedbyprofessionalengineeringconsultantspursuanttoindustry standards/requirements,anditwassubmittedtoCitystaffforreviewalongwiththeProjectplans. Second,theReportwasreviewedbyCitystaffpursuanttoestablishedprocessesandbasedon establishedrequirements.Third,normallythereviewprocessisdividedintotwostages:thefirst stageofthereviewisduringtheconceptualreviewandapprovaloftheProjectplans;thesecond stageisatthebuildingpermitprocess,oncethetechnicalconstructiondrawingsfortheProjecthave beenprepared.Atthisstageoftheprocessandpriortotheissuanceofbuildingpermits,theProject Applicantandconsultantsarerequiredtofinalizeandsubmitallthecompletetechnicalstudies.In fact,thisprocessandrequirementismemorializedintheresolutionspresentedtothePlanning CommissiononJune22nd.ResolutionPCS15-0006’sconditionNo.14requirestheApplicantto submitupdatedcopiesoftheDrainageStudy,WaterQualityTechnicalReport(WQTR),and Geotechnical Report with the submittal of Grading Plans. AttachmentNo.4ofthisreportisaletterfromMr.BenjaminSerna,PD,GE(GeotechnicalEngineer) withGroupDelta,whopreparedtheGeotechnicalReportontheproposedProject.Mr.Serna’sletter isinresponsetotheAppellant’sinaccurateclaimthattheGeotechnicalReportdoesnotmeetthe requirementsofMitigationMeasure5.4.5-1.Theletterindicatesthatthe1)reportmeetsthe requirementsofthecitedMitigationMeasure;2)preliminarygeotechnicalanalysis“areroutinely performedusingexistinggeotechnicaldata(suchassoilsborings);3)“basedonthepreliminary resultsofourpreliminarygeotechnicalassessment,liquefiable,compressive,andexpansivesoils havenotbeenidentifiedassignificantconsiderationsfortheproject”;4)“thesepreliminaryfindings willbefurtherevaluatedbasedonasite-specificgeotechnicalinvestigationtobeperformedin support of the final design prior to building permit application submittal.” CONCLUSION AspreviouslyconcludedandindicatedinthePlanningCommissionStaffReport,VistadelMaristhe firstmixed-use(commercial/residential)projectwithintheC1Districtthathasbeensubmittedtothe CityforapprovalsincetheUrbanCoreSpecificPlanwasoriginallyapprovedin2007(thefirst approvedandbuiltprojectwastheretailmarketatthecornerofThirdAvenueandJStreet).Assuch theProjectrepresentsthefirstopportunityinmanyyearsfordevelopmentofaresidential/commercial projectinthispartoftheCity.TheProjectwillprovidenewinvestment,modernhousingfacilitiesand siteimprovementsthatwillcontributeto,revitalizeandenhancetheSiteandtheneighborhood.The Projectwillprovidenewfor-saleandaffordable(7units)multi-familyhousingthatwillimprovethe housingmixandenhanceresidentialopportunitiesintheneighborhood.TheProject’scentralCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 11 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 265 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. housingmixandenhanceresidentialopportunitiesintheneighborhood.TheProject’scentral locationintheCityandalongoneoftheCity’simportantcorridorswillprovideconvenientaccessfor residents to jobs, transportation, and a variety of goods and services in close proximity. TheSitewillbedevelopedwithaqualityprojectthatisconsistentwiththevision,objectivesand policiesoftheGeneralPlan.TheProjecthasbeendesignedtomeetthedevelopmentregulations anddesignguidelinesoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.RegardingthebuildingsFAR,theProjecthas providedthethreeamenitiespreviouslydescribedandanalyzedtherebymeetingtherequested exceptiontothebaseFAR.TheprovidedamenitiesandtheexceptionallowtheProjecttoprovideall theelementstorepresentawell-roundedandwelldesignedProjecttomeetthegoalsandobjectives oftheGeneralPlanandUrbanCoreSpecificPlan.TheProjectiswellplanned,incorporatingthe principalsofSmartGrowth(mixofuses,compactbuildingdesign,rangeofhousingopportunities, walkableneighborhoods,etc.),“CompleteStreets”(safeandaccessibleforallusers,reducestraffic congestion,andconnectedtotransit),andresourceconservation.Itisdesignedtorespectandblend withthecommunitycharacter,localhistory,andenvironment.TheproposedProjectwillre-activate thestreetandcontributetoimprovetheneighborhoodandcreateresidentialandbusinessactivityin this part of the City. StaffhasreviewedandanalyzedtheAppealandhasdeterminedthattheAppealhasnomeritand should be denied based on the following: 1)ThedecisionofthePlanningCommissionwasbasedonanaccurateinterpretationofthegoals, objectivesandpoliciesoftheCity’sGeneralPlan,UrbanCoreSpecificPlan,andtheChulaVista Municipal Code. 2)ThePlanningCommissionconsideredalltheinformationandtestimonyrelatedtotheProject,the goals,objectives,andpoliciesoftheCity’sGeneralPlan,UrbanCoreSpecificPlan,aswellasthe provisionsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct.TheAppealdoesnotprovideanynewreliable information supporting the Appellant’s case. 3)ThefindingscontainedintheStaffReporttothePlanningCommissionandmadebythePlanning Commission fully support approval of the Project. Basedonthisconclusionandalltheinformationcontainedinthisreport,resolutionsand attachments,stafffindsthatthereisnobasisforgrantingoftheAppeal,and,therefore,staff concludesthattheAppealshouldbedenied.Furthermore,staffrecommendsthattheCityCouncil adopttheresolutionpresentedwiththisreportanddenytheAppealandreaffirmthePlanning Commission decision to adopt the Addendum and approve the Project. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT No Property within 500 feet StaffhasreviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilmembersandhasfoundnoproperty holdingswithin500feetoftheboundariesofthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthisaction. Consequently,thisitemdoesnotpresentadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictof interestunderCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18702.2(a)(11),forpurposesofthe Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,et seq.). Inaddition,staffhasconductedadecisionmakerconflictofinterestreviewconcerningCity of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 12 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 266 File#:16-0372, Item#: 9. Inaddition,staffhasconductedadecisionmakerconflictofinterestreviewconcerning CouncilmemberMiesenandhasdeterminedthatapotentialconflictofinterestmayexistbecauseit maybereasonablyforeseeablethatafinancialeffectonabusinessentityinwhichCouncilmember Miesen has a financial interest may be material. Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.TheProject implementstheEconomicVitality,HealthyCommunity,StrongandSecureNeighborhoods,anda ConnectedCommunityStrategicgoalsbecausetheProjectrepresentsasignificantinvestmentinthe constructionofthemixedusebuildingandallitsinfrastructure;theconstructionoftheProjectwill providemarket-rateandaffordablehousinginatimeofhousingshortages,particularlyinthewestern partoftheCity;thefutureresidentswillcontributetosupporttheexistingbusinessesonThird Avenue,neartheProject;morehousingandpeoplewillcreateactivityandvibrancyinthispartof town;theProjectalsocontributestotheCity’sStrategicGoalsbyprovidingconstructionofa developmentprojectthatisconsistentwiththegoalsandobjectivesoftheCity’sGeneralPlanand thedevelopmentstandardsoftheUrbanCoreSpecificPlaninamannerthatensurespublichealth and safety of the community. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Therearenofiscalimpactsduringthecurrentfiscalyearfromtheprocessingoftheproject.Allcosts fortheprojectprocessingincludingtheappealarecoveredbythedepositaccountspaidforbythe applicant.TheAppellantpaidtherequiredfilingfeefortheAppeal.Costsassociatedwiththe processing of future implementing permits, will also be covered by permit fees or deposit accounts. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT TheProjectisprivatelyownedandoperatedandwillnotcreatefutureexpendituresfortheCity associated with approval of the item, including facility maintenance and operations. ATTACHMENTS 1.Locator Map 2.Planning Commission Agenda Packet 3.Appeal from the Corridor Coalition 4.Response Letter on Geotechnical Report 5.City Council Resolution 6.InformationconcerningtheaudiorecordingandCDoftheJune22,2016Planning Commission Meeting Staff Contact: Miguel Z. Tapia City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 13 of 13 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 267 DIAMOND JIMS AM/PM & MINI MART THIRD AVENUE PLAZA U.S. POST OFFICE PARKING LOT MASONIC TEMPLE OFFICES WELLS FARGO BANK JACK IN THE BOX GREEN TREE FOUNTAIN APARTMENTS BANK OF AMERICA CHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER BJ'S EQUIP RENTALS ALVA GARDENS APARTMENTS VERDE PARK APARTMENTS MEDITERRANEAN GARDEN APARTMENTS OFFICES THIRD AVE LIQUOR CLEANERS SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF PINE VISTA APARTMENTS MARQUEZ AUTO BODY & PAINT APN 5733711200 APN 5733712300 PRO JEC TLOCATION j:\planning\public notices\dr\dr150015 8x10.ai SCALE:FILE NUMBER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT ADDRESS:NEC Third Av & K St APN's 5733711200 & 5733712300 Related cases: No Scale DR15-0015 PROJECT APPLICANT:LOCATOR NORTH DESIGN REVIEWVista Del Mar Project Summary: Proposal for a mixed use 3-5 story, 71 condo units with 616 sq ft of commercial space and 142 below grade parking stalls. CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 268 CH U, LA VISTA PLANNINGCOMMISSIONAGENDA STATEMENT Item: 2 Meeting Date:06-22-16 ITEM TITLE:PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ADDENDUM TO THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND lVlITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01; DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT) DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 616 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; AND TENTATIVE MAP PCS15-0006 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO LEGAL LOTS INTO A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP A) RESOLUTION DR15-0015 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONStDERn-NG AN ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEtR 06-01 AND APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN B) RESOLUTION POS15-0006 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVING : TENTATIVE MAP PCS15-006 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL rJNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP ON 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN SUBMITTED BY: Miguel Z. Tapia, AICP, Senior Planner/Project Manager REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, Director of Development Services -19 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 269 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 2 INTRODUCTION Niki Properties, LLC (Applicant) l as submitted applications for a Design Review Permit and a Tentative Map for redevelopment of the 1.05-acre site located at the northeast comer of Third Avenue and K Street (Site) with a mixed use, multi-family residential/commercial project lcnown as Vista del Mar (Project). The Project Site is located within the C1 Third Avenue South District of the Urban Core Specific Plan area (see Attachment 1, Locator Map). The proposed Tentative Map y ould consolidate the Site (currently composed of two legal lots per the 1911 Map) into one condominium lot, which would allow the units to be sold individually. The Project has been reviewed and evaluated by City staff and it is being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommended for approval. The rest of this report describes the subject Site and Project, and provides an analysis of the Project's consistency with the General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan. BACKGROUND The Chula Vista 2005 General Plan designated the City's northwest area as the Urban Core, which included the City's historic downtown and areas aiong H Street, Broadway and Third Avenue as "focused areas of change" where more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment are proposed to occur. In order to effectively implement the vision and goals, the General Plan required the preparation of a specific plan for the Urban Core area. The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) was subsequently prepared and adopted for the area in 2007. The UCSP follows the direction and -vision provided in the City's General Plan and establishes a more detailed vision, goals, objectives, policies, regulations and guidelines for future development in this area. The UCSP area encompasses approximately 1,700 acres of the traditional downtown area east of I-5, west of Del Mar Avenue; north of L ,Street, and south of C Street. The UCSP area is divided into three distinct districts, including the Village District, Urban Core District, and the Corridor District. Each of the sub-districts of the UCSP contain.s a set of land use provision-s, development regulations, and design guidelines th&t are intended to encourage and facilitate infill/pedestrian scale development, mixed uses, urban amenities, transit use, creative design, and the general revitalization of the UCSP. The Site for the proposed Project is located within the C1 Sub-district known as the Third Avenne South District. City staff has reviewed the Vista del Mar Project and associated conceptual design plans and the Tentative Map in the co text of the 2005 General Plan goals and objectives (Attachment 2) and the UCSP development standards/regulations and design guidelines of the C1 Third Avenue South District (Attachment 3). The proposed Project complies with the development standards of the UCSP related to building height and setbacks, parking, landscaping, and open space. In some of these standards, such as parking, landscaping, and open space, the Project actually exceeds the UCSP requirements. The Project is also consistent with UCSP design guidelines related to site planning, building placement, orientation and architecture. In terms of the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the Project proposes three Urban Amenities and requests an Exception to the limits in FAR in order to increase the building FAR beyond the UCSP base FAR. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -202016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 270 Item -2- DRI5-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2015 Page No. 3 In response to the required Notice of Application mailed out to property owners/residents when the Project application was received by City staff, several comments and questions from the public were submitted to the City. Given the interest and concerns expressed by the public, two neighborhood meetings were held by the Applicant and City staff on the proposed Project. The first meeting was held on October 15, 2015 at Chuta Vista High School and approximately 50 people attended the meeting. Most of the attendees expressed concerns about the Project as indicated in the list of counnents summarized and included below. Subsequent to the meeting and based on comments received from the attendees, the Applicant revised the Project to address questions, issues and concerns expressed. After the revised Project plans were submitted to the City, a second meeting was held on December 16, 2015 at Hilltop Drive Elementary School, so that the public could see and comment on the revisions made to the plans. Approximately 70 peopie attended this meeting. Even though the Project plans had been revised to address some of the issues previously expressed, some of -the meeting attendees who were opposed to the Project again expressed concerns on some of the Project's elements, snch as building height and balconies, and the issue of having a building like this next to single-family residences (see below for comments summarizing opposition to the Project). The attendees in support of the Project highlighted the community benefits that the Project could have at this location (see below for comments smmmarizing support of the Project). Subsequent to the two meetings, City staff received a three-ring binder with approximately 100 letters from members of the public expressing their concerns on the Project. The issues and concerns expressed at the two Neighborhood meetings and in the letters delivered to the City are generally in regard to the subjects described below. City staff's response to these comments is included in Attachment 4 of this report. Opposition Suzrnmary * Project should comply with UCSP as recommended by the citizens. Project is requesting too many deviations from the UCSP. Project is too tall and bulky for the adjacent Single-Family Residential (SFR) neighborhood. Reduce building FAR. * Residents will lose privacy as.residents of the Project's upper floors will command a direct view into the SFR's backyards and homes. New residents wiii take over street parking. Traffic will increase and create problems at the intersection of TNrd and K and residential streets. Traffic exiting the parking structure will travel east on K Street through local streets to reach freeways. Project construction will create dust and noise. ® Building will block sunlight and view of sunsets. Parking garage will attract homeless. The comments expressed in favor of the proposed Project include the following: -2i 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 271 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 4 Support Summary * New housing is needed in the western part of Chnla Vista; existing housing is in terrFole conditions and unsafe. * Support project because western Chula Vista needs to change; currently difficult to find somewhere to live and everything is so old. There are many people who cannot afford to buy a house. * Parking is difficult everywhere, not just around Third and K. Project would serve as an upgrade to the area. Project will improve the neighborhood and make it more modern. As indicated above, subseqt*ent to the second meeting and after review of the revised Project plans by City staff, the Applicant fnrther revised the plans in an effort to comply with all the development regulations and standards and to address the neighbors' concerns. The revisions to the Project plans include the following: The building height and mass has been reduced by the removal of the fifth floor wing and the reduction of the third floor wing along the K Street frontage. The number of residential units has been reduced from 80 to 71. The building's Floor Area Ratio has been reduced from 2.3 to 2.0. AI1 the required parking (residential and commercial) has been provided on-site and enclosed within the Project's garage. Fourteen additional parking spaces above the required parking were provided; seven parking spaces will be designated as guest parking. The balconies on the second and third floors closest to and facing the existing single family residences have been removed and the balconies facing ChurCh Avenuehave been recessed into the building wall. Landscaping along the property line and at the perimeter of the second f!oor te ace has been increased to provide effective screening. The latest version of the Project is consistent with all the development standards and reg alations of the UCSP, except the FAR, The Project provides parking, usable open space and landscaping in excess of the UCSP requirements. The Project provides a variety of benefits, including payment of infrastructure and processing fees, and upgrades to public facilities (see Attachment 5). * A traffic assessment and report were prepared that concluded that the Project will riot have any negative traffic impacts at the intersections or streets in the vicinity of the Project. The intersections and streets will continue to operate at the same service levels as today (see Attachment 6). On April 15, 2016, City staff received a letter from Ms. Evelyn Heidelberg, a San Diego land use attorney, on behalf of Mr. Earl Ientz, a Chula Vista property owner, (Authors) with a series of comments on the proposed Project. The letter contains a set of cormments on various aspects of the Project, including the proposed bnilding's FAR, compliance with development regulations, -222016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 272 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 5 consistency with design guidelines, and the applicability of CEQA provisions. City staff reviewed the letter and prepared a memorandum to the Planning Commission responding to the comments in the letter. The memorandum and the letter are included as Attachment 12 of this report. The memorandum and letter were forwarded to Ms. Heidelberg and Mr. fentz at the same time as the report packet was sent out to the Planning Commission as part of the agenda process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has 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 Pro am FEIR 06-01, certified by the Chula Vista City Council in May 2007 The Development Services Director has further determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, t Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to UCSP FEIR 06-01 (see Attachment 7). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission consider the Addendum to UCSP FEIR 06-01, grant the requested exception on ]FAR and approve the Design Review/Urban Core Development Permit Resolution and the Tentative Map Resolution to develop the subject Site with the proposed Project, subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. DISCUSSION: Proiect Site Location and Characteristics The site for the proposed Project is located in the C1 Third Avenue South District of the UCSP. This District consists of several btocks of Third Avenue frontage that are located between I and L Streets (see Attachment 8). The District has an area of api roximately 53 acres. It consists primarily of professional offices north of J Street, and a mix of retail and professional office uses south of J Street. Among these office and retail uses are six sites, that include, a residential development mixed with commercial fronting on Third Avenue including one singie-family home, small and mid-size condominium complexes, and a senior housing complexthat contains 75 residential units. Behind these frontage developments are single-Pamily homes (east of Third Avenue along Church Avenue) and multi-family complexes (west of Third Avenue). The Site for the proposed Project consists of two assessor's parcels (573-371-2300 and 573-371 1200) with a total area of 45,73o° square-feet (1.05 acres). The Site is currently occupied by three buildings with a combined area of approximately 20,450 square-feet, which were built during the 1950's and 1960's, and are currently occupied by a martial arts gynmasium, an insurance office, a botanical sales store, and a chiropractor's office; one of the buildings is currently vacant. The existing structures would be demolished to allow construction of the proposed Project. The Site -23 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 273 Item -2- DR15:-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 6 is flat, has a rectangular/L-shape form, and fronts along Third Avenue, K Street and backs onto Church Avenue. The SRe is located in the fully urbanized area of the City that is part of the Urban Core. The Site is surrounded by a variety of commercial retail, restaurant and office uses along Third Avenue; across K Street from the Site is a Bank; and to the north and east across Church Avenue are single-f amily homes (see table below with Iand use and zoning information for more details). Protect Description The Project consists of the redevelopment of the 45,738 square-foot property with a mixed-use, 3 to 5-story (34 to 60 feet in height) structure, with 71 residential condominium units (t and 2 bedrooms with an area between 736 sq. ft. and t,200 sq. ft.), a 1,770-square-foot residential fitness center, 1,004-square-feet of lobby and elevator space, 2,572-square-feet of residential lounge space, and 6t6 square-feet of commercial space (see proposed Project plans in Attachment 9). The Project also includes the construction of 142 parking spaces (subterranean, street level and enclosed), 17,646 square-feet of common and private open space, and approximately- 8,500 square-feet of landscaped space, as well as the associated access and circulation areas. The use distribution within the building structure is as follows: Underground floor - enclosed residential, commercial, a[ad guest parking (74 spaces); First floor - enclosed residential parking (68 spaces), residential fitness center, lobby/elevators, residential lounge space, and commercial space which fronts on the 1,700 squared-foot public plaza at the Third and K comer; trash, recycling, and bulky items deposit; Second floor -22 residential units and landscaped terrace; Third floor - 21 residential units; Fourth floor - 17 residential units; and Fifth floor - 12 residential units. Part of the proposed open space is in the form of balconies in all units and a large terrace on the second floor of the buiIdlng. The outside perimeter of the terrace contains planters with trees and shrubs to screen the views from the structure to the neighlooring residences. A six-foot high concrete decorative wail wllI be constructed along the northern and eastern property edges of the residential properties adjacent to the Project Site. A 10 to 13-foot buffer inside the property tine wilt be landscaped with trees and shrubs. The Project will atso include the excavation and export of 9,750 cubic yards of soil during the grading phase for the development of below-grade parking. Project Architecture The proposed Project architecture is contemporary and intends to provide a new urban face to development within the C1 Corridor area, while maintaining an architectural design consistency with the surrounding neighborhood styles. The main function of the Project at this important corner of the Third Avenue District is to create a people activated, urban comer that contributes to the City's goal of °°Complete Streets" and enhances the public realm through improved streetscape desig and individual building character. (A complete street is a safe, accessible, and convenient street for nil users regardless of transportation mode, age, or physical ability. -242016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 274 Item-2- DR15-0015; PCSI5-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 7 Complete streets adequately provide for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists. Complete streets promote healthy communities and redilctions in traffic congestion by offering viable alternatives to driving.) The clean, contemporary lines of the building are a deliberate design direction. The proposed materials have a finely grained texture. The sand finish plaster provides a predominately neutral texture and color and wili be juxtaposed by the randomly seamed pre-fin shed metM panel cladding at tile 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 wail providing shadow and articulation to the building facade. The north wall on the property line adjacent to the existing commercial building is a fire-rated wall on a zero iot line condition and as such does not have window openings. The wail wiIi be provided with visual relief and texture by a recessed vertical slot with the piaster "accent color, a proposed mural and reveal lines in the plaster. The street level of the building includes f ll height storefront windows with clear, non-reflective glass. The base of the building is softened by raised planters. The planters and solid walls at street level will be concrete with a textured finish. Building entries along Third Avenue and at the corner plaza are marked by overhead marquees and signs. These, along with awnings over storefront windows reduce the scale of the building to human scale. The enclosed garage at street level is wrapped with resident ameni uses along TNrd Avenue to enliven the street elevation. On K Street the garage will have openings of a similar size and distribution as the windows above. These openings will be secured with a perforated metal screen. Land Use and Zonin The existing land uses and designations on and adjacent to the snbject siie We shown in the table below. L • • • • L •¸ ••••• • •• : •] _ • • • :O.• •• _ • : • • .• •• • • .... Ge lerM plan Design !ion :, Zoning Des!gaation: . . Exist}hg Uses Mixed Use Cl CorridorSite Gymnasium/o ffice/r etMl/vacantMid-Thlrd Avenue District Residential/CommerciM Mixed Use C1 Corridor Office Building/CocktailNorth Mid-Third Avenue Distrie Residential/Commerclal Lounge/Single-Family Homes East Residential Lgw-Medium R1 Single-Family Nomes Mixed Use C1 Corridor South BanMOfficesMid-Third Avenue District Residential/Commercial West Consls enc with Development Standards Mixed Use Mid-Third Avenue District C1 Corridor Retail Commercial Restaurant/Gas Station/Office -25 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 275 Item -2- DK15-00IS; PCS15-0006 June 22. 2016 Page No. 8 AS indicated previously, the site is located within the City's Urban Core Specific Plan C-1 Corridor, which allows the development of mixed use projects subject to compliance with specified development standards in the Specific Plan and listed in the ruble below. Since the Proj :ct site is adjacent to an R-t (Single-Family) District, the Project must also comply with the develc pment standards of the Neighborhood Transitioning Combining District (NTCD). These standards include setbacks from R1 properties, building step backs, landscape materials, lighting, screening, fencing, and building design. Following are the required development standards of the C1 District and the proposed Project's development standards: Development Standard C 1 District Project Proposal Building Height 60 ft. Max. 34 - 60 feet Building Setbacks: Front: I North Side: South Side: Rear (East): t0 feet 0 feet; 10 feet 10 Feet t0 Feet and 0 along street 10 Feet 0 Feet; 13 feet t0 Feet I 10 Feet and 5 along street Building FAR: Base: 1.0 (45,738 sq. ft.) Incentive bonus: 0.5 (22,869 sq. ft.) Dev. Exception: Allowed w/findings Parking Required: 128 spaces Open Space Required Not required bjz C 1 District regulatio-ns. Base: 1.0 Incentive bonus: 0.5 Dev. Exception: 0.5 (22,738 sq. ft.) Landscapinz 15% Min (Landscape manual) 142 spaces 17,646 sq. ft. 19% (8,500 sq. ft.) Incentives and Amenities Zoning t In addition to the established development standards and design guidelines, the UCSP provides other requirements and incentives to enhance the quality of life within the Urban Core by encouraging pedestrian friendly design, amenities, beautification, sufficient parking, mixed-uses, affordable housing, and access to public transit, parks, community facilities, and social services. The Urban Amenities Table (Attachment 3) presents a wide variety of urban amenities either required or desired in the Urban Core within the C1 District. The table describes whether these amenities are required by the US CP (or other regulations) or whether provision of these etements will be encouraged through incentives. One of the incentives provided in the UCSP is an increase in the building FAR, which is a zoning tool used to regulate bniiding form and bulk. The FAR is obtained by dividing the total enclosed building area (with the exception of garages and parking structures and other elements) by the Site area. As indicated in the above table, the UCSP permits a base FAR of t .0, which is equivalent to 45,738 square-feet of building area. By providing three qualifying amenities and applying the incentive provisions in Attachment 3, the proposed Project may increase the permitted FARto 1.5 (68,607 sq. ft.). The amenities provided by the Project are: All enclosed parking, plus more parking than required; Public plaza with furniture and art; and -262016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 276 Item-2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 ,Page No. 9 Project design and building features to achieve a LEED Gold certification. Below are the specific numbers used to calculate the FAR and the corresponding areas that result from the provision of the amenities. Project site area: 45,738 sq. ft. Total proposed project building area: 91,345 sq. ft. Proposed amenities and corresponding percentage increase in FAR are as follows: o Enclosed parking- I0% (4,574 sq. it.) o Public Plaza- 10% (4,574 sq. ft.) o LEED Gold Certification- 30% (13,721 sq. ft.) Total allowed additional building area from proposed amenities - 22,869 sq. ft. Development Exceptions Additionally, the .UCSP provides for and authorizes the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to the land use and development regulations, in order to encourage and achieve innovative design. The Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit in the amount of 0.5 or 22,738 square-feet. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission in cases where aIi of the following findings are made: i. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the gpeci c Plan and General Plan. 2. The proposed development wilZ comply with aZl other reg dafions of the Speci c Plan. 3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives in section F - Urban Amenities Reciuirements and Incenti[,es, of this chapter. 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 Speci c Plan development regulations. Evidence to support these findings are addressed and substantiated in the Analysis Section below. ANALYsIs: As indicated previously in this report, the Ci Council adopted the UCSP to implement the General Plan's vision for the development of mixed-use (residential/commercial), higher density, pedestrian-oriented projects and a broad range of uses that serve the needs of adjacent residents, promote neighborhood activity, and are compatiJle with adjacent neighborhoods. The adopted UCSP contains more focused objectives and policies, as welI as the required regulations and development standards to review and evaluate development projects for consistency with the General Plan's objectives and policies for the area. In addition, the UCSP provides incentives and exceptions for projects that represent the siting of a variety of land uses in an urban envfroim ent that is both pedestrian and environmentally sensitive, and provide a variety of amenities that will increase the quality of life of the neighborhood. The proposed Vista del Mar 27 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 277 Item-2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 10 Project was reviewed and evaluated based on the General Plan objectives and policies and the UCSP's regulations, development standards, and design guidelines contained in the C1 Third Avenue South District. Following is an analysis of the Project based on the applicable policies and standards of the UCSP. Land Use The proposed Project is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan and the regulations of the UCSP. The General Plan and the UCSP envision the C1 Third Avenue South District as an area with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that contribute to create a vibrant and attractive area. As stated in the UCSP, °'These regulations are intended to encourage and facilitate infiH development, mixed uses, pedestrian scale, urban amenities, transit use, creative design, and the gene)al revitalization of the Okban Core." The Project would redevelop the subjent She, 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 would provide multi-Family housing in this area of Chula Vista and would bring families and social and economic activity to the area. Those families would take advantage of and support the comanerciaI base along Third Avenue, which provides a yariety of goods and services in close proximity. More residents would contrihute 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 comer of Third Avenue and K Street -with art and furniture wiI1 provide an amenity- that wiI1 activate the street and create opportunities for civic engagement. The wider and furnished sidewalks along Third Avenue and K Street wii1 contribute to activate the street and create a pedestrian-safe and friendly enviroi rnent. The proposed Project is also consistent with the UCSP development regulations (see ]'able above) related to building height, building setbacks and step backs, parking, open space and landscaping. As shown in the table above, the Project meets all of the regulations of the specific plan and, in cases such as parking, usabie open space and landscaping, the Project exceeds the minimum required standards. Floor AreaRatio The UCSP allows an FAR of t .0 by right. In order to achieve a higher FAR utilizing the UCSP's incentives and exception to achieve innovative and creative design, the Project proposes three amenities and requests an exception from the mimmum allow-¢d FAK. -282016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 278 Item-2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 11 FAR from Three Amenities As indicated previously, the three amenities provided by the Project are listed below. This is then followed by a brief description and analysis of each of the amenities. Parking - 10% (4,574 sq. it) Public Plaza- 10% (4,574 sq. ft.) LEED Gold Certification- 30% (13,72I sq. ft.) Parking - Atl the required parking is provided on-site and parking is enclosed within the structure- This allows a 10% increase in FAR. The proposed Project provides a total of I42 parking spaces, which are located in the underground floor and the first floor of the parking garage. The UCSP reqnires a total of 127 parking spaces for the residential component and one parking space for the commercial component, which brings the number of required spaces to 128. Of the remai ing 14 spaces 7 wiiI be designated as guest parking and the other 7 will be designated for the building residents. The additional 14 spaces represent approximately 10% of the total spaces required by the UCSP. The parking amenity is seen as a positive addition to the Project because it benefits the Project and the s lrrounding neighborhood by providing all the parking on-site and enclosed, and by providing 14 spaces beyond those required by the UCSP. Providing all the required parking on-site plus 14 additional spaces for guests :n d residents contributes to minimize on, street lJarking demand. ® Outdoor Space - Plaza provided with artYfumiture at comer of Third & K Street - This allows a 10% increase in FAR. One of the important features of the Project is tee public Plaza located at the comer of Third Avenue and K Street, next to the Project's commercial suite. The Plaza has an area of approximately 1,700 square-feet and will be 5_lmished with tables, chairs, and landscape materials such as palm trees and shrubs. A central feature wili be a water fountain or an artisfic sculpture. The Plaza is located outside the building and adjacent to the comer 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 fealn re wilI offer a passive recreational space for people to congregate and interact, and create. neighborhood activity. 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. * LEED Gold Certification - Attachment 10 shows the proposed LEED Checklist - 30% FAR. The Proect 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. LEED is a building certification program associated with -29 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 279 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 Ame 22, 2016 Page No. 12 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 tess water and energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Projects pursuing LEED certification earn points across several areas that address sustainability issues. Based on the number of points achieved, a project then receives one of four LEED rating levels: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The Project has been 'designed to include the following list of fea ,res from the LEED Checklist (see Attachment 10) and seek Gold Certification from the US Green Bnilding Council: o Location and Transportation o Sustainable Sites o Water Efficiency o Energy and Atmosphere o Materials and Resources o Indoor Envirommental Quality o Innovation o Regional Priority Based on the UCSP Urban Amenities Table, this Certification would ant the Project the incentive to increase the building FAR by 30%. Attachment 11 contains the list of proposed LEED items from-the Applicant and a desGription of how the Project's features would meet each of those items. Granting the 30% increase in building FAR is justifiable because the certification will verify and insure that the Project has been designed and wiI1 be built in a way that would improve energy savings, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and CO2 emissfons reduction. This will mal<e the Project conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and UCSP by developing a mixed-use (residential/corm'nercial) Project that is environmentally sensitive, saves resources, creates less waste and pollution, and contributes to a healthier environment and community. FAR ExceptioE As indicated previousiy, the Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit of 1.0 in the. amount of 0.5 or 22,738 square-feet The Development Exception section of the UCSP authorizes the Harming Commission to grant 'exceptions to the land use and development regulations (in this case FAR) if the required findings are made. Below are the required findings, each followed by substasltiating information: 1. Tkze proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 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/conmaercial use at the -302016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 280 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCSIh-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 13 . Comer 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, cuitural and recreational activities. The Urban Core Vision aims to create a uniqueIy 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 that 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 corrLmunity 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 form 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. The proposed development /;il/ comply ith all other regulations of the Specific Plan. As indicated in the Development Starldards table above, 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 sham achieve a height--of 60 feet, which is the-maximum permitted by the UCSP). The Project provides all the required parldng 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 desig aed 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 residentiM 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 densiO/ 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. The building design is cogizant 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. %qaile the NTCD -8t 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 281 Item -2- DR25-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. I4 provisions indicate that balconies should be avoided, balconies are still an important design and functional elements of the UCSP and the Project. In fact, the UCSP provisions for mulfi family projects encourage the use of balconies and other features to achieve quality building design. One of those provisions is the foltowing: "Three dimensional design features, such as balconies and bays should be incorporated into the building desi . 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 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 bniiding elevations, the design issues (parficularly privacy) associated with them have been avoided through the described Proj oct features. 3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities fncentives in Section f - Urban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter. The Project incorporates the three amenities listed above, which are: nil required parking (on-site and enclosed); public outdoor space in the form of plaza with art feature and fnrniture; and LEED Gold Certification. Additionally, the Project includes other amenities and community benefits as follows: As indicated previously, the Project wili provide fourteen parking spaces thai exceed the parking regulations and provide .g est parking spaces within the-parking garage. The proposed Project will provSde a community landmark at the Site in the form of a public art mural on the north facing wail of the building. The mural wilt not only serve as a piece of art that will complement the building's architecture, it will also serve as a andmark 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 tbeople on Third Avenue to support the s aii businesses located there and to create a more pedestrian-friendly street atmosphere. g,The exception or exceptions are appropriate for this location and will result in a better design or greater public beneft than could be achieved through strict conformance with the S ecij c Plan development reg dations. The additional FAR of 0.5 (33% above the allowed FAR) is appropriate :for this location because it would allow the Project to comply with the goals and objectives of the @eneral Plan and Specific Plan related to bringing a mixed use project with,sufficient residential units -322016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 282 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. I5 and community amenities to provide housing, activate the street and support the existing commercial base. The C1 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 some additional residenfial development within the Ct 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 2.0 (91,345 sq. ft.) represents approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the C1 District. The Project's FAR of 2.0 is appropriate for an urban mixed use development and is in Iine with development trends elsewhere in the Ufoan 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 Iow density residential. The Applicant has revised the Project and has tsiCen measures to reduce the building mass and addressed comm mity 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 throu periodic reviews and amendments to the UCSP as equired by law, and based on changes to the physical conditions of the Urban Core and changes in economic activity). The proposed development- creates a people activated, urban corner that -contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the punic realm through improved streetscape design and individual building character. Site Planning and Buildin Placement/Orientation/Buildin Architecture In addition to the development standards and regulations listed in the C1 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 C1 District focus primarily oF 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 thai are stated in the next section of this report and are followed by a statement indicating how the Project is consistent with each of the guidelines. " "Encozcrage new development that maintains a hen#by interaction *ith the major street and surro mding zLses by minimizing harmful external effects and providing strong transit, a ztomobile, 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 corridorl 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 -33 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 283 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 16 onto the street, and by the improved 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 neighboring residences creates an appropriate separation that respects privacy and miimizes shade, noise and other potential externalities. The Project also provides a strong connection with the pedestrian, 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, guest and commercial customers without creating traffic issues on the street (see Traffic Letter Assessment - Attchrnent 6). ;'New development in the Corridors District should consider the area % scale and character and demonstrate sensitivity to szLrrolmding zses by limiting bz ilding massing, providing project amenities sz ch as landscaping, seating, and plazas, and screenihg parking and eg @ment areas. "Additional setback areas and lpper floor setbacks are encouraged hen commercial and residential areas are adjacent to each other and employ landscaping to screen parking lots fi'om adjacent residential ses and streets. " The buiIding -structure. has. been designed to incorporate large setbacks that create sig.r-_dficant distance from the neighboring properties and lmii 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 adjacent residences• Also, the east and south perimeter of the second floor terrace is fully landscaped to provide additional screening between the building and the adjacent residences. • " " uun i g mass is in theThe building is sited, designed and treated such thaithe mtensr y of the " :' :-" most appropriate location along the Third Avenue commercial corridor and as far away as possible from the adjacent single f amily properties. By being next to the Third Avenue and K Street commercial corridor, the Project creates a peopIe activated, urban comer 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 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• -342016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 284 Item-2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22,2016 Page No. 17 "Upper yToor balconies, bays, and windows should be provided that overtook 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 wail is used to create articulation and variety along the building walls. They are also an important functional element in that they serve as recreational open space for the residents. The concerns of the neighbors feinted to views from the balconies 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 lthe, 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 Iine, 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 sb=rnhs to fllrther screen 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 bu.i!ding. "The physical design of facades should utilize such techniques as: Break or articulation oft he facade; vertical and horizontal off'sets to minimize large blank walls and re&ice building bulk," signiJicant 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 ¢evelopment in this part of Chula Vista. The project relates to its location on the Third Avenue commercial corridor by creating a people activated urban comer that creates opportunity for street activity and enhances the punic realm through improved streetscape design and individuai buitding character. The building elevations are well articulated by a variety of elements. The view of the building from the comer of Third and K shows the elew.tions that divide the building into four smaller parts, a 5-story portion with'a piaster finish along Third, a:5-story comer 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. The clean, contemporary lines of the buiiding are a deliberate design direction. The materials will have a finely grained texture. The sand finish piaster will provide a predominately neutral texture and color and will be juxtaposed by the randomly seamed pre-flnished 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 breal< up the roof line. Balconies are both recessed into and project out from the building wall -35 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 285 Item-2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 18 providing shadow and articulation to the building facade. Windows are verticalIy oriented, full height and are recessed in the building wail. The windows are distributed in an off-set pattern within the plaster wali and in a regular pattern within the metal clad wall. The facade will be enlivened by various window awning types including an 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 suiight for a significant portion of time. The project plans include a shade and shadow st @y (Sheet A5.0 of the plans in Attachment 9). This study looks at the best and worst case scenarios based upon stunmer and winter solstice. The shade/shadow analysis examines summer and winter shading conditions between Sunrise and Snnset 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 cormmerciai office immediately to the north and residential properties to the northeast of the structure. During winter months, shadowing would occur in a northwest to noitheast direction throug17out 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 severe during all other times of the year. The summer solstice exhibit (best case) shows very little shadowing cast onto adjoining properties. Tentative Ma;) A Tentative Map was prepared and submitted as part of the Project to establish a condombium map that would allow the sale of the units, and establish individual condominium ownerships. Additionally, the map will provide for the grading and development of the Site as shown on the site and grading plans. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 (the Subdivision Map Act), the Planning Commission must make the findings listed in the Tentative Map resolution substantiating that the Tentative Map, as conditioned therein, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan. The proposed Tentative Map has been reviewed for consistency with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual and staff has included the necessary conditions that mL{st be satisfied prior to issuance of a Final Map. The conditions are described in detail in the Planning Coun lission resolution. CONCLUSION Vista del Mar is the first mixed-use (comme ciai/residenfial) project within the C1 District that is-submitted to the City for approval since the UCSP was originally approved in 2007 (the first approved and built project was the retail market at the comer of Third Avenue and J Street). As such the Project represents the first opportunity in many years for development of a residential/commercial project in this part of the City-. The Project will provide new investment, -362016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 286 Item -2- DR15-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 19 modem housing facilities and site improvements that will contribute to revitalize and enhance the Site and the neighborhood. The Project will provide new for-sale and affordable (7 units) multi-family housing that will improve the housing mix and enhance residential opportunities in the neighborhood. The Project's central location in the City and along one of the importaflt corridors will provide convenient access for residents to jobs, transportation, and a variety of goods and services in close proximity. The Site will be developed with a quality project that is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed project has been designed to meet the development regulations and design guidelines of the UCSP. Regarding the bnilding's FAR, the Project has provided the three amenities previously described and analyzed, and it requests an exception to the base FAR. The provided amenities and the exception allow the Project to provide all the elements to represent a well rounded and well designed Project to meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan and UCSP. The Project is wei1 planned, incorporating the principals of Smart Growth (mix of uses, compact building design, range of housing opportunities, walkable neighborhoods, etc), °°Complete Streets" (safe and accessible for alI users, reduces traffic congestion, conneqted to transit), and resource conservation. It is designed_to respect and blend with the community character, local history, and environment. The proposed Project wii1 re activate the street and contribute to improve the neighborhood and create residential and business activity in this part of the City. Based on the description and evaluation of the Project, the findings made, and the conclusions above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions contained in the resolutions. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT,S Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission members and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which.is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest tmder Califernia Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2@)(11), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code §87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Planning Commission member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. FISCAL IMPACT The propose t project is a private development The application fees and processing costs are paid for by the AppIicant. -372016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 287 Item -2- DRI5-0015; PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page No. 20 Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. General Plan Mid-Third Avenue District Vision, Objectives, and Policies 3. UCSP Third Avenue South C1 District Regulations 4. Public Comments and Responses 5. List of Project Contributions 6. Traffic Letter Assessment 7. Addendumto FELR-06-01 8. C1 District Map §. Proposed Project Plans 10. Proposed Project LEED Features 11. Description of Proposed Project LEED Features 12. Comment Response Memorandum and Letter from Ms. Evelyn Heidelberg and Mr. Earl Jentz 13. Design Review (UCSP Development) Permit Resolution 14. Tentative Map Resolution -382016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 288 MASONIC TEMPLE SF SF SF THIRD SF SF AVENUE SFPLAZA SF SF VERDE PARK APARTMENTS CLEANERS AVE LIQUOr, DIAMOND SF SF SF OFFICES SF SF SF SF SF ALVA GARDENS APARTivlENTS GARDEN APARTMENTS OFFICES SE APN 5733717200 APN 5733772300 EQ BANK OFAMERICA GREENJACK TREE IN THE FOUNTAINBOX APARTMENTS CHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SE SF SF SF SF SF SF PINE VISTA APARTMENTS WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER CHULA VISTA .... LOCATORPROJECT ....................................... Vista Del Mar APPL]CANI PROJECT NEC ThirdAv & K St ADDRESS: APN's 5733711200 & 5733712300 SCALE: FILE NUMBER:NORTH No Scale DR15-001 5 j:\p anning/pub ic notices/dRdr150015 8Xl O.ai -39 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROJECT OESCRIPTION: DESI@H AIEV EW Project Summary: Proposal for a mixed use 3 5 story, 71 condo units with 616 sq ft of commerdal space and 142 below grade parking stalls, Related cases: Attachment I 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 289 TH S PAGE LEFT BLANK -402016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 290 ATTAC CEN% 2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATIgN E[,EJ"4£N-T CHAPTER 5 9.5.i1 M!dqhird Avenue District Description of District Tne Mid-Third Avenue District (Figure 5-35) consists of several blocks of Third Avenue frontage that are located behveeh I and L S ree , Existing Conditions Fne Mid-Third Avenue Di£rict consists prima lly of professional omces north of J Street, and a mix of retail and pre essional o qe gses south of J Street Vislou for Focus Area The Mid-ird Avenue Distric remains relativdy sLable, wi pflmad]y office uses, some housing between [ and J Skeets, and segregated retail and office uses b A een J and L Streets. Land uses on the west side of Thlrd Avenue, south of J Street; provide local re il senAces for adjoining residential r{eighbothoods, while the ea£ side of Third Avenue consists of offices. Bulldtn heights for the Mld-Tntrd #,venue District are primarily low rise• Reinforce the existing land use paRern 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 Page LUT-223 . -41 Attachment 22016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 291 A hula lAND USE AND YIL NSPORTAT10N ELEM.BF CHAPTER 5 Policiesi Uaes LUT 60.± of existtnq 6]g e ues, s Q f Pat enaf /Hei gh t LUT 60,2 Establish building heights that are primarily low-rise, although some mid-rise buildings may be allowed, if compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and tf their design features benefit the community, .Des "'d LUT 60.3:e Urban Core Sp dfio Plan sha!l e#abliah design guidelines and/or zoning standards that provide for buildings heights tha'step down adjacent o single family neighborhoods, Amenitie LUT 60.4 Community amenities to be conslde[ed for the Mid-Third Avenue District as part of any incentive program should Include, but not be limited to, those listed in Policy LUT 22.1. Page LUT-224 city orChula Vista General Plan -422016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 292 Pimargl.md use: Retail (Wese of Third Avenue), Of ce (East o [Thkd &yenuc); Res[den[ii d a @egaag eaa -% F;%or aa Raffo: Max: i.O #Building Height: Min: 18' Max: 60' ATTACHZV[ENT 3 4, S Sufidi,d StepbacR: Not mandatory Street 2dallFro fage: 50% M[n i: Se*bacRs: Street Mfn: kO' Street Max: 20' Neighborhood Transitbn: See Section D. for additional setbacks for parcels adjacent to R-i and R-2 zones aarki#g egt at,oas , Parking Locations; Any location on-site, except [n front of buildings 2. Residential ParRfnd: See OVMC 19,62.050 Non-Reside tMI Pai!dng: M[n: 2 spaces/1,O00 sf On-site Min: 50% Summary sheet does not reflect a!l regulations that may apply to each property. Please consult he rome,rider o the chapter or all cr{tena. jl -43-,Afttachme t 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 293 £ Pu@ose The purpose of.the Neighborhood Transition Combining District (NTCD) is to permit special reo#ulation to insure thatthe character of zones within the Specific Plan area will be compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas. Neighborhood Transitiod Combining Districts apply to the subdistricts adjacent•to R-£ and RL2 zones: \/-3, V-4, UC-5, UC-6, UO-±3, C- ±, and 0-2. Transit Focus Areas provide special regulations to encourage the evelopment and use of pubic transportation: UC-±, UC-2, UC-iO, UC-i2, and UC-±5,. i 2, Req remen'ts a, Figure 6,60 details required side and rear setbacks from the property line that abuts an R4L or R-2 zone. Where such yard is contiguous and paraIlel with an alley, one-hail the width of such atey shali be assumed ta be a portion of such yard. Within transit focus areas, provide a minimum ±5 feet of rear yard setback for structures up to and over 84 feet in Ileight, J bo Cl For every 35 feet in height, the struc, ture shall step back at least i5 feet on the side(s) of the structure that abut an R-£ or R-2 district, Within Transit Focus Areas, p ovide a buildilsg stepback of at least ±5 feet for every 35 feet in height abutting residential uses. in addition to meeting the stepback requirements, no part of the building shall be closer to the property line than a gO-degree plane extending fl'om each stepback line, A landscaplng 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 reductioq effect (i.e. trees not to be pfanted on the north facing facade of the building). 15 29 25 76<85 30 86<85 35 10 4O -442016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 294 cL Aft ex[erior lighting shah fooLls interna!ly within the propertyto decrease the light pollution onto the neidhb6dn propeFties. e. Screenin and/0r buffer shall be required to obscure features such as dLlmpsters, rear entrances, utility and maintenance sl ructurss and R A six-foot solid or deoorative metal fence shall 6e.ptaced on the property line, tf the fehce is solid, it shall have design treatment and be" articulatedevepy s'x to ei nt feet to avoid presentin a blaflk wall to thestreet o" 'adj=cent property. Building desi fn shall be co ;nizant of adjacent tow density uses (Le. avoid balconies overlookin rear yards). As part of the project design and submittal, developments within Transit Focus Areas shall conduct studies to assess the effects of ti{ht, solar access, and shadowins, on acJjacent buildings and areas and is subject to Section C-Development Standards in this Chapter. -45 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 295 This section outlines requirements and incentives for urban amenities that wiil enhance the quality of life within the Urban Core by encouraging pedestriam friendly design, amenities, beautificalion, sufficient parking, mixed-use districts, preferred site location, affordable housing, and access to pubtic transit, parks, community facilities, and social services. .2. ince#;ive Zo;# The Urban Core Specific Plan regulates the development of property through use and bulk restrictions. The tool selected for regulating density and intensity in the Urban Core is a [imitation on the allowable Floor Area Ratio. FAR is the ratio between the size of the lot and the maximum amoLint of floor space that a building constructed on that lot may contain. Thlough 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 may grant such incentives are clearly identified in this chapter. Bonus awards may be as "of right" or discretionary. Discretionary authority to grant a}l FAR bonuses or fee waivers is delegated to the Planning Commission or City Council as necessa% The 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 allowable under the program were actually awarded.This total should not exceed the capacity of the land or the capacity of the City to provide infrastructure and services to support the build-cut, To determine just how much additional FAR or FAR waiver should be granted, the Planning Commission should take into account the value added to the property by the amenity or design, and a reasonable share of additional FAR or FAR waiver that will proportionally compensate the developer for the additional amenities or design provisions. -462016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 296 3, U 'b Ame PJ, es b q:he Urban Amenities Table presenLs a wide variety of urban amenities either required or desired in tile Urban Core, The table describes whether these amenities are required in the Specific Plan (or other regulations) or whether provision of Ehese elements wiiI be encouraged through incentives, Whe 4 an urban amenity is required, the specific responsibilities of the property owner are identified in the Requirements column. In some cases, the applicant should refer to other sections contained within the Specific Plan for particular guidelines or regulations, When provision of an urban amenity results in additional benefits to the property owner, the incentive For providing the amenity is tisted in the incentives column. Incentives requests will be evaiuated case-by case based on the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed prgject, Several of the urban amenities may be both a requirement and an incentive; in these cases, a certain portion of the amenity is required to be provided and the property owner may aiso recognize additional benefits by providing an additional portion of the amenity, The Urban Amenities Table alse details the subdistricts within the Specific PIan'area in which provision of a particular element is required or eligible for incentives. ]f no subd[stricts'are specified, the amenity is applicable to all subdistdcts. jl -47 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 297 :i i improvements•Development impact fee and/or Javelopment requirements (Contained None I ,I4 E Site Access v'Tall Upper LevM Setbacks Chapters V{ & VII) and development lregulations (Contained in Ohapbra Vi VII) Design guidelines (Contained in Chapters 'VI & VII) Landscaping Transit Station Improvements Cultural Arts (Public} Design guidefines (Contained in Chapter Vll) Design guidelines (Contained in Chapter Vii) and/or development " impact fee Applicability: V-l, V-P, V-4, V-B, UC-1, U0-2, UC-4, UC-5, UC-7, UC-9, UC-t0, UC-!2, UCd3, UC-14, UC-15, UCd6, UC-18, U0-19, C-1, C-2, and C-3 Development impact fee App icabi ity: V-l, V-2, V-3, V-4, UC-1, UC-2, UC-4, UC-5, UC-7, UC@, UC-I0, UC-12, UC 13, UC-I5, U0 16, UC-18, UC-19, C-1, C-2, and 0 3 Design guidelines (Contained in Chapter VII) and development requirements (Contained in Ohapter V1) Vertical Mixed-Use (Residential over Commercial; Projects) Vertical Mixed-Use (Residential o/ar Commercial Projects} within 500 fee[ of a Transit Station Design guidelines (Contained in Chapter VII) and development requirements (Contained in Chapter VIi Applicability: V-!, V-2, V-3, V-4, U-C1, U-C2, UC-6, UC-1O, UC-1,2, UC-18, UC t4, UC-15, O-1, C-2, and C-8 Design guidelines (Contained in 1 Chapter Vii) and development l requirements (Contained in Chapter V,)I ?aseos Public right of way, development. requirements (Contained in Chapter V]), and/or development impact fee stdan Circuia{ien (Onsite [ Design guidelines (Oonta[ned in ind Offsite) Chapter Vii) and development requirements (Con:LaMed in Chapter Vii Stree front Facades/Street Design guidelines (Contained in None NoDe None None None None None None Noe None -482016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 298 and PIazas, Sports/Recreation y Lots, Water Par Courses Equipment, Gardens, Art Works Design guidelines (Contained in 10% increase in the allowable Chapter Vii) and development FAR and the allowable numbe requirements (Oontained in Chapter V[) residential units when all parking and/or development impact fee for the building,. Housing i uistion and Maintenance None Services/Human None g parkifig district, ineludihg structured a underground facilities App{ieabili : Vq, V-2, V-8, V-4, UC I, U-C2, UO-4, UC-5 UCW, UC-9, UC-10, UCq2, UC-13, UC U0 16, U0-18, C-1, C 2, and C-3 Development impact fee and parkland below grade, or [n a garage of at least two levels and wrapped with uses or architecturally concealed ,, Applicability: All subdistricts 10% increase in the allowablededication City inclusienary housing requirement LEED Scorecard submitted with Urban ¢-, , , ,,ore DevaIopment Permit application EAR when additiona( public sutdoor space is provided above nd beyond PAD requirements nd other than those identified in Figure s.e4 is provided, T s..T. public outdoor open space shall have the following characteristics: has an area 500 square [eat with eptt of 30 r .at; es and chairs; eat, ian-scaled hting of at least 2 footcandles; and has outdoor public air and other desired amenities, such as fountains. App!icability: All subdistricts As allowed by State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) . . App[icability: Ati subdis ricts that llow residential FAR increase (20% for LEED Certification, 25% for LEED Silver up to 35% for LEED P!atinum), also pridrity permit review with LEED certification. Applicability: All subdistricts FAR waiver: FAR for elements not included in overall project FAR ,::All subdMriets FAR waiver; FARfcr elements not inciuded in overa!i project FAR ': AJ] subdistriets [J -51 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 299 / The !and use and developrn?nt regulations encourage the sking of a variety of land uses .in an urban environment tJsat is both pedestrian and environmentally senskive, Wher'e used in combinaLion with the Urban Amenities Incentives, as proyided for in this chapter, the development regulations and urban amenities incentives wilt encourage innovative design: To further achieve this goal, it may be necessary to be flexible" in the application of certain development standards. As such, the Planning Commission may authorize exceptions to the land use and development regulations included within this chapter through the issuance of an Design Review Permit, ifalf of the foilow(ng findings are made: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan, 2, The proposed development.will compiy with alt other regulations of the Specific Plan. 3. The proposed development will incorporate'one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives in section F - Ul'ban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter. 4, The exception or exceptions are appropriate for this location and will result n a better design or greater public benefit than could be acl ieved through strict conformance with the Specific Plan development reguiationso All other sections of the Chu!a Vista Municipal Cede shah apply !i , Consideration of a deve!opment standard exception shall be concurrent with the review of the Desigr Review permit, as outlined in Chapter Xl - Plan Administration, Section 0.1. Design Review Requirements, of this Specific Plan. -522016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 300 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS October 15 & December 16 20t5 . . , Comment Staff Response Reference Project should comply with UCSP The Project has been revised to meet See p. 8 of the as recommended by the citizens, all the development standards of the Planning Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), Commission (PC) except Floor Area Ratio (PAR). Report. Project is requesting too many deviations The Project is requesting only one See p. 9 of the PC from UCSP. exception to the FAR. Exceptions Report. to the FAR as authorized by the UCSP. See pp.8 and 13 of the PC Report. Project is too tall and bulky for the adjacent single family residential (SFR) neighborhood. The proposed 57-foot building height meets the 60-foot height limit of the UCSP. The building structure has been reduced and moved next to Third Avenue and K Street and away from the single-family homes. 4. Rednce building FAR.The proposed building FAR has been reduced from the initial Project FAR of 2.3 down to 2.0. The UCSP allows a base FAR of 1.0, with increases in FAR based on the provision of amenities and requests for exceptions. As explained in the staff report the Proect provides three amenities equivalent to 0.5 FAR and requests an exception for 0.5 FAR. The amenities and exception, which bring the total FAR to 2.0, may be justified and granted based on the findings made and described the PC Report. Residents will lose privacy as residents of the Projects' upper floors will command a direct view into the SFR's backyards and homes. 5 The Project has been revised to address potential privacy issues. The building structure has been designed to minimize its mass and balk by removing the fifth floor and reducing the fourth floor from the building wing along K Street. Also, both building wings have been. located along the Third Avenue and K Street sidewalks, as far away as tSossible from the single-family residences. Through this revisions the Project addresses the issue of Seepp. 12 of the PC Report. See pp. 8 ofthePC Report. - 5 3- Attachment 4 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 301 Comment Staff Response Reference 3. New residents will take over street parking. 7. Traffic will increase and create problems at the intersection of Third and K and residential streets. 8. Traffic exiting the parking structure will travel east on K Street throug-h local streets to reach freeways. 9. Project construction wil! create dust and noise. -10. Building will block sunlight and view of sunsets. 11. Parking garage will attract homeless. privacy as required by the UCSP. The Project has been revised to See p. 8 of the PC include all the parking spaces Report. required on-site and inside the structure, and includes 14 more >arking spaces than required. See Attachment 6 . to the PC Report. A Traffic Assessment Letter was prepared by LLG, Inc. to assess the traffic and potential impacts that woutd be generated by implementation of the Project. The Traffic Assessment determined that no significant impacts would occur. The traffic analysis conducted on the Project calculated the amount of additional traffic that would be generated by the Project (a total of 690 daily trips). The study also determined that of the total traffic generated 15% would enter/exist the Project on K Street. That means that approximately 100 trips would come in from or go east on K Street during a 24-hour period. This further means that the street would continue to have an adequate level of service. Project construction is a temporary situation. The proposed Project permits have been conditioned to implement measures during construction to minimize dust and noise levels. A shade study was conducted for the Project. The study determined that the most severe shading during he Winter Solstice would occur during the evening. Shading would be less severe during all other times of the year. The summer solstice exhibit (best case) shows very little shadowing cast onto adjoining properties. The Project'sparking garage has been designed to minimize access to i other than building residents and See Attachment 6 te the PC Report. See pp. 6 and 7 of Addendum to EIR, Attachment 7 of PC Report. See Sheet A5.0 0f the.Project plans in A achment 9 of the PC Report. See Project Plans in Attachment 9 to the PC Report. -542016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 302 Comment Staff Response Reference customers of the commercial suite. The building will have strong management that would have control over who is within the premises. The garage will only have one entry from K Street, and one limited entry through the lobby. -55 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 303 PA E .E -562016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 304 Project Memorandum 2258 First Avenue San Die9o, Californla 92101 T 519.239.9282 F 618.235.0522 K)AT : March 23, 2016 P OJ&CT: 14 118 VTsta del Mar TO: Miguel Tapia, City of Chula Vista FROM: Maxine Ward, Studio E Architedts SU JECT: Project Contributions COP F TO: File MORAN#U!: Miguel, As requested in your email of 03/22/16, brow please Find a table that lists the obligatory and voluntary contributions that this project will make towards the improvement of the Chula Vista community. Obligatory Contributions Voluntary Contributions Plan Check fees Indirect community benefit - Energy efficient building meeting LEED Gold certification Permit fees Direct community behest - Creation of public plaza at Third & K intersection Inspection fees Direct comm unity beneFt Creation of a community landmark bythe inclusion of public arc in the Form of a mural on the north facing buiNing wall Schoolfees'Direct community benefit - Provision of public art in the form of sculpture or Fountain at the public plaza Park acquisition and development Fees Direct community benefit - Provision architecturally screened parking Development impact fees Direct community benefit - Provision of 8 guest parking spaces within the parking stTucture Sewer fees Indirect community benefit - Provision of 7 additional resident parking spaces within the parking structure, beyond the requirement Upgrade to public facilities - new public fire Direct community benefit - Provision of new hydrant street furniture, such as benches, trash cans, bike racks and planters Upgrade to public facilities new sidewa[ks Direct community benefit - Provision of clean, and new wider sidewaik at Third Ave safe, energy efficient modem homes For the Chula Vista workforce - 5 7 - Attachmer t 5 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 305 Upgrade to public facilities - new street trees Direct community benefit - Provision of more potential customers to the small business cammunity located along Third Avenue Upgrade to public facilities- new street lights Direct community benefit- Job creation due to construction, commercial use and property management Upgrade to public facilities - new pedestrian ramp Qirect community benefit - Provision of additional living and lifestyle choices for Chula Vista residents END OF MEMORANDUM -582016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 306 January 2 5, 2 015 Enginee & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Dr. Humid Mani California Retina Associates 835 Third Avenue, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91911 LLG Reference: 3-I5-2558 Dear Dr. Mani: A. INTRODUCTION / PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Vista Del Mar project proposes the construction of a 5-story building located on the northeast comer of Third Avenue and K Street within ±e City of Chula Vista. The mixed-use project proposes 76 condominium units within floor levels 2-5 of the building. Street level floor space wilI contain common areas associated with the residential use (1,770 SF Resident Fitness Center and 2,572 SF Resident Lounge, comprising community kitchen, meeting room(s), management office) and separate commercial space for lease (511 SF). Access to the project site would be provided via one driveway/ramp to an enclosed parking garage situated along K Street. The project will provide 136 resident parking spaces and 8 guest/commercial spaces. Fig ere B depicts the Project's site plan. Linsco t, Law & Oreenspan Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide you wiffl this traffic letter assessment addressing the potential near-term traffic impacts associated with the proposed Vista Del Mar project consisting of 76 condominim:a units and 511 SF of retail space. The project site is located on the northvast corner of Third Avenue and K Street in the City of Chula Vista. FigzereA depicts the project area. All figures are included at the end of this letter. Subject: Vista Del Mar Project - Traffic Lette i Assessment linset tt, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San liege, CA 52111 858.311&880 7 858.300.8810 www.fgengirleers,com Pasadena Co aMesa San Oiego LasVegas Jac£ 1'91. Gie ilspan, PE t'lt} W.tliiam A. L w, PE LPm Pau! R W km s ,, PE J hn P, e t n , PE Cla M. Leek-J eget. _ ,ichard E. 53a -re q pE -5 9- Attachment 52016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 307 Dr. Harold Mani January 25, 2016 Page 2 B. STUDY AREA / EXISTNG CONDITIONS / DATA COLLECTION Study Area The study area was determined based on the Project's trip distribution and the most likely locations to be impacted by the Project. The study at:ea analyzed includes the following locations: INTERSECTIONS 1. Third Avenue / J Street 2. Third Avenue / K Street 3. K Street / Project Driveway 4. K Street / Church Avenue 5. Third Avenue / L Street Existing Conditions Based on the study area, the following are brief descriptions of the existing streets in ..the project area. Figure C depicts the existing conditions-with'}n@e study area, Third Avenue is classified as a four-lane Commercial Boulevard in the City of Chzda Vista General Plan between J Street and L Street. South of L Street, Third Avenue is reclassified as a Class I Collector. Third Avenue is constructed as a four-lane undivided roadway with a Two-Way Left-Turn median (T}/%TL) within the study area. Bus stops are provided intermittently along both sides of the roadway. No bike lanes are provided and curbside parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 35 . mph. a Street is an unclassified roadway in the City of Ch da Vista General Plan. CmTently, J Street is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway. No bus stops or bike lanes are provided. Curbside parking is permitted along both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. K Street is an unclassified roadway in the City of Chzda Vista General Plan. Currently, K Street is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with a TWLTL median. No bus stops or bike lanes are provided. Curbside parking is permitted along both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. L Street is classified as a Class I Coliector in the City of Ch da Vista General Plan. Currently, L Street is constructed as a fourqane undivided roadway within the study area. Bus stops are provided intermittently along both sides of the roadway. No bike lanes are provided and curbside parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. -802016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 308 Dr. Harold Mani January 25, 2016 Page 3 Church Avenue is an unclassified roadway in the City of Chula Vista General Hun: Currently, Church Avenue is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway and serves residential singie-amily homes. No bus stops or bike lanes are provided. Curbside parking is permitted along both sides of the roadway. Data Collection Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM)tuming movement counts at the study intersections were conducted during December (2015) and January (2016) while schools in the area were in session. Fig re D depicts the existing traffic volumes. Attachment A contains the existing traffic ,volumes. ' C. TRIP GENERATION I EXISTING LAND UsEs / DISTRIBUTION & ASNGNI IE T Trip Generation As detailed in Section A, the Project proposes to construct a 5-story building replacing the current existing land uses on-site. Based on the project description, trip generation rates for the Project were obtained from the (Not So) Brief Guide bf'Traffic Generators for the San Diego Region published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in April 2002. The high "sit-down restaurant" was used for the commercial space for lease, to be conservative. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for the Project. As shown in 'Table l, the Project is calculated to generate 690 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with a total of 56 trips during the AM peak hour (14 inbound/42 outbound trips) and 68 trips during the PM. peak hour (47 inbound/21 outbound trips). It should be noted that to be conservative, no credit was applied to the trip generation s mmary to aeeo mt for the existing operational land uses cup'rent@ on-site, which will be renovated -612016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 309 Dr. Harold Mani January 25, 2016 Page 4 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Use Quantity I Condos 76 Units Commercial 511 sf Daily Trip Ends (ADTS)" Rateb Volume 8.0 / DU 608 I60.0/ksf 82 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of In:Out Volume % of In:Out Volume ADT Split ADT SplitIn Out In Out 8% 20:80 10 39 10% 70:30 43 18 8% 50:50 4 3 8% 60:40 4 3 T=: ,.- , FOOtnOtSSJ a. Average Daily Trips Trip Generation Rate ffola fl e SANDAO's Not So BriefGuideofgehicularTraffic Generation Ratesfor the San Diego Region, 2002, Existing Land Uses As detailed in the above section, the ske is currently occupied and open for business and generating traffic to and from the site. Table 2 details the existing land uses on site and the amount of current traffic calculated to be generating. As shown in Table 2, the existing land uses were calculated to currently generate 36t ADT with 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 34 trips daring the PM peak hour. With the replacement of the existing land uses with the proposed project, the overall '°New-Net" trips would be an additional 329 ADT with 38 additional trips during tt e AM peak hour and 34 additional trips during the PM peak hour. -622016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 310 Dr. Humid Mani January 25, 2016 Page 5 TABLE 2 EXISTING LAND USES TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Use Health Club Office Space Quantity 18.0 ksf 1.05 ksf Medical Office 1,4 ksf Daily Trip El ds (ADTS)" Rateb Volume 15.0/ksf 270 20.0/ksf 21 50.0/ksf AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of in:Out Volume % of In:Out Volume ADT Split ADT SplitIn Out ]In Out 4% 60:40 7 4 9% 60:40 14 10 .......................................................... , ,2 ....................................... 14% 90:10 2 I 13% 20:80 1 2 70 6% 80:20 3 I 1 I% 30:70 2 6 a. Average Daily Trips b. Trip Generation Rate from the SANDAG's Not So BHef Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San ©logo Region, 2002. c. V, office SANDAG Heakb Club rate utilized. Distribution & Assignment The Project's distribution was derived by the location of the proposed access point, neighboring shopping locations, and employment opportunities, freeway access, and the local circulation system. Figure E shows the local distribution of the Project trips. Figure F shows the total • . G¢iProject traffic volumes. Figure G shows the Extstu% - Project traffic volumes. D, ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume toads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments. -632016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 311 Dr. Hamid Mani January 25, 2016 Page 6 Signcdized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak horn" conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter t 8 of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCiVf), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 9) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection LOS. Attachment B provides the LOS analysis worksheets. " Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and Levels of Service (LOS) was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 17 of the 2010 High,ray Capacity Manzml (HCIY), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 9) computer softWare. Attachment B provides the LOS analysis worksheets. Generally LOS D or better operations are considered acceptable dm'ing peak periods in the City of Chula Vista. E, ANALYSIS RESULTS This section provides the assessment results of the study area intersections for both existing and existimg + project conditions Level of Service Operations Table 3 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations under Existing conditions in the study area. As shown, the study area intersections are calculated to currently operate acceptably at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Existing+ Project Operations Table 3 summarizes the peak h9ur !ntersection operations with the addition of project traffic. As shown, the study area intersections are calculated to continue to operate acceptably at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. -842016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 312 Dr. Harold Mani January 25, 2016 Page 7 TABLE 3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection 1. Third Avenue / J Street 2. Third Avenue / K Street 3. K Street / Project D'W. 4. K Street / Church Avenue 5. Third Avenne / L Street Control Type Signal Signal TWSCa TWS d Signal AM PM AM PM AM PM Alvf PM AM PM 15.6 21.7 9.i 10.0 9.4 9.8 24.6 34.5 B C B C A • A A A C C 19.8 34.2 Hour Delay a LOS u Delay 19.9 34.6 17.2 22.6 9.7 10.4 9.5 9,8 24.9 34.8 " Peak Existing Existing + Project LOS A B A A C C A Impact Delay Type 0.1 None 0.4 None 0.6 None 0.9 None 0.6 None 0.4 None 0.1 None 0.0 None 0.3 None 0.3 None Foo*otes: a Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle b Level of Service c Increase in delay due to project traffic• d. TWSC - Two Way Stop Controlled. Minor Street left-turn delay and LOS reported General Notes; 1 BOLD = Indicates signi cant imfiact. SIGNALIZED UNSIGN ALIZED DELAY/LOS TrIRESHOLDS DELAYfLOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < tOO A t0A to 20.0 B I0.1to i50 B 201 to 35.0 C 151to 250 C 35.1 to 550 n 25.to 350 D 55.1to 80.0 E 351to 500 E a 801 F _> 5011 F 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 313 Dr. Humid Mani January 25, 2016 Page 8 F. PROJECT ACCESS Project access is proposed via a single two-way unsignatized driveway to K Street, east of Third Avenue and aligned opposite of the existing two-way driveway serving the fronting Bank of America building. This distance measures approximately 160 feet from intersection centerline to intersection centerline. The existing westhound to . southbound turn pocket on K Street at Third Avenue is approximately i00 feet including a 25-foot transition which extends across the existing bank driveway. Curbside parking is prohibited in both direction on K Street from Third Avetme eastward to just east of the hank driveway. The majority" of Project tr o is distributed .............. tg/omf 'ce t This traffic will make a left-turn into the site from K Street, and will be highest during the PM peN< hour (40 peak hour left-turns). There is potential for westbound queuing on K Street at Third Avenue to block access to the driveway, resulting in the possibility that PM Project trips would block eastbound thru-tra 'fic on K Street. Were this to occur, inbound Project trips could instead potentially use eastbound Kearny Street to southbound Church Avenue, which would allow for a westbound right-tttm in to the site from K Street. ensure ordert ingress during the PM eak hour and discour e an otent' through trips to Church Avenu ar" stripin ! at the combined Project Driveway/Ban& of America Driveway. For reference; a slmdar improvement is provided two blocks north of the Project on J Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue. This improvement will ensure that vehicles queuing westbound on K Street at Third Avenue do not block the driveway. -662016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 314 Mr. Hamid Mani January 25, 2016 Page 9 G. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above anaIysis, no capacity-related impacts were calculated due to the project. Capacity-related mitigation measures are not necessary. However, baseci on the site plan review and proposed driveway location, it is recommended that a "Keep Clear" striping detail be provide on K Street at the combined Proj'ect Driveway/Bank of America unsignalized intersection. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Linseett, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Associate Principal Jose Nunez Transportation Planner II CC: Attachments: File Figure A, Project Area Map Figure B, Site Plan Figure C, Existing Conditions Diagram Figure D, Existing Traffic Volumes Fig lre E, Project Trip Distribution Fiyure F, Project Traffic Volumes Fig xre G, Existing + project Traffic Volumes Attachment A, Existing 2015 Traffic Volumes Attachment B, LOS Analysis Worksheets '67=2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 315 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK -682016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 316 FIGURES "692016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 317 J 0 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 318 < I • K Street 2 C3 @ N:25581Figures Dat :12/O8tt5 -71 Figure B Site P an VISTA EL AR2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 319 G J St tk @ K St i \ @ N32558/Figu res/Jan 2016 Date: 01122116 -72 Figure C Existing Conditions Diagram VISTA DEE MAR 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 320 cor,. --253/204 J i k ,--m 00 J St 163/282-- , ,92/92 • ) k .-611o2 78/3 ' t c .s. .... 148/132oo4! k .10/1G K St 188 / 230---* J i k 31o K st 0/0 , @ .o 515/393;T .-'-1731187 LSt u c o 129/138m, Study Intersections 1 J AM / PM IntersectionAM I PM , Peak Hour Volumes @ N:2558/Figu res jan 2016 Date: 01/22t16 @ Figure D Existing Traffic Volumes VISTA ])EL MAR -73 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 321 @ N:2558 Figures/Jan 2{)t6 Date: 01122115 Figure E Project Trip Distribution VISTA DEL MAR -742016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 322 G c ' ,,-1/2 J St 2/7 , 5 t f ® N '19/10 6/3 L ,,-11/5 K st 2/7-- f m c .J k "-2/7 K St 12140j 217 K St 6/3- @ % LSl Study Intersectlons I AM/PM AM / PM Intersection , Peak Hour Volumes J @ N:L2558/Figures/jan 2016 Date: 01/221"f 6 -75= @ Figure F Project Traffic Volumes VISTA DEL MAR2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 323 : : ii !i¸ !ii i : i¸ : i ...... • > 253/204F ,102 a 8t 102/87J 5 I 163/282 m m 872167 o G o 98/95 ! L - 67 / 107 79/124-- 106/86 , - 5cx-2/8 -J i \ ,--10/16 st 12/41J fO¢'41O81230 .... 145/118uoL. ,--3/0 st @ --515/393 ) L F17wlsz LSt 124/97 " t f 301 / 462 o o o @@ "I Study intersections 1 AM / PM - AM / PM Intersecdon Peak Hour Volumes N:/2550/Figu res/jan 2010 Date: 01/22/16 76 @ Figure G Existing + Project Traffic Volumes V[STA DEL MAR2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 324 ATTACHMENT A EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME SHEETS -77 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 325 Vehicular Count Accurate Video Counts Inc info@accuratevideoeounts,com (619) 9874136 Location:JStreet @ 3rdAvenue Southbound Right T -u LeA 7:00 AN'[ I0 63 1 7:15AM 12 76 3 7:30 AM 13 100 4 7:45 AM 8 74 4 8:00 AM 12 96 I2 8:15AM t4 93 i1 8:30 AM 19 t12 11 8:45 AM 32 89 I3 Torn 120 703 :! , Vvfest (mnd " Northbound Rig2at Thru :Left Right Thru Left r IQ: 41 15 :1:1 ,49 '18 : 17 " 2[' 22 77 17 29 63 17 1:7 50 J.2 {3 45 tfi • 29 29 13 t3 94 1I 23 118 16 16 113 1.3 14 I54 21 13 144 [6 5 i05 24 8 I13 16 6 130 2i : :EastbOund Right Thrn Lef TOTAL 17 31 13 319 22 47 8 403 25 35 ]5 435 I5 ': 38 25 469 2[:::: 42 27 492 24 35 443 28 18 15 I 4[6 )5 17, - 431 , i59 148 417 136 98 97[ [38 179 284 155 I 3,408 AM Intersection Peak Hour :TnLe 'section PaT : ".... w : Southbound Right Thru I. eh Volume I 47 363 31 iPHF I 0.84 0,91 0,65 Movement P['[FI 0.92 Westboun{] Northbound Eastbound TOTAL Right Tbru Left Right Tbru Let¾ I Right ][hru l,e[t 85 253 72 48 516 74 85 163 102 1,839 0. J 0.82 0.86 0,75 0.84 0, / ! 0,85 0.85 0.73 0.% 6,g8 0.84 0.82 0.93 Southbound Right Thin Left 4:00 PM 23 158 g 4:15 PM 21 174 21 4:30 PM 25 201 I0 4:45 PM t3 128 21 5:00 PM 43 19I 5:15 PM 40 182 5:30 PM [7 t4g 5:45 PM 25 156 Total 207 I338 Southbound Westbound Northbound Right Tlnn.l Left Right Thru Left Right Thin Left Votume 12[ 702 76 47 204 1.00 59 525 [34 P'bIF 0170 0.g73 0,792 0.734 0.944 0,735 0,509 0.81 0,728 0.784 0.792 0.906 0.90 Movement PHi? , 0.87 0.90 0.76 0,87 0.90 24 21 24 I9 1,]-8 Westbotmd : ,: Northbound Right TI 'u : :Le#c Right Tb2m Left I5 51 134 12 127 27 13 49 27 13 I09 25 9 54 34 5 Ii5 27 i6 44 25 15 I37 31 ll 53 22 29 162 46 1.1: 53 [9 :, 12 111 30 ]0 1'7 22 I09 40 10 : 49 Ig 15 92 21 95 399 i:96 121 962 247 Eastbound Right TIe L Left TOTAL 61 :66, 27 609 43 76:J 604 36 .64 22 602 51 6{): 23: 571 t834 60. 69. 39 89 2,.63t 30:: : 73 2fT ' 557 4 ': 6 539 336. 563 !9ff [ 4,806 =::a .............. Eastbound TOTAL Right Tlu t Left 160 282 87 2497 P O. Box 261425 San Diego CA 92196www.accu ratevideocou nts,com -78=2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 326 Datafotc¢Count#1 SiteCode Lot#1 3rd Avenue&K Street Sta Date 12/8/201S Star l me 7 0 ntervaITi !5 No hLeg 3rdAvenue-Southbound me ke?l key2 key3 ke 4 peds Rights Th us Le s 700 2 20 44 71S 0 37 94 730 0 18 110 745 4 17 lo6 Boo 1 24 7G 815 2 21 104 $3O 1 34 lll 845 1 34 i52 East Leg - K Sreet - Westbound South Le8 - 3rd Avenue - No hhound ke,/5 key6 ke 7 key8 key9 key10 key i keyl2 peds Righ Thrus Le s Peals Rights Thrus Le 6 0 6 21 7 25 6 i42 8 2 S 33 il 7 11 180 1 0 7 27 14 13 8 180 11 3 8 20 17 2 8 198 6 1 2 12 14 4 7 1S6 I2 6 7 11 6 ? 7 145 16 2 8 9 l g 135 13 2 7 17 iS 3 8 112 Wes Leg-KStreet Eas baund keyl3 key14 keyiS keyl6 Peds Rights Thrus L T 2i 4 14 1S 7 36 7 30 18 14 24 2 31 19 24 34 S 24 2 13 7 3 21 17 27 7 2 16 15 13 19 8 12 10 16 18 1 1S 10 11 OataforC Count #2 SitaCode Lot#& 3 dAvenue K Street Sta Dale 12/8/2015 $ta Time I600 Inter aJTi 1S No hLeg-3rdAvenue-southbound time ke 1 key2 ky3 key4 Peds Righ Thrus Le s 1600 2 3S I96 151S 2 38 212 1630 ? $3 212 1645 3 34 239 1?00 1 3S 204 171S 26 186 1730 2 34 164 1745 3 31 156 EastLeg-K Slreet-Wesbound keys key6 key7 key8 Peds R[gh Thru te s 23 3 9 17 3! 0 10 2S 32 4 9 2S 39 S 9 26 24 2 !9 23 ¢ 8 19 7 3 i2 14 South Leg-3rdAvenue-Ne hbound key9 keylQ keVll ke¥12 PedRight Thru Lefts !4 il 16 143 2 6 15 17S 28 19 182 26 12 7 126 25 7 i9 !50 16 0 16 laA. 27 1 17 143 17 2 10 i29 WestLeg-K S[reet-Eastbound key13 keyl4 key15 key16 Peds Rights Thrus Leff 17 9 1 l 15 7 i2 34 17 9 24 37 19 2B 24 8 9 27 22 • L7 31 22 24 14 2S 6 4 19 15 14 13 19 8 13 !S 14 13 -7g2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 327 Vehicular Count Accurate Video Counts ]nc info@aecu ratevideoeounts,com (619) 987.5136 Location:KStreet @ Driveway Southbound Right Ttn'u Left 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 ANt 7:45 A?vt 8 :OO AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM Norrkbom d Right Tbm Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 O i 0 t 0 0 O Total 5 0 1. : :0: ::;=4I i " 1 ( a8 2 0 :2, 0 [ :::07:' 46. :4 0 0 :}1 : 2 0 O :24.: 2 0 0 29 2 0 ::O 21 4 2 0 _43 20 0 0 O 1 0 l () 0 2 1 6 t 1 0 4 0 0 3 0 O 6 1 0 2 :['i: EastI oundl, : Right T'm'u:' Eefg TOTAL ;:0 2[ 0.:: 64 :5 261 ::0 74 /27 70 56 4 ' "4 o' 02 91 5 },o:: 65 5:25 O 68 >7 26 O 61 AM Intersection Peak Hour :7:00 AM- 8:00 Ai'd 4 0 19 33 2l:4 O 540 b L ,e ti,:,e t:{F : i ' :I' Southbound Westbound Right 'I'hru Left Rigbt Tbru Left Volume I 0 2 0 148 rr rrPHF 0.25 44 ,,,:,, 0 50 ,,4,4 0.80 Movement Pt[F 0.75 0.79 Northbound EastbouEd TOTAL Right Thru Left Right I'hru LeR I0 2 0.63 O,SO 0 4 l0 [08 O 285 ##### 0.50 0.50 0.79 ,,#=:ua=# 0.78 6.75 0.78 0.78 Southbound Westbound Northbound Emstbound Right Thru Left Right Tlraqa Left Pdght Tbm Left Right Tim1 : Left TOT;S,_L 4:00 PM :12: 50:0 100 4:lSPM 7 43 i: 1 102 4:30PM 8 ; : :65 O 128 4:45 PM 5 :: 6/ 0 139 5:00 PM I0 62 0 136 5:ISPM 38: , 2 84 5:30PM 9 : 50' O 110 5:45 PM :ll .33 0 92 Total 46 1 I0 24.3 27 16 I 61. 79 :: 40I o 89i PM Intersection Peak Hour : Intersection PHF : :IGg : Southbound I Westbe md Northbound Eastbound Right TtuaL Le Right Tl u Left Right Tbzu Left Right T .t Left t. 6 O 0 24 _} 2 1 4 5 0 0 '4 6 6 4. 0 f 34: 5 : 1 0 9 12 0 4 4 0 9 8 1 3 :6 38 2 3 0 9 2 0 0 :0 '::24. 3 0 0 8 19 6 1 0 28 a 1 (1 9 4 O t b: o.... o 2 : t 0 ro] Lt[llC PHF Movement PH;F 29 £ 8 1 132 1:6 1:2 0 35 40 230 t #,.#-0.972 0.667 0.885 0.250.60 0.25 0,5 0,25 0.868 0.667 0.75 4t-,, 0.59 0.93 090 0,90 TOTAL 505 0.9I 0.91 ,ms'w.accuratevideocounts,com P,O Box 261425 San Diego CA 92196 -802016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 328 Count #t SiteCode Loc #2 8 Church Sreet & K Street / Fountain Apartments Driveway StarCDate ####### Slar T me 7(]0 Intem/aITin L5 North Leg - Church StYeet • Southbound East Le - K Street. Westbound t me key1 ke 2 key3 ke¥¢ kev5 kev6 kev7 Pods Rights Thrus LeftPods Rights Thrus 700 0 715 0 , 730 0 • 745 0 800 0 815 0 830¸ (] 0 845 O 0 key8 Lefts SouthLe-Eount inApts-Northbound WestLas-KStreet Eastbound ky9 Peds i 0 0 0 0 O i $ kevlO Rf6hts keylZ keyi2 Thrus Lefts 0 0 4 0 2 0 o 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 o keyt3 key/4 keyl5 Peds Ri h s Thn/s 2 i 0 1 0 0 i I i 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 keyi6 Le s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coun[ #2 SiteCode L#2-B Church Stre.°t & K 5tr et/Fountain Apartments Drivewa StartDate ####### Start me 1600 IntervaJTin 15 North Leg Church Street - 5o thbound time keyl Peds I600 1615 1630 164S 17o0 171s 1730 174S key2 key3 key4 Rishts Thrus Le s 0 0 0 0 O i O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 East Leg- K Street Westbound keyS key6 key7 key8 Peds Rights Thrus Lefts SouthLe6-Founta]nApts-Nohbound WestLe8 Kgtreet-Eastbound 0 key9 peds Q 0 0 1 l 0 0 0 keylO Rights kayll key12 key13 Thrus te s Peds 2 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 2 0 0 ! 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 keyl4 key15 kayl6 Rishts Ttlrus Lefts O 2 I 0 0 0 3 0 -812016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 329 - - .2..,Vehicular Count Accurate Video Counts ]nc info@accu ratevideocounts.com (619) 987-5136 Location: LStreet @ 3rd Avenue Southbound West bd uild .... Northbound :::: astbourld : : : Right wbJ.u m.4,{ rM;ii f¢ Right Th,' mght totAL 11 60 14 4557:00 '#-M I3 36 9 25 8 I 33,: 19 131 20 o8,7 27 I64 2,4 1). 57 • ,18 5607:I5AM 18 82 I5 [3:: :; 85 • , I44 :38 .... [207,.0 AM t9 1O0 17 : 29 22 32 687 7:45AM 17 98 7 i 3} :167 -: 57 37 [67 27 52: 79,) 46 787 c 26 : 6198:00.V* 12 94 17 . 86 ) ' 40 140 [9 15 78 : :23• ,=8:ISAM 13 6,!- I6 "44 112 36: 21 117 19 14 174: : 29 559 8:30AM 15 tO2 23 ' 28 :102 ' 28 27 107 13 18 ' ;:i 2i 559 8:45 AM [4 77 20 5"] 78 35, 14 116 18 16 35 , 44 544 ..... 5 [72Total 12[ o -t24 265 891 a0. J.93 t.062 188 7565 23t I 4,770 ............ :.... :-:'I Intersectioo PHF : [=0 84AM In[erseetion Peak Hour : 7 1..B .,M -8..,, .... Southbound Westbotmd [ No12hbound Eastbound T©TAL Right Thin Lef Right Tbru Left I Right Thru [,e:(t Right ]Thru LeR Volume 66 ,) 4 56 t 11 5 [5 I ,'.112 59[ I02 129 301 PHE 0.87 0,9.4- 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.88 0,80 0.62 0.86 0.67 0.84 Movemen* PY[F " 0.91 0.78 0,87 0.78 0.84 Southbound : Westb6und Northbound I Right TMu Left Right Tt=u Left ht Tkru Left 4:00 PM #:t5 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 26 164 39 168 30 179 29 [57 28 180 32 I75 [7 [76 5:45 PM 24 I75 44 98 58 49 27 12g 1. 51 : 26 87 : 52 58 35:: :: 88 46 : 50 ::24 101 36 39 1O0:5&: 48 31 95 :2: 39 20 9 :56 53 142 [8 4 3% H 49 14I 14 37 45 z2 49 137 2I 33 i18 8 28 126 18 47 I27 14 To;al 225 1374 378 224 : 782 379 PV Intersection Peak Hour: :a:;6 P:i 'i60 4 337 1.070 126 , ,gm tbound .... TOTA . 2t 8t3 23 02 778 3 , 1114 :: 25 802 :'):i2 806 806 :35::.:: [ 1:3:, 35: 772 32 : 2l 738 ";885:= 898 [97: i 6,275 Intersection PHF : 098, Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound FOTAL Right Tl qz Left Right Thin Left Right Th a Left Right TMu Left I " " t [38 3 "Votume [24 668 202 i23 393 [87 180 36z 65 462 95 _ 1..:) PHF 0.79 0.933 0.871 0.879 0,8t9 0.806 0849 0.969 0.739 0.86.0.875 g.95 0.98 Movement PHF 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.98 w,tw,accu ratevideocou his.corn -82 P.O. Box 261425 San Diego CA 92196 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 330 ATTACHMENT B LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS -832016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 331 HCM 201 0 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex- AM 1 : Third Ave & J Streeet 1/25/2016 _one Confic ira[Ions i # I # 4,t T # Trafficgo ume veh/h) ..... "02'. 72 25.3 ........... 85 74, 516 =uture Volume vg[([} 102 163 85 72 253 ]5 7£ 516 48 31 863 £7 Initial (@ yen ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ed-BikeAdj(A_p'oT ......... i:.00 1.00 1.00 • {:(90. 1.06::::. " 1.00 " 30 .1,00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ad]::SatFlo v ven/n/B ' :: :1863 I863 • 1900 1863 I863 i90( " ]63 Adj Flow Rate venm ...... 2 78 275 92 80 t',dj No. f)i Lanes ' - " Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 }.92 0.92 Percen'Heavj %h :% ............. 2 ............ 2 - 2 2 ....... 2 ...... 2 2 CaB venm 145 364 189 100 387 29 102 a ive On Green ........ 0.08 032 ).32 0.06 0.29 :0,29 0.06 Sat Flow venm .I 77zi 1156 601 d77z[ 1337 £4.7 t77d 1.00 1.00 1.00 .0( 1.00 I863 1900 : • 1863 1863 1900 561 52 34 395 512 ] 0.92 0.92 }.92 3.92 0.92 ....... 2 : 2 :2 2:-.2 976 9( 53 ]52 109 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.27 0.27 ]276 303 ,177£ 3156 405 Gro Vo umetv-/, van/e .... C 269 78 0 387 86 3rn Sat Flow(s/ Jan/n/in 77 0 1757 ,177zl 0 !784 77/J 3 Serve g s). s 3.8 0.0 6.6 2.3 0.0 9.8 2.4 3ycle Q Clean ]c), s 3.3 0.0 6.6 2.3 0.0 9.8 2.4 t.0( 3.34 1 00 0.25 1.00Prop n Lane ...........................Lane Gre Caefc venm 145 ] 553 100 0 517 102 302 311 34 220 22b 1770 1809 d77 1770 1791 -- 7710 5,5 5.6 .... .... 1.0 5.5 5.6 0.f7:1,00 0.23 527 539 53 478 483 VC Ra,ofX) 0J7 0.00 0.49 • 0.T8 ZOO 0.71 0.78 }.57 9 58. 0.65 0.46 0.47 Avail Caplc a/, /emn 40' 0 1059 301 } 974 30 900 20 200 800 810 IdCM Platoon Ratie 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.0( 1..00 !£0 1,q0 1.00 -d! i.. ! 00 1.00 1,0d :58ir&#iiie , ..................... i:bd 6.56 ........... i:o6 3-.oi ....... 6.6d .... i:dd _b5 1:66 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo .oo unifon .Detay(o slven 23.9 o.o 14.7: 24.7 :: 0.0 16 9 24.7 15 8 }5}8 75.5 16.2 16.2 InerDela, d2 s/yen 8.2 ].0 0.7 2.5 0.0 1.8 12.2 1.0 1.0 12.4 0.7 0.7 [nitialQDeay(d3 slyen ..... O.0 ).0 0,C 00 .00 00 00 " 0C] .i0.() 0.0 : 0.( 0,0 %ile BackOfQ 50%/,/ennn 1.9 }.0 3,2 1.5 0.0 5.1 1.5 3.8 3.9 0.7 2.8 2.9 32.1. ].0 15.4 ]7.3 0.0. 18.7 36 16.8 lo.8 • 79 t6.9 16.8LnGre Delayta ,s/van ............... . " 3LnGre LOS C B D B D B 3 3 B B Auo oach Vol, ve-- 380 . .... 445 693 , ::. 480 Aeoroach Delay, szven 20.3 22.0 19.1 18.4 Appr6achl OS: " : C . C . ..... 3 , B Assigned Phs ..... I .2 3 5 6 7 8 .... Phs Duration G+Y+Rc' s 5.6 19.8 7.0 20.7 " 18.3 8.3 19.4 hangepgnod(Y Rc) s 4.0 4.0 :: 4.0 4.0. 4.( ......... 410 ::.'i4-.0-. .{ " " Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 27.( 9.0 32.0 9.( 24.0 19.0 29.0 ......... MaxQC]earTime g c+l! s. 3:.0 9,7 . 4.3 8.6 4.4 :L6:.:::}5.3 :. 1:1.8 ................. " Green Ext Time (pc), s 0.0 6.1 (}.1 4.0 0.1 5.9 0.1 3.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.8 N:\2558\Synchro\Ex AM.syn Synchro 7- Report Page 1 -842016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 332 HCM 201 0 SignaIized Intersection Summary Ex- AM 2: Third Ave & K Street 1/25/2016 Lane Configurations t.. ÷'''f't., TrafficS/alum6 (v h/l ) 78 77 : 106:: 6 Future Volume ven/n 78 -- 10 56 92 22 101 71zt 34 36 386 96 Number ............. :-. 4 ....... 14. :.: 3 .Ia 12 ....... 'I d ' 16 ............... : tnl[Jal Q Ob] yen } ) ( 0 0 0 ) } 0 0 0 0 Pbd:B]keAdj(A_DbT' 100 .: 0.98:1 ]0 •0.99 1.00 ).96 1.00 0.99 ........ Parking Bus. Adj 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.0( X 1.00 1863.19dc 863 862 1§6b i863 I863 i900:1863 1863 1900 .... " Ad FIowRate /enm 85 84 115 61 100 24 110 776 37 39 420 104 AdjNb. of Lanes " (] 1 " :1: i :1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0•92 0.92 ).92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 3.92 ).92 ).92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy ven %:: 2. 2 2 2 2 2 ..... 2 ...... 2 2 " 2 2: : 2 ........ :: ............ : CaD lenin 107 ,a 197 85 279 67 40 1202 57 6' 860 211 ArriveOr Greer 0.06 ].21:0.21 0.05 0.i9 0.19 &08:0135 ).35 : 0.03. 0.31 0.31 SatFlov, ven/r 177 . 702 962 1774 1450 348 177 3432 164 177z[ 2814 690 :GrDVo/ume/v),venm 85 0. lgg 61 0 12 110 400 413 : 39:263 261 ....... [ .....GreSatFIow, s eh/h/ln1774 0 166/- 177,d 0 1797 177 . 1770 1826 177 t 1770 1734 = : 2.1 0,0 4.8 1.8 O.0 2,8 2.7 8,4 8,4 1.0 0.3 5.4QS6rve(gs *: • " " .... " ............. Cycle Q Clear[g_c). s 2.1 0,0 4.8 1.5 ).O 2.6 2.7 8.4 8.4 1.0 5.3 5.4 roE n Lane 00 . 0.58 I )0 0.19• 1.00 .09 1.00 ( 40 I_aneGrpCaD(ci. vehih 107 0 341 85 " 0 346 140 620 640 61 54i 530 .................. WCRati &80 0.OO 0 58°0.72 0.0O 0.36 :()78 Z65 0.65 0.6 049 0,49 : . Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 20:1 ........ 0 603 201 0 52 24:1 762 786- :16! 682 668 .............. HCMRaloon'Ralio 1•00 1 0O 'I:00 .1.00 ".00." !.901 1.(0 [1:60 1.00:: ;i:0 ! !.00 ";t'.'00 ............ _3stream Filter 1•00 Z00 1.0[ 1.00 0.OO 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 .0( 1.00 100 Unifoh'n D&la' to) dveh20.5 0.0 158 20.7 Q.0 15.4" 20:0' ;12.0 12.() 210:12_5 "2.5 InciDelayld2] s ver 2.6 0.O 1.10:9 10 )6 9.2 1.3 1.8 0.5 0.7 .7 Inif aiQDalhy(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 .13.{.: 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .... %ile BackOfQtS0% e /Ir .,0.0 2.3 1.0 ).0 .4 " 4.2 02 2.7 2.6• : ...... .......... 13.4 13.3 31.6 13.2• 13•2LnGrp Delay(d s/v.h .33 0 O.0 17.4 . 31.6 ).O 6.1 29.1 LnGru LOS C B C B C B B C B B AuDroacn vc van 284 t85 923 ADE -each Delay s/yen 22.1 21.2 15.2 A0uroach Los . ....... CI " ; B " 663 - ...... 14.5 AssgnedPhs ...... I.. 2 .:3 4 5 6 7 . 8 . :..,: :. :: :, Phs Duratio G+Y+Rc/.s5.5 19.5 6.1 13.1 7.8 17,5 6.7 12.5 a?geP riodY-Rc.s410: 4.0:[ 4:0 -40 40 4O[::z E "- 4-0 ' Nax Green Setting (Gmax ,.& 19,0 5.0 16.0 6.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 MaxC. Clea Time(g_c÷ 1 , :10:4 3.5 6.8 4.7 7.4 '4.1[ '4..6 ..................................................... .... " Green Ext Time (p c), s 0.0 5.( 0.0 1.3 ).O 5.3 0.0 a dCM 2010 Ctr[ Dela 16.6 HCM 2010 LOS' : " : B .... " " N:\2858\S}nchro\ExAM.syr Synchro 7- Reco Page 2 -852016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 333 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex- AM 3: K Street & Proj Dwy 1/25/2016 nt Delay s/yen 0.5 :Traffic Vo[, venm Future Vo venm O 108 10 10 148 O 0 2 onfl,ctJng Pegs ]n ..... 0 8 0. 0 0 Sign Centre Free Free Free ree Free Free Stoo Stoo 3too Slot DT Channelized .... - - b gr{e ..... Note .- - None .... Storaqe l:engih Grade % - ] Peat Hour Fac[6r - : g2 • .: 92 ::. 92: 92' Hea'< Vehicles. % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow " g: 117 .11 0 Sto: Stoo - None 0 - ...... d " O O 0 9Z 92 )2 92 ,::. 92 .... 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 0 O 2 ] ] : I ::: .... i] - '[::]giin]6r <W::,:::?-'.U MthG2' ;:, Conflicting Flow A 161 0 0 128 ] ] 306 306 123 307 311 51- - - " 123 123 I83 183 Stage 2 183 183 124 128 ][itbal Hdw, 7.12 6.52 6.22 3rltical Hd /Stg " 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 }4i[icalHawy Stg2 ......... , : ................ _ ......... _- :7 . 6.12 6.52 " : - 6,12 5,52 Foliow-uoHawy Z218 : ........ 2.218 - 3.518 4,018 3.318 3,51 4.018 ],31 Pot 3ap:l laneu er 1418 - 1458 - - 346 608 928 645 604 884 Stage 1 ..... 881 794 - 819 748 Stage:2 ...... • " i . - : _ z ..... " 8:i9 ::748 i 880 79(" : Platoon blocked % - - ............................... 1 ,-8 .......... : ................ 1458: :- ": .... 6 ,1 60f 928 ..... 40 699 884,Viav CaD4 Maneuver Mov Cat-2 Maneuver _ _ 641 603 - 640 599 S age _. . .: ..... :. ::: - . 881 94 ...... :7 ..... 819 742 878 7903tage2 _ _ . .7 ....... - - 811 742 - .................. .... " ..... : : -, O 0,5 1Q,1 9.1HCM Cor trol:Deja,/ s ....................HCM LOS B ,a ih r LgngTMaioi:M m[ <',,:<.NBLh.1:: 5 EBt2 "-EBt :'EBFt, 'LVBL .WBI-- WJBRSBLn <22 i?:a:5;"::::2-'-:":]"" .,\'i Capac 'veh/h) }7:15 141 - - 1458 88,4 : 0.009 ),007 0.001HCM Lane V C Ratio - HCM C mtrol Delay {s HC V Lane LOS B - - A - A C[v195[h %iile QiveP ........ O :-": 0: - 0 ":: ...... 0 ........ N:\2558\Synchro/Ex AM,syn Synchro 7- Report Page 3 -862016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 334 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex-AM 4: Private Dwy/Church Ave & K Street 112512016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Traffic Ve venm 125 ] 3 143 a Future Vol ven/n 125 0 3 143 a Conflicting Peds. #/k, 8 0 - 1 Sign Control ---ree Free Free Free Free Free RTChanneiized - None . . - - None. Storage Lengm Meh ih MediafijStoiage. - : .... - .......3rade % O - 0 - ] ibea]Hour Fac{or : .- 92 §2 92 2 92- §2 mea Vehicles. % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 iv1 /&t Flow " 8 136 O 3 .:155 i : 22 0 3 .1 20 ] - 3 : 1 : 0 5 20 ] 3 0 5 3 0 6 0 O 5 Stoo Stoo SLeD Stoo Stoo Staa - -None - - None 0 2 2 O 5 3onflicting FlowA 165 0 ] 142 0 0 329 ]28 143 328 326 167 Stage 1 " - - : - 157 157 - I69 69 .... Stage2 ..... 172 '- 159 157 CdticalHdwy 4.12 j-_ " : .... 4.12 J i " 7,12 &52 .6.22 7.12 6,52 6.22 3riticai H wy Sty " - .... 6.12 5,52 6.12 5.52 3ritica[ Hdwy S g 2 L " :. : - - .... Z " 6.12 5.52 : 6.12 : 5152 ..... Follow-uar awy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.013 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Petbao, lManeuver 141 - " - . zL 't .... 32zF:5§i :§05 .... 626 . 592' 877 Stage 845 768 833 Z59 Platoon blocked. % Mov CAD-2 Maneuver Stage 2 611: 581:906 :! 616 582 611 581 616 582 836 760 825 :754 820 Z52 834 760 870 HCM LOS S A HCM Lane MID Ratio HCM Lane LOS 0.039 0.005 0.008 N;/2558\Synchro\Ex AM.syn Synchro 7- Repo Page 4 -87 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 335 I- CM 201 0 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex - AM 5: T :-d Ave & L Stree 1/25/2016 ovemen[. ;-°'' ::?!b ?TE"I 6 !%EBR :WBL->WB:E._WBR...-NB .: NBT.-NBR, SBL_ -..SBT- SBR Lane Conf ]urauons i 't "t'"4,I . ' -,'-a c:Vo rneivet hi: : ........... :t23 ; 301 :: 129 :: :73::[: 51:5.i:::°;i'11 ' "102:::: 59i ...... i;i2 .......... 56- 374 _ :66 Future Volume venm) 123 30" 129 173 515 102 591 112 56 37 4 66 Number .... 7 . ,l . ",l ........ 3 ...... 8 .... 18 .......-. - 2 ;12 " 6 16 O 0 ) 0 0 0 0 1,00 1.00. ':: "00:: :1.00 ....... )0 1.00 1.0( 1 0o 1.00 1.00 1.00 D0 960 1863 ]1863 1900 -863 : 1863 1900 121 331 642 122 61 407 72 6 2 0 : 3 2 :-0 nitial Q '@b " yen ....... 0 0 0 0 0 eNBike Adj(A pbTi :: : :::i:1.00 ......... 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus. Adj .0( 1.00 1.OO 1.OO 1.00 #,dj Sat Flow ,eh/h/tn ] ::18631 :863 ]::: 1900 'i863 1863 Adj Flow Rate venm 134 327 140 188 560 P, oj. 3. of Lanes ..... .................... 2 . .............. 0 1 2 Pea mc Jr Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 ).92 0.92 0.92 ).92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 3.92 PercentHeavvVeh °........... 2 ...... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2- 2 " 2' -. :2 Cae, venm 173 628 264 237 852 184 -990 188 [8 891 157 ArriveOn Green ............. 0.i0-" 0.26 0126 0:t3 9129 0,29 0.08 0.3:: ).33. 0.04 ].30 0.30 Sat Flow ;emn d77z[ 2431 1021 177z[ 2898 624 d77zt 2969 563 t77 t 3011 529 3ro Vo 2me v ,yearn 134 236 " 231: 188 341 340 111 382 382 61 238 24 3re Sat Flow(s/,/en/nnn 177z[ 177( 1683 t77 1770 1753 477zi 177( 1763 t77zt 1770 1769 © ser e£g s .............. 5:1 ...... 79 8.2 ........ -; !2.7 12.2" 2.4 7.6 " 3ycle Q Clear(gc), s 5.1 79 8.2 " 11 7 -{1.7 4.2 12.7 12,7 2.4 7.6 - PrOD In Lane 1 O0 0.61 1,0O 0.36 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.30 _ane GFe CaD(c ',,'shin 173 457 434 237 52( 515 .zt 590 588 78 524 524 V/C Ratio(X) 0 77 : 0:52 0.53 0.79 0.68 0.66 0.77 : 0.65 0.65 0.7_8 0.45 0.46 Avail Cap/c_a},-ien}r{ ....... 4"i0 ..... 665 632 538 793 85 333 " 972 968 231 870 869 HCM P atoon Rat o 1 0Q : 1.00 1.00 1.b0 I:.00 "[10O 1.00 : 1 @O 1.00 t:00 1,00 1.00 .............................. Leo ion) .{J [o0 1.oo i.oo .... {.o .... i.oo 4.0(} 1.o( 1:douestream Filten Un form Delay [aj s yen 30.5 22.0 22_1 29:1 21.4 21 B1.2 19.8 19 6 32 8 19.8 198 crOelay d2 ;¥en i. ..... 7.2 " i19 1.0 6.0 - 8.4 1.2 1.2 15.7 0.8 0.6 nta QDeay(d3 s/ven - O00.O 0O 0,O - ).0 : :O0 ........... O.0 0.0 :':O.0: 0( O.O 0.0 .... .. .... = ....%ile BackOfQ 50%). fen;it 2.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 5.9 5.9 2.4 6.4 8.3 1.5 3.8 3.8 LnGrp De ay[e) s ven 37.7 22.c 23.1 35,0 222 22,8 39.6 20 8 20,8 " 48.4 . 20.5 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C D C Approacn vo , vehlh ....... - 601 869 825 : , 540 ADoroacn Delay, s/yen 26.3 25.4 23.2 23.6 Aooroacn LOS C S: C. . C ..... Ass )ned Phe - 2 3 ,i 5 .6 8 : • PhsDuraon G+Y+Rc s 70 271 " 132 219 96 24.5 10.7 24.3 (:hage Peried(Y :s 140 i 4.0 4.0 . ,.0 4.b:: 4.4.0 ............... " Max Green Setting 3max/, s 9.0 38.0 21.0 26.9 13.0 34.0 16.0 31.0 Max Q CiearTime g_c+ 1), s :4,3, dz).7 9.1 ..... i0.2 " 6.2-= 9.7. 7:1 {.7 ..... Green Ext Time p cJ, s 0.0 8.3 0,4 6.3 0.1 8.5 0.2 6.6 ..... :--, .......... , .................... ,.-.-. ............ -- "--. ............... :-:":':' :-, ,., -, -':"[:i:-:::t :8:1:'::, :tersectionSumma ,- ...:,-.-,-..; : --_ 4 • 4 -- : 2/ ; =. -:::, HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay HCM 2010 LOS • " 24,6 . :C N:\2558/Synchro/Ex ANl.syn Synchro 7- ReooR Page 5 -882016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 336 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex- PM 1 : Third Ave & J Streeet 1/25/2016 Lane Configurations "$"÷ ÷ Future Volume (veh/h) 87 282 160 100 204 47 134 525 59 76 702 121 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Cap, veh/h 123 361 205 139 488 112 18I 1078 121 106 887 153 SatF]ow, veh/h 1774 1118 633 1774 1466 337 1774 3210 359 1774 3018 522 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1751 1774 0 1803 1774 1770 1799 1774 1770 1771 Cycle Q C!ear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 20.3 4.8 0.0 9.4 6.4 11.3 11.4 3.8 18.9 18.9 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 123 0 566 139 0 600 181 594 604 106 520 520 Avail Cap(ca), veh/h 289 0 709 202 0 662 202 805 615 135 537 538 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 /ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 8.0 11.7 O,0 0.5 19.4 0;8 :0.8 19.9 13.0 13.0 %ile 8ackOfQ(80%),veMn 2.4 0.0 11.0 2.8 0.0 4.8 4.1 8.8 5.8 2.4 11.1 11.1 LnG iE ia id !'i h .i LI .460 22 :i :20: : 27"Iz: ::!:31 .4 : :3§LnGrp LOS D C D C D C C E D D Approach Delay, s/veh 35.1 28.7 28.0 40.8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 80.5 10.2 29.8 12.0 27.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 27.0 9.0 32.0 9.0 24.0 Green Ext Time (pc), s 0.0 7.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.3 9.5 30.3 12.0 29,0 0.1 4.5 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.2 N:/2558/Synchro\E,'< PM.syn Synchro 7- RepoG .Page 1 89 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 337 I-CM 201 0 Signalized intersection Summary Ex - PM 2: Thira Ave & K Street 1/25/2016 Lane Conf ]urauons "F '"i *'b, I ff'T =rafficVolume(veh/h) .[ 53 : 1"86!: 1]2::92:36 . 633 " 33: ::86 z i60 : " : - " ': .... Future volume ven/n).. 53 "'86 102 92 36 69 633 69 !33 ]67 160 ............ Numbe .. ..... :7" 1: .: 14 ::8 8 : 5. i .... 2 "12 6 16 nitia[ Q(Qb yen 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 ] Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT/.: "i]00 ...... -0:[§f:: 1.Q[J i:: 0.99 l:b0:-)C 0.97 1.00 :- 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Aa] ]atFIow. vehn n: :I863 i863 1900 1863 1863 1900 :i863 ]§bO ::'i 63 :1863 1900 ........ :: ..... : ....... Ad Flow Rate enm 58 127 93 """ 10C ]9 75 688 65 ......... 145 942 7 ...................... " .... ; ) 1. ,AdjNo. of Lanes "2 . 0 1 2 0 =eak mour =actor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Z92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 5ercentHeavyVeh °Zo 2 ..... 2 ..... 2 ...... 2 :F2 2 2 2 : 2 CaD venm 73 129 143 278 108 9[ 1324 125 185 1362 251 Arrive On Green 0.04 SatFIow ,enm .77 987 723 t77£ 1274 497 177 3259 308 t77 . 298 550 Gru votumelv .enm 58 0 2:20 11'[ 0 . 139 75 37 380 145 55g 557 . " _ Gr[ 3atFIo,,v{s).,eh/h/In1774 0 1710 177L1 6 1770 t77£ 1770 1797 177 . 177( 1762 QServegs),s 2.3 0.( 8.4 4-.3 ().0 4.6 2.9 11.1 5.6 17.5 17. Cycle Q Clear g_c], s 2.,! 0.0 8.4 4.3 }.0 4.6 2.9 "" " 11.1 5.6 17.5 175 U oo In Lane .O{ ............... ().4:2 '!.0C .............. 0:28 ((J 0."1.00 )3" . ......... Lane Gro CaD{c /earn 73 ( 306 143 0 386 96 719 730 i85 808 805 0.79 0.00 0.72 0 78 0 ]0 0.36 0.78 0.52 0.52 9.Z'8 3.6§: .......... 0.69V/C Ratio(X ...................................Avail Caofca/, ven/r 178 0 a17 254 0 508 178 812 825 382 1015 1011 HqM.la!p q:,atio 1.00 !,0g :!:.00::. "I.00' !_.]0.. "i:00 ..!.oP !:00 :°0. "9o 1,oo. 1.,0o ......... Jestream Filter" 1.00 ZOO 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.OO 1.00 UniforrnDelay e s/veh331 O0 279 314 : 00 23t 32e 156 15 304 150 15_0 " Incr Delay (d2), s/vet 16.8 0.0 3.8 8.7 0i 0.12.7 0.6 0.6 7.0 1.5 1.5 nit]aIQDel ./d31.s/veh. 0 O.O 0.0 :O.0' 0.0 0i 0.0 3.0 (3:0. 0.9 0.0 ..... %ileBackOfQ 50% venllr1.4 0.O 413 2.4 O.0 2: 1 8 5.5 5.( 3..1 8.7 8.7 LnGr;? i ?ay{e,.s/veh 49.9 (3.0._.30.Z. 4-0.2. 0:El: 23.7! 45.2 . 6:1 76'.!'. 37:5: 16.5 16:5 .... LnGr[ LOS D C D C [ B B E B B Approacr va . ven/r ....... 278 250 828 1261 Aauroach Dela, s/yen 34.7 31.0 18.8 8.9 Aenroach LOS C C B . B . AssignedPhs 1. 2 ...... 3 : 4. _ 5 5 7 " j 8 Phs Duration G+Y+Rc #1.3 32.3 9.6 16.5 7.8 35.8 6.9 192 Change #eded (Y4 Rc} s 4 d 410 :. 4.O '4 0 4 0 z[ 0 4 0 4.0 x;- ................ " Max Green Setting Gma,$..& 32I 10i 7.[ 7.0 40.0 7.0 29.0 4axQ le rIiime (g_c+ll,s-'13.1 : 6,: 1 ., 4.9 :i§:::' t.3 6.6 .... Green Ext Time (p c), s 0.2 11.7 0.1 1.1 0.0 12.3 0.0 1.8 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.7 N:\2558\Synchro/Ex PM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 -902016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 338 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex- PM 3: K Street & Proj Dwy ' 1/25/2018 Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Tra c Vo venm 230 40 I6 132 1 57:0 22 4 0 12 Future Vo /enm 230 40 16 132 57 0 22 ,0 12 Cen'f[qtfngPeds #/'n Q.U O 0 0 ) O 0 8 Sign Contr( Free =ree Free Free Free Free Stop 3!op Stop Steo 3too 3too RTChannetized - None - None - - None - -.Non Storage Leng:n ehlir} M dian.S!():age # 3 - . - 0 - .:- : 0 ..... J 3rade % - 0 - 0 0 - 0 PeakHou[SFa6tor 92 92 g2 92: : 92 )2 92 92 92 92 92: 92 Meav'7 Vehicles. % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 250 43 I7 . ;48 " " 62 0 2 . a 0:13 ;onfiictir ] FlowA 145 0 O 293 0 0 459 453 272 465 475 4a Stage1 "i : . _ L ...... 274 274 : .... 179 .179 Stage 2 - - 185 179 286 296 ]ritical Hd l 4,12 - - 4.12 8,22 3dticalHdwy Stg" - .... 6.12 5.52 - 6,12 5.52 3riflca[Hd /Stg2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 T Follow-uDmowy 2.218 .... 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Coo-1 Maneuver : 1487 -- - .... I269 - - 512 '5(3 787 : ..... :(}8 488: i03 Stage 732 683 823 751......................... ..... [ ..Stage 2 ...... 817 751 721 668 Platoon blocked. °/{ Mo 'CaoL1ManetJver 1437 1269 498 495 76. 486 480 903 Mov Cao 2 Maneuve ...... 498 495 486 480 Stage1 " : : i - ; 73I 682 - 822 740 Stage 2 793 740 698 667 HCM Control De ay, s ........ .0 ........... 0_8 ......... 12.7 ........... 0HCM LOS B B Cat ac!!y (v?h/i} ...... " 552 1437 .... 1269 7 4 HCMLaneV/CRatio ).156 0.001 - 0.014 - ).023 -HCMContro Deay(s) : 12.7 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS 3 a . a B HCM 95tb %tileQveh " :-(.5:0 _ . . L (} . - 3.1: ..... " " N:\2558\S mchro\Ex PM.syn St qchro 7- Reoor[ Page 3 -91 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 339 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex- PM 4: Private Dwy/Church Ave & K Street 1/25/2016 qt Delay s/yen 2.7 Mdvemett : !b --,: :,,:m EB[Z -EBfl: EBR< - ',NB 'WB ,BR: :..:. /NBI:,,..,NBT-.NBR .-.r::.SBb SB:T_..,.S8 .q::a cVoLvenm 16 229. O " 0 8 .57. 0 22 . 4 : -0 :12 FutureVo /en/n 16 229 0 0 "" 8 57 0 22 0 12 o 6 6 ....... 0 0 ;5 Sign Controi Free Free Free Free :roe Free 3too Ston Stoo Stop Stoo 3too R:T@annelized " • " - - None - - None -:' " - None-. - .... None Storage Lengm eh iri MedianStorage,- Grade 0 Peak Hour Eactor 92 92 : : 92 eav; eniGes, % 2 2 2 Mvrnt F]ow ....... 17: 249 • { O O 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0:: 12! 9 . 62 O : 24 2 2 O 13 ....... " ": -': .... Mirror2 ...... Ma]o r/Mi Or ............ Y-i Yorl :.- ;:;': - ': la or2 .... ;. ' :-.t: v horl ....... -.7:: ]L:}!' !" ...... :- ! Conflicting FIowAI 134 ] 0 255 ( ( 427 424 256 432 420 134 Stage - - - ............... - - - ........ 290 290 " -: 30 130 3tage 2 - - - 137 134 ......... 02 29! .... C,iiical H;flwy 4.12 - - 4.12 -: : : : 7.12 6.52 6.22 L12 6 52 6.22 Criticai o',vy Stg(1 • .......... : : - .... 6.12 5.52 .......... &12 5.52 ......... Critical Hdwy Stg 2 .... - - - 6.1.2 5 52 6,12 5.52 Follow-ueHdwy 2.218 ............ .... 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.5"18 4.018 3.318 PotCapq Maneuver : 1451 ::13:10 - :. 538. 522 783[: 534 525 915 Stage1 - 718 672 - 874 789 ....................... { ..... 1: ........ } : .......................... -07 672 Stage 2 - - 866 785 Platoon olocKed, o/{ Mov CAD-1 Maneuver 1446 Mov Csa-2 Maneuver - - - 520 510 - 510 513 _ ..... L - " 704:' :' 858 786 Stage 2 - - 851 782 675 659 HCMC)ntrol Delay 0.5 0 12.4............... .. - .......................... ................. 9:8 .HCM LOS B . .......... :. : ................. ...................... " : : ..... :: . .: : :CapaFit7 veii/ii) - .: .... 573 1446 4CM Lane V/C Ratio 0.15 0,012 1309 b,HCM _ane LOS B HGM 95th %t le Q(veh . 0.51 :-: , - :769 ,. :: • , " ............... - 0.022 b, D, N:t2558\Synchro\Ex PIM.syn Syr/chro 7- Report Page 4 -922016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 340 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex - PM 5: Third Ave & L Street 1/25/2016 Lane Configurations ÷# ÷ , i ÷# "t Future Volume (veh/h) 95 462 138 187 393 123 65 562 180 202 668 124 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 502 150 203 427 134 71 811 196 220 726 135 Peak HourFactor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Cap, veh/h 131 642 191 240 798 248 92 812 260 258 1196 222 SatFIow, veh/h 1774 2691 800 1774 2660 827 1774 2638 845 1774 2981 554 GrpVolumeY vehfl :: ..... :103 : 329 323 : 203 283 27-8 ' 71 410 397 " 220' ' 43 430 Grp Sat F[ow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1722 1774 1770 1717 1774 1770 1714 1774 1770 1765 :Se /eigLs ::i.:: ,: 3 16[d:::i63 , 103 "123 125: : :37:: 193 "i§3 1{2 i78 :i7: Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 5.3 18.1 16.3 10.3 12.3 12.5 3.7 "1913 19.3 11.2 17.8 17.8 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 131 422 411 240 531 515 92 544 527 258 Avail Cap(ca), veh/h 249 478 465 345 574 557 192 612 593 364 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incr Delay (d2), s/yah g.7 7.2 7.7 12.3 0.8 0.9 12.g 4.6 4.8 12.8 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/[n 2.9 8.7 8.6 5.9 6.1 61 2.1 10.1 9.9 6.4 LnGrp LOS D D D D C C E C C D 710 708 784 782 1.00 1.00 1.1 1.1 8.8 8.8 C C Approach Delay, s/yah 42.0 34.1 35.4 28.8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 32.5 16.5 28.1 8.8 41.1 10.9 31.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 32.0 18.0 25.0 10,0 41.0 13.0 30.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 7.1 0.3 3.8 0.0 11.3 0.1 6.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Dday 34.5 N:/2558\Synchro\Ex PM.syn Synchro 7- Repo Page 5 -932016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 341 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Third Ave & J Streee Ex+Project - AM 1/25/2016 ce entln.e '. : -2:-; .,-: -EBb b:ic EBT .- EBR -WBL t ;:WBT:, 'WBR- ._ NBL >, NBT.:, NBR,-:_'SBL SBT-,,-:SBR _ane Conf gura l£ns ............. ._ B "7 1# ÷# "t"b "raflTeVelurne venh).: . I02 163 87 73 " 9_53 ....... 85- " 80[[ i: :527 50 -31 :366 Future Volume ve- 102 163 87 73 253 85 80 527 50 31 366 7 ......... 7) ................. ...................... .........Number 7, . 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 . 12 • 1 6 16 nm Q iQb/ ,ien ( ) 0 O ( O 0 0 O 0 O 0 Ped-aikeAdj(A pbT) ...... 4.0b ......... "{.O0 i:60 ....... 1.oo l:db ..... 1.o0 --1,oo " o Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1 .OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .OO 1.06 :J]g tFIow.vei /h/In 1863 1863:1900 1863 'i{63 1900 :1863 71863 l§dEJ ::' :1863:'18d i[90( Adj Flow Rate venm ...... 95 79 275 92 87 573 54 34 398 5 a:;:JjNoo{l anes 1 : O 2: O: 1 2 : 0 Peak Hour Factor 3.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ).92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ].92 PercentrleavyVei /............... 2 2 .... 2 " :2i 2 ...... 2 ......... 2 ..... 2 : 2 2 2 Cae ven/n 145 358 192 01 386 129 112 )85 93 53 846 08 Ardve On Gieen 0.08 0,3I 031 0.06 0,29 0.29 3.06 6.30 0.30 0,03 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow /en/n t77 . 1142 61: t77a 1337 aa7 t77 . 3270 308 177zt 3159 402 Grp Volume v, venm -1 .... 0 272 7-9 0 387 87 .... 310- 317 ........ 34 2.22:22/ ;ra Sat Flow(s} venmnn t77a 0 1755 177a 0 1784 t772 1770 808 t77£ 770 1792 Q Serve g s { s. {.3 0.O 6.7 2.4, {5.0 " 9.9 2.6 7.9 8.( 1.0 5.6 5.7 3ycle Q Clear/g_c), ,< ........... 3,3 O.0 6.7 2.4 0.0 9.9 2.6 79 8.0 1,0 5.6 5.7 Pro2 irlLane ..... ":OC " ............................ :..:: 0.35 1.00 L25 ................ 100 0.17 10( 0.22Lane GrD Cae(c /enm 145 ( 550 101 O 516 112 533 545 53 a7a 480 V/CRatio X 0.77 0.00 0.49 0:78 O.00 0.71 0Z8 O.Sg 0.58 0168 0,4,7 0.4 Avail CaD c_a/, ven/r 397 0 1048 298 O 965 298 892 911 199 793 803 oostrearn Filter 1.00 ).OO 1 .OO 1.00 0.OC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ncr Delay (d2), srven 8.2 O.O ]7 12.3 O.0 11.0 1.( 1.0 .... 12.5 ).7 0.7 nitialQDelayd3 s/yah " 0,( [}0 ()0 00 00 O0 00 00 00 )] 0.0 0.0 %lie BackOfQ 50% vennn 1.9 O.0 3.4 1.5 O.O 5.1 1.6 4.0 a }.7 2.8 2.c LnG Delay(d) s/veh : :32.3 " 0.0 156 373 C ) 18.9 35.7 !6:9. 16.9:: 383 1Z.1 -17.2 LnGr¢ LOS C B E B 3 B B D B B Aooroacn va . verier ]83 • 44,8 71a " a183 Auuroach Dela, srveF 20.5 ¢2.1 19.2 18.6 ApRrs.ach LOS O B B ..... #, =q=[' :7£Wm U # 2g* :4" ':[:Tg >,'r*a'g'rK'' g--*" ;' "G':-,-;g.g[ 7'a g 7 L'? " -- [ _S* , ;>-- • : "2 =..-e C1". 1}{'.': .a%,, , Ohs Duration S+Y+Rc/. s 5.6 20.1 7.0 20.8 7 a 18.3 84 19.5 ChangePe ec i?-c s - 4.0 ...... 4:6 4,d ..... 4.a,:b::: ,:.... g b 4_o : Max Green Setting Grnax) s 6.0 27.0 9.0 32.0 9.0 24.0 !2.0 29.0 Max QClear T]rne 9_c+11), : 3.O " 10.0:4.4 8.7 " L4: 6: .... 7".7 5,3 1{.§ :: Green Ext Time p_c), s ).O 6.2 0.1 4.0 0.1 6.( 0.1 3.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Dela HCM 2010 LOS 19.9 . .:: : ........... ................. N:\2558\Synchro\Ex+Proj AM syn Synchro 7- Report Page 1 -942016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 342 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex+Project -AM 2: Third Ave & K Street 1/25/2016 Lane Conf ]urauons '÷'"I # Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 79,-106::67 -98 - 1 ]':i:101 714:" 38 42:386: 'ii ................. Future Volume wenm 78 79 106 67 98 " 101 7ta 38 42 86 96 :Nt mbe : " ::: 12 6 16 :":::[ ; " :j::: nitial ¢ Qb vee 0 0 ) } 0 [ 0 O 0 0 } )Ped-SikeAclj(ALpbt) 1.00 :--098 1(0 ...... 099 100 " 0.96, 1.00 0199 Parking Bus, Aa; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjSat¢l ,veb:Yh}ln::: :1863 :1863 .lg00 1863 1863 "[900- i863 4.863 1900 i863 : i863 1@6 ............. : AdjFbNRate venm 85 86 115 73 I07 45 110 776 zL1 46 420 104 /qljN&bfLanes I , 1:. 0 l 1: 0 2 0 2 0 ................. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 3.92 }.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 ).92 Percen[ mea 6/Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CaD venm 107 148 197 94 248 104 140 1181 62 69 86" 211 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.21. 0.2I 0.05 ],20 0.20 0.08 0.35 0,35 0.04 0.3" 0.31 SatF[ow zenm 1774 713 )53 177zt 1242 523 t77z 3412 180 1774 2814 690 GrRyolume(v /eh/h 85 O 20" 73. ::0 152 !10 402 " 415 -4 . £63 26! .... GraSatFIowts veh/h/In1774 0 1886 1774 ( 765 774 1770 1823 1774 1770 1734 ..... Q Se[ve(g_s) s 2.1 0.0... 4-.9 !.8 O.0 3.4 2.7 8.7 8.7 1.2 5.5 5]( Cycle Q Clear g_c), s 2.1 0.0 49 1.8 O.C 3.4 2.7 8.7 8.7 1.2 5.5 5.6 I tpp :ane: ......... 1:00 O.57 1.00 0.30 .100 0:10 1.00 - :: 040 .....................Lane GrD CaD Cl ven/r 107 0 }45 94 0 353 140 613 531 69 54 531 V/C Ratio,,j 080 0.00 0.58 0.177 0:0 .E :4.3 0.78 0.66 0.0.67 0 ¢9' 0.49 AvailCap{c_a /en/n 197 ) 591 197 0 626 236 746 768 57 667 654 " HgMplatdqhRat? 100 _00_ 100 I0 1.0C 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00' 1.00. : : upstream Filten 1.00 o.oo 1.o( 1.o( o.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo i.ddi:dd{.bo ............. Ur ifomlDday[aj sTveh20.g:: 0 ' 16.1 21." 0.£ 16.8 20.4 12.5 125 21,4 12.8 !2.8 Incr Delay(d2), slven 12.5 0.0 1.6 12.8 0.O 0.8 .2 .5 1.5 10.6 0.7 0.7 %ile BackOfQ(50% veh/lr .4 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 4.5 0.8 2.7 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 334 0 0 33.7 0.0 16 o 29 5 14.0 14.0 32.0 3.4 13.5 ........... LnGrc LOS C B C B C B B C B B Approach voJ. vanm 286 228 . 927 57( ,ueroach Dela. s/ven 22.4 22.2 15.8 15.0 ,Da oach LOS ........ C C ...... B L: ....... " AssJgnedPhs. ........ 2 ,3 4 5 '6 :Z .8 Shs Dura[or G+Y+Rc . s5,8 19.6 8.4 3,3 1.6 17.8 6.7 13.0 Cha g l ed0d(%l c) s 4d :40:14.0 4.( ¢.0-:'4-b 4:0.-:i:i::b .......................... Max Green Se ting(Gmax ,.e 19,0 5.0 16.0 6.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 Ma:x Q Claa ime (g_d+!l 10 7: 3.8 6 9 4.7 7.6 4,1.- : 514 .... " : ...... Green Ext Time tp_c/, s 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.5 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.2 N:/2558\Synchro/Ex+Proj AM,syn Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 -952016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 343 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex+Projec - AM 3: K Street & Proj Dwy 1/25/2016 nt Delay /ven 2 " . /i::.: ...&:: : ::. Tl:aflic VoL veh/h 12 t08 : 10 0 : 148 2 a 0 • 2 8 0 3f :utureVoE veh/h 12 08 10 10 148 2 ,O 2 8 0 37 Cor}flicfJngPeds fl:/hr 0': ]:: ) 0 0 0 " ) : 0 :Ci Sign Centre Free Free Free Free Free Free StOD Step Stop Stou Stoo Stoo RT Chab.fielize .... -: -::::N6ne - - None -. - None - - Nori Storage Lengm .... veh in Median Storage, # :-::-0 - " : ( Grad % 0 0- 0- 0 Peak Hour :actor . 92 92 : 92 92. 92. 92 92 92 92 92 .92.- 92 Heav Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlew I3 .I17 11 ol. C 2 9 • 0 40 163 0 0 128 0 } 162 3ritical How - }ritica[ Hd w Stg - 3ritJcal Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up mawy 2.218 2.218 Pot CaD:I 4aneuver I416 - 1,5 Stage 1 Stage 2 ...... latoon OlocKeo % ...... .............. : ........ ............................. 14.16 1458Mov Ca['-Maneuver - - Mov Cao-2 Maneuver 353 334 123 334 338 184 184 204 185 150 154 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 [ .... 6.12 5.52 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.51t .018 3,318 602 586 928 620 583 883 854 77 818 7 7 )8 747 853 77O 3rage 2 567 578 9£8 610 573 883 567 575 - 610 573 845 766 810 .7 756 7A1 842 762 . ..NB., ........ ........ -, ....... HCMCon(ro Dea) s 07 . - 0.5 10.6 9 HCM LOS B a .... ............ :::,:._::.::.:::i. :/_._.,:: .:-...: ::_ :.. " :: .:: ...... :- .............. Capacity tven/n - 65" 141:6 .... :-58. .... 31.8 HCM Lane V/C Ratio }.01 0.009 - }.007 - 0.06 4CM Cenb:ol Delay ts 1{3.6 7.6 0 : 7.5- ].7 qCM Lane LOS B a a - qCM gsth %tile C en } } 0 - ...... N:\2558/Synchro/Ex+Proj AM.syn Synchro 7 - Repo£ Page 3 -962016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 344 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex+Project -AM 4: Private Dwy/Church Ave & K Street 112512016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Traffic. yq eh/h 7 131 { 3 145 < 20 O 3 ..... I O 5FutureVo veh/h 131 0 3 145 20 O 3 } 5 Confli&ting beds /h, } e.::0 " 4 .......... O 0 1 O :: 6 O 0 5 Sign Controi Free Free Free :tee Free Free Stoe Stoo Step Stop Stop Stoo RT 3bannelized - -i None - - None " - : - None: - lone Storage Lenglr - _ _ ...... yen nMe !ian S[orage .... g J ...... : - 0: : ' J: : 0 " Grade % ( 0 0 O Peak Heur Factoi- 92 92 )2 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 neav Vehides, °A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 M /mt Fiow 8 I42 0 3 158 4 22 0 3 0 5 Conflicting FlowAI 187 0 0 148 } 0 338 337 149 336 335 169 Stage" .............. :" - - ":-::i - J • 164 i64 -17;"i71 Stage 2 - _ _ t7,i 173 - 166 164 CriticaINd - 4:12[ - ...... - 4.12 - " - 7.'i2:76.5 " 6.22 ...... 712 6:52 6.22 CriticalHdwyStg 1 - - - 6.12 8.52 6.12 5.52 {;rifJ ai Hdwy Sig 2 " Z . . . : ..... 6.12 5.5,s •6.12 5.52 Follow-@r owy 2.218 - - 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 ].31] oiCaD-1 Maneuver . - ............... - - I43Z[- - - • _ 616 58 898 618 585 876 Stage 1 - - - 838 762 831 757 .Slaoe 2 ....................................... : ............................. 828 Z56 837 762 Platoon blocked % MovCa[):" Maneu /er I406 433 " :::7 .-:. 608 574:: 893 - 609 575 868 Mov CAD-2 Maneuver - - 603 574 609 575 : L 829::%4- " 823 752 Stage2 - 818 751 828 Z54 HCM Control De ay s }.4 0 1 11 ].5 HCM LOS B z C@acity veh/h 630 1406 1433 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.005 - 0.00 HC ] Contrbl De,ay/sj .... 11 '/,]0 .... 7.5 HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95t h'%tilb Q{ve,:0.1--" O 0 15 - 0.008 ....... : §.5 b, O :: " N:\2558XSynchro\Ex+Proj AM.syn Synchro 7- RepoR Page 4 -972016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 345 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex+Project -AM 5: Third Ave & L Street 1/25/2016 Lane Configurations I ÷'b I 't'# ¢"P I ÷# Tra c%k me(.velTih) ............ ,2 "' :'3 ;::.:]:.i2§:: I73• :/5:15 :: :]1:J31 ,2 !7. 5§2 ........ 'i42 " 61 378.-66 Future Volume /en/n 124 30" 129 173 515 113 102 592 112 61 878 68 Num[;e : :..:7: '::!:4 : :l¢ • " 3! ...... 8 18 5 " 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q rQbl yen ( 0 0 O ) 0 0 ) ) 0 0 0 %d-Bike ,Jj A plaT: ..... ".0( .......... 1'.@: 1.0(] 1.00 1.00 1_00 00 1:00 %rking Bus, Adj .0( 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 A IjSatFbW /eh)h/Ir' 1863 8d3 1900 1863 ."1863 : 1900 I863,: 1863 1900 1:863 1863 1900 .Ad Flow Rate venm 135 27 140 188 560 123 - 643 122 66 -7#. ...................... 1 ................ 2 0 I.. ° ....... 0 .....AdjNo. efLanes z 0. 1 2. 2,..:(1 Peak Hour Racier ].92 0.92 0.92 ).92 0.92 0.92 ].92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 }.92 Percen Heavy X)ehT % ......... ............. 2; 2 ....... 2 ........ :: ::1:': -2 ............ 2 CaD venm 7,627 283 236 847 185 '988 187 85 898 160 Arive On Gieen ............... 0:1() (:26 :0.13 0.29 0_2g ] 08 • 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.30 0.30 Sat Fio,/en/n ,77#. 2431 1021 t77#. 2886 832 t77 t 2970 563 1774 3001 536 @:py 9!ume vj{yeo/n ....... 135 ::. 236 . 23" 188- ........... 34:2 341 " Ill 383 !382..: 66 ..... 2,¢.!. 244 Gre Sa( Flow(s/,/eh/h/ln ,i77#. 770 1681 774 1770 1751 77#. 1770 763 177#. 1770 1768 Q Serve'g s), s 5.2 8:0 8.3 7:? !1.9 12.0 4.3 12 9 12.9 2.( 7.9 Cycle Q Clear[g_c , s 5.2 8.0 8.3 7.2 11.9 2.0 4.3 1'2.9 - 12.9 ....... 2.( - 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 }.61 • 1.00 }.36 1,00 0.32 1.00 0.30 Lane Gro Cae,s vel /h ...... 7 .... 45:7 ........ 434 .... .36 ........... 5i9" 513 i#:z( ..... 589 ....... 587 ......... 85 529 829 V/C Ratio(X ............. 0.78 0.52 ........................ 0.53 0.80 0.6( 6.66 0,77 0.65 065 0.78 046 0.46Avail CaD c a], ven/r 405 657 625 532 783 775 329 960 957 228 859 859 HCM P atoon Raf]o 1.00 ]0 ' 00 1 00 1 0O" 1 00 1 00 1 30 : 1.05 :: " 00 1.00 1.00 Jos{ieam Filter 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 Jniforr9De!ay(d)/sdeh 'i" 3d.8. 22.2: 22.3: 29.4 ncr Delay (d2), s/van 7.2 0.9 1.0 6.0 s .5 8.4 1.2 1.2 14.3 0.6 0.6 nitialQDe]ay(d3 s/veh 00 00 0Q 00 00 00 0.( "-00 -09 ( } 0.0 .0.0 ile BackOfQ 50% venan 2.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 6.0 6.0 2.4 6.5 6.5 1.6 }.8 3.9 _nGrp Delay{d s/yen 38/ 23:2 23 3 • 354 23 1 23 2 40 0 21 21.1 47.3 20.5 20.6 _nGr: LOS D C 3 E C 3 E C C D C C Approach vek ven r - 602 871 876 .. ;-: . 551 ,oDroach Deia, s/yen 26.6 25.8 23.5 23.7 ADuroach LOS , " - • : C Timer'Z : _.,-- :b.:---.tz . #:: AsslgnedPhs 1 : 2 3 • 4 . 5 6: 7 8 : C'Ss Dura[ion IG*Y+Rc/. s 7.3 27.3 13.3 22.1 " t.7 24.9 10.9 24.5 Max Green Settin9 Gmax/. s 9.0 38.0 21.0 26.0 13.0 34( 16.0 31.0 MaxQCtearTirne g_c÷]l)',s : 4.6 7.2 1 ,.6 ::" : Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 8.4 0.4 6.3 0.1 8.5 0.2 6.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.9 N:\2558\Synchro\Ex+Proj AMsyn Syechro 7- Report Page 5 -982016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 346 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex+Project - PM 1 : Third Ave & J Streeet 1/25/2016 Lane Configurations I 1 't'I "t"F initial Q (Qb), veh 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d :SaiF)o:'i eliJhiln: 1863 :1:863 1900:863 71863 :;:i900. ::863 :[i 0Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 307 182 111 222 51 149 577 65 63 776 132 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Cap, veh/h 122 342 203 141 472 108 184 1135 128 107 939 60 SatFIow, veh/h 1774 1097 651 1774 1468 337 1774 3208 361 1774 3027 515 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 O 1748 1774 9 1803 1774 1770 1799 1774 1770 1772 QS W g s i:s: :: ::! : 0 0: : 21.§:: 5;0:: :0i0 ::9.9 6.7 1116" ::11"i16" 3:8 "19 5 195 4.3 6[0 241e ...... 5.0 5.9 ....... 9.9 il.6 .li[6 .......... {915 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 122 0 544 141 0 580 184 826 637 107 549 550 Avail Cap(ca), veh/h 217 0 597 173 9 580 238 826 837 195 583 584 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.90 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.OO Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 0.0 15.6 17.7 0.O 0.6 14.5 0.7 0.7 11.3 9.1 9,1 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 0.0 13.0 • 3.2 O.0 5.0 4.1 5.8 5.9 2.2 10.8 10.9 LnGrp LOS D D D C D C C D D D Approach'Dday, s/veh 43.4 32.0 27,0 36.5 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 33.0 10.5 29.5 12.5 29.4 9.8 30,4 Max Green Se[tin9 (.Gmax), s 9.0 29.0 8.0 28.9 11.0 27.0 10.0 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.6 9.0 1.8 0,1 3.9 0.1 4.1 HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 34.8 N:/2558/Synchro/Ex+Proj PM.syn Synchro 7 Repo Page -99= 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 347 7CM 2010 Signalized qtersection Summary Ex+Projec[ - PM 2: Third ,ve & K Stree[ 1/25/2016 jn m nt:::::-7:,:![;',,: E-BL ::9 EBTA¢!.EBR..::'WBL :i WB1: a WBR;NBL ': NBT': NBE''SBL :a SBT SSR' : -<.,:,:= : ,:'e-.: :, Lane Configura{ions ?# ",I .% "{i ?ra c%lume(v@th : 53 .i2-4:] 46::- 69i: 633 72 154 86i 160 .................... , Future Volume Fen 53 124 86 107 95 46 69 633 .72 54 67 .!(( ................................. Numbe :: '[" 7 41 14 34. 8 18 5 [ 2 " :12 6 : 1:6 nitial QfQo /en Ped-BiEeAdj(AIpbTParking Bus Adj 1.00 .00 00 10( 100 1.00 100 100 1.00 ),00 1.00 1.00 Ad Flow Rate veh/h 58 35 93 116 103 5( 75 888 78 167 942 7 L ,d)Np :Lanes I ::. t " 0 t : 1 O 2:::: 0: ::-:2 " -::::[ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 3.92 ).92 0.92 ).92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 ........... 15ercentHeav} Veh % ......... 2 .......... 2: 2 2 2 2 2 ........ 2 2 2 " 2 CaD /en/n 7,184 127 149 265 129 96 1248 s .- 21( 1354 250 ........ AiriveOn 3reen 0.84 0.18 -0.68 b/22 0:2{ 0.05 339 039! 0.'i2':0 45 0.45 SatFIow enm ,177 1016 700 t77 . 1182 574 177 . 3192 362 177 t 2981 550 GreVoume(v),xenm 58 0 228 116 -0 153 75 881 385 167 559 557 GrBSatF]owsLveE -GTa 0 1715 d77 0 1756 q77 . 1770 1784 t77 . 177( 1762 QServe(gs),s 2.3 00 89 45 00 52 .3 0 :11.8 11.9 6.5 17:8 7.9 ............... C) me QCleal g c/, s 2.3 0.0 8.9 4.5 0.0 5.2 .0 11,8 11 9 8.5 17.8 17.9 PrOD in Lane .: ;.. :1 00 0.41 1.00 0.33 1,00 0:20 00 }.31 .......... LaneGr CaGc /en/n Y4 ( 312 149 0 393 96 690 696 21() '804 800 VICRatio{X : 0.79 ZOO 0.73: 0,78_ '0.0 0.39 8,78 O.55 0.85 A80 0,70 070 Ava Cap/ca[venm '-75 1412 25"[ .... 0 :).96 175-800 807 376 1000 96 HCMPatoon-Rato 4100 1.00 00 100 t00 100 100 1 )0 10( 100 100 100 3streamFilter 100 000 100 100 ZOO 1.00 ,0( 1.01 1.00 100 100 1.00 L qifgrmDelayte s/vei 338 00:1273[313 0:0 23.3 33.0 16.8 16.8 30.415.4 15.4 Incr Delay(d2 s/yen 16.8 0.0 4.6 8.5 O.0 0.6 12.7 0.7 0.7 6.7 6 1.6 IeitiaiQDelayd8 dveh Q.0:.: O,0 ).0 0.0 0,0 00 00 00 06 01 0:0 0.0 : ....... %lie BackOfQ 50%/ven/nl.5 ).0 4.6 2.6 " 0.0 2,6 1.8 5,8 5.9 3,8 9.0 9.0 LnGroDeayd s/yen 50.40,0 819 40,3 00 24.0 457 17.5 t75 37.1 -70 17.0 LnGro LOS D D C D B B D B B ,9,pproacn vo ,ve-'- 286 269 ..... ' 841 t283 • : . Aueroacn Dela s/yen 35,( 31.0 20.0 196 Au6 oacl L@S : 9 3 .... B B Ass.ned Phs i 2 ! 3 - - 5 -6 8 _ 3hs Duration G+Y+Rc/,&2.4 31.6 9.9 16.9 7.8 36." 8.9 49.9 .............................4d : MaxGreen Setting Gma1<,.32.0 10,0 17.0 7.0 40.0 7.0 20.( ....... MaxQ;SiearTime(g ctl'&.13.9 65:::1:d9 50 t§:9 ::4.3 7.2 Green Ext Time s q,s ),2 11.5 0.1 .2 0.0 12.3 0,0 1.9 HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 22.6 ....... HCM 2010 LOS ::: :: : :: :: L: , N:\2558\Syechro\Ex+Proj PM,syn Synchre 7- Report Page 2 -1002016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 348 HCM 2010 TWSC Ex+Projec - PM 3: K Street & Proi Dwy 1/25/2016 [nt Dela, s/yen 3 Movemen :. ,s: - .-'.--.-= EBLa -EB'E-= :EBR: :-;- - WBL;f-:WBT WBR ' ': :" -- -NBE - NBT BR - :--"SEE?B I SBR TraflicVo' veh/h ,230 46 16 32 8 35- O 12 -:,7 Future Vo ven/n ,230 40 16 132 8 35 () 12 a.7 Conflicting Peds.#/hl @ O O " " O 0 { 0 3" 0 0 0 O Sign Centre Free =tee Free Free Free Free Stud Stud S or) Stop Slop Stop RTChanrieli2ed: " " - " z.N0ne ] - None . - lone %he T Storage Lengm ....... ,/eh in Median Storage,# 3 : - .:0 L : :- - 0 .... - 0 3rade % 0 0 O 0 PeaE Hour.Factor -92 92: 92 92 92 92 92 92 : 92 32 92 92 meav ehicles. % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 I 51: :: ..... M nor" - .... Minor2Na or/M nor " . .... -Ma orl:---.: -. 'Ma }2::" Conflicting FlowAl 152 0 O 293 0 ( 570 548 272 55( 566 148 Stage 1 . :.- ' :- 361 361 - 183 168 Stage 2 - - 209 187 367 383 Critical Hd ,# 4.12 - - 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Cri6caIHdwyStgl ..... 612 552 6.12 5.52 Cr,{icalHdwyStg2 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 :ollow-upnawy 2.218 2.218 - 3.518 4.018 ].318 3.518 4.018 ].318 Dot Caj -Maneuver . 1:429 - - 1269 :- - 432 444 767 46 434 899 Stage 1 657 626 819 748 Siage 2 793 745 - 653 612 latoon blocked. % - MovCaDL1 laneuver I42§ ......... L 1269 390 421 ¢67 421 411 899 Mov CAD-2 Maneuver 390 421 421 z Stage 2 736 734 618 589 T CM.Co0 :?![)e!ay s .............. ....... _.: .::.:, ..1.8 ........ .: .............. ..:1 : ......... .... 0:4 .qCM LOS B B Capacity (veh/h). ),46 1429 - . 1269 .- - 730 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 9.115 0.631- - ).014 - - 0.088 qCM:CdntrolDelay{s .l 76 -O: :" . 79 O : 104 " " HCM Lane LOS B a a B ° 0.1 - HCM 95th i[e Q(veht 0.4 O N:/2558\Synchro\Ex+Proj PM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 -1012016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 349 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Private Dwy/Church Ave & K Street Ex+Project - PM 1/25/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Traffic t'ol,veh/!- =- 16...232 0 .0. 118 : 8 57. O .: Future vol venm 16 232 0 0 118 8 57 ) 22 :Confliq{!ng Peds t f O % 6 Sign ContrG Free Free Free :ree Free :ree gtoo 1oo Stoo aT Charlne]ized ........ : .. _ /None- J " : • - { %he " . ::'Nofie Btorage Lengm - - Veh [n Med an Siorage, . :::0 : : O - , Grade % O - O - - O eakHdur Factor 92 92 : 82 92 -: 92 • 92 )2 92 92 "leav Vehicles. o/< 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFbw 17 252 O 6:- i28 9 62 0 24 0 12 O :C Sto S{oc S oo - None 0 O 92 " 92 )2 2 2 2 4 ...... O 13 - -. ................ .,, : ::_.:-,.:. ,' 'L:" " :m::r:-:z,:' : " :"- ' <': ...... :1:::'1" :R: :"::, }]]2 i'::: ':::< ::: Major/Minor -"- *" Na]or't-..-' ..,..:,.-x , .,= -Ma or2 ..... -- Minor1 .... Conflicting :IowA 142 0 0 258 } } 437 435 259 ¢43 431 42 Stage:[. .............................. ....... " " - - 293 293 138 138 Stage 2 _ _ _ 142 305 293 Cr[cWHdwy 4.12 - - -12 6,52 6,22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical HdwyStg .... 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Cri{ica!HdwyStg2 ..... " - ]:: ............ - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.1:2-,52 : Follow-uo nawy 2,218 Pot CaoH Maneuver t," Stage 1 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4018 3.318• - 2.218 - . .............L " :1307 : : ": 530 514 780 1.525 517 906 715 670 865 782 859 779 - 705 670 Slatoon blocked. %ov 0ao:l Maneu let ....... 51:2 50;5 7:75 ...... 5dI"" '505 : 899 Mov Cao-2 Maneuver 512 502 501 505-]" 65t 849, 779 Stage 2 - 844 776 .6./.3 6hi. _ #%lUdbH : qCM ControlOela <- 0.5 : " . O - .... 1:2.5 . 9.8 qC[V Los ........ B a Minor Laee/Maio Myra{ :<:. NBEn.IESEBD:;bEB:L.EB&£:WBb.\B .BR SBLsi <;:s- ' ".:',o, #/ - ' Capacity(veh/h] i. " 565 1436 : - : 1306 760 : " .: HCM _ane V C Ratio 0.152 0.012 - }.022 ....... 4CM.Contro Oea} s 12.5 - 5 O 0 - 9.8 .... HCM lane LOS 8 ,_ a .... :lCM95{h%tileQtveh/ ....... 0.5 0. - .:- O : • = - 0.1 : : ........ N:\2558\Synchro\Ex+Proj PM.syn Syncf ro 7 - Report Page 4 -1022016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 350 HCM 2010 Signalized ntersectior Summary Ex+Prolec[ - PM 5: Third Ave & L Street 1/252018 Movemen£:::- :-:,: : ::-:--- Lt,::- EBT j:-EBR.-:WBE -:WBT:!:'WBR :.NBb- <NBT;::-:NBR';:SBL ._-SBT !.!-:SBB Lane C?[tt!gu[aEon ............. {/* f TrafflcVolume(veh/h} )7 462 138:- I87 Future Vobme enm )7 462 138 187 Nt mber nitial Q Qb/. ven PedLBike Ad (.:pbT Parking Bus, Adj Ad] Sat Flow. venm/in Adj Flow Rate venm Ad) NO. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy yen, % CaD ven/n Arrive On Green Sat F]o en/n 393 128 .65 5-67 f80 'i#5 393 128 65 567 180 204 670 12. 8:I8 5 :2 12 .... I : i m C ) ) 0 0 O ) 0 0 0 0 ( 10C 1.00 ".00. .... I:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .OO I 0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.O0 1.00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.0( .00 1863 1863 I900 1863 " 1863 1900 1863 1863 190C 1863 "]863 1900 105 502 150 203 427 139 "616 196 222 728 13 1: 2 0 2 O 1 ::2 O : 1 :2 ::'( 0.92 Z92 0.92 0.92 0.92 3.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 " 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 " 2:2 2 i 134 641 191 240 78 253 92 814 259 260 1199 224 008 0.24 0 24 014 0.30 0.30 0.06 : 031 0,31: 0.15 ' 0.40 0.4(' 177& 2691 800 t77z[ 2633 849 177Lt 2644 840 77 2978 556 Grp Velume /enm 105 329 ]23 203 286. 280 412 400 222 432 432 GrD Sat Flow(s] venmnn 177& 1770 1722 t77z[ 1770 1713 q77Lt 1770 17tzi 778 1770 1765 Q Serve(g_s] s 5.4 I6.2 16.3 10.4 "2.5 12.8 3.7 19.5 19.6 11.3 7.9 ;80 C , sle Q Clear g c ,s 5.4 16.2 16.3 10.4 12.5 12.8 37 19.5 19.6 11.3 17.9 18.( Prod nLane ...... - .O( 0.46 1.00 }.50 .1.00 0.49 t.00 0.32 Lane GrD CaB cL veh/P 134 422 410 240 628 511 92 545 528 260 712 710 //C Ratio . : : " 0.79 . &78 0Z9 0:.85:0.54 ....... !.55 6:7.6 . .9:7 6 0.85:0.6 ....... 0,67Avail Cap(c_a) ven/n 248 476 463 344 572 553 191 610 591 363 781 779 -ICM Platoo .Ral o 1.00 !:0.0_ 1..00 1.00 1.0C I.()0- 1.0O 1.00 1.OO: 1..00 .00 1.00 u tream Flter 0( 100 1.00 1 00 1.0( 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 O( l.O( .Unifon:nDelay.(d) s/veh .42:2 33:1 "332 392 27.3": 27 ¢ 435. 290 290 387:2"[8 21.9 ncrDelay(d2 /ven 9.7 73 7.9 12.5 0.9 1.0 12.9 4.8 - 5.0 13.3 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%) ven n 3.0 8.7 86 5.9 62 6.1 2.1 10.2 10.0 6.5 9.( 9.( :LnG[R peiay(d sir#! _ 51.9 40.4 41_O: 51.7 2 -28.356.4 33.8 34.1 5! 9: 237 23:1 LnGr[ _OS E D D D C C E 3 C 3 C C Anoroacn '70 ven/n . 757 . .... 89 883 1086 /Auoroach Deia s/yen 42.3 344 35.8 29.( Aunroacll LOS ...... : .: ": D :. :, C .... U .... .::_ C ::: T :::!:. ! : ::i. :i: ;':-:.. 3 :.:f , 5. :.6.:.:Z . .. ,:,. ..... , : : _<, AssignedPhs. 2 3 4 5 :, 8 Z .:8. . Phs Duration rG+Y+Rc s 17.6 32.6 18.6 26.1 8.8 ,11.0 31.7 MaxGreen Se 6n9 (Gmax), s 19.0 32.0 18.0 25.0 10.( 41.0 13,0 30.9 ]reen Ext Time p c/, s 0.3 7.0 ).3 3.8 0.( 11.3 0.1 6.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay. 34.8 HCM2Ol0 LOS : .... " N:\2858\Synchro\Ex+Proj PMsyn Synchro 7- Report Page 5 -1032016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 351 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK -1042016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 352 ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEIR 06-01 (Urban Core Specific Plan) PROJECT NAME:Vista del Mar Project PROJECT LOCATION: 795 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA PROJECT APPLICANT: Niki Properties, LLC (Dr. Humid Mani) CASE NO:EtR-06-01/DR15-0015/PCS t5-0006 DATE: June 7, 2016 L BACKGROUND The purpose of this Addendum is to discuss a proposed 3 to 5-story, mixed residential/commercial use building with 71 multi-family units, and one 616 square-foot corrmlercial suite (Project). The Project site is located at the intersection of Third Avenue and K Street, within the C-1 Corridor District of the Urban Core Specific Plan Area (UCSP). The Project requests approval of Design Review and Tentative Condominium Subdivision Map applications. As the lead agency for the Project under the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, Sec. 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista (City) prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR-06-01) for the UCSP. FEIR-06-01 contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the UCSP. The final EIR was certified and the Urban Core Specific Plan was approved by the former Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and City Council in May of 2007. The approved UCSP calls for the development and revitalization of the Urban Core within the City of Chula Vista. The Urban Core encompasses approximately 1,700 acres of the traditional downtown area east of I-5, west of DeI Mar Avenue, north of L Street and south of C Street. Within this larger area is a smaller 690 gross-acre area, which was determined to be in need of redevelopment due to conditions of blight and underutilization. This smaller area comprises the '°Subdistricts" area of the UCSP and is the focus of all the regulatory land use provisions of the UCSP. The UCSP replaces existing municipal code zoning provisions for the Subdistricts area with new zoning that permits an increased number of buildings, with increased building heights and mass. This intensification of tand use in the Subdistricts area is planned to accommodate General Plan projected resident and employment populations. Ultimate buildout of the UCSP would allow 7,100 net new residential units over the existing 3,700 units, for a total of up to 10,800 dwelling units by the year 2030. Commercial office space would increase by up to 1.3 million square-feet over the existing 2.4 million square-feet for a total of up to 3.7 million square-feet of commercial space by the year 2030. - 1 0 5- Attachment 7 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 353 Addendum to Final EtR 06-01 June 7, 2016 The proposed mixed-use Project, which is the subject of this Addendum, does not result in any new significant impacts beyond those previously identified in FEIR-06-01, nor an increase in severity of any previously identified impacts in FEIR 06-0t. The environmental analysis presented in FEIR 06-01 addresses all potential impacts associated with the UCSP plan. Because the Project, which is located within the UCSP area, would not result in any new potentially significant impacts, nor increase the severity of any impacts identified in FEIR 06-01, the Project is considered to be adequately covered under FEIR 06-01. II. PROPOSED PROJECT. The proposed Project considered in this addendum consists of the redevelopment of the 45,738 square-foot property at the northeast comer of Third Avenue and K Street, with a mixed-use 3 to 5-story (34 to 60 feet in height) structure with 71 residential condominium units, 1,770-square foot residential fitness center, a 1,004 square-foot lobby and elevator space, 2,572 square-foot residential lounge space, 616 square-feet of commercial space, and a 1,700 square-foot public plaza. The Project also includes the construction of 142 parking spaces (subterranean and enclosed), 17,646 square-feet of cow, men and private open space, and approximately 8,500 square-feet of landscaped space, as well as the associated access and circulation areas. The Site is currently occupied by three building structures that were built during the 1950's and 1%0% and are currently occupied by a martial arts gymnasium, insurance office, botanical sales store, and chiropractor's office; one of the buildings is currently vacant. Construction of the Project would involve the demolRion of the structures that are currently on the site. The site is located within theCity's Urban Core Specific Plan C-1 Corridor, which allows the development of mixed use projects subject to compliance with specified development standards in the Specific Plan. Since the Project site is adjacent to the R-1 (Single-Family) District, the Project must comply with the development standards of the Neighborhood Transition Combining District. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§15162) establish the conditions under which a subsequent E!R shall be prepared. A. When an EIR has been prepared for a Project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of tff¢ whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which wiii require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new sig nfficant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 21 Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant enviroi mental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 2 -1062016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 354 Addendum to Final EIR 06-01 June 7, 2016 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was prepared. B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shaI1 prepare a subsequent EIR if required under Subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further documentation (Guidelines § 15162). Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A.The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section i5162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. C. The decision-making body shal-I consider the addendum witbthe fina EIR prior to making a decision on the project. D*A t rief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursumat to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required fmdings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared t ursuant to the requirements of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Project does not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved UCSP. The proposed Project would not result in any environmental effects that were not previously considered in FEIR-06-01, nor would the changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in FEIR-06-01. There has been no material change in circumstances relative to the UCSP, and no new information of substantial importance has become available after the preparation of the project EIR. The mitigation measures identified in FEIR 06-01 would be equally applicable to the UCSP. Therefore, in accordance with Sections t 5162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this addendum to FEIR 06-01. IIh ANALYSIS Summarized below are issue areas potentially affected by the proposed Project. As the discussion outlined below indicates, however, the proposed Project does not result in any impacts beyond those identified in FEIR-06-01. Technical studies have been prepared for the Project to identify any potential environmental impacts. No new significant impacts were identified in the technical studies regarding the proposed Project. The technical studies demonstrate and Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 3 -1072016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 355 Addendum to Final EIR 06-01 June 7, 2016 substantiate that the proposed Project does not result in any new significant impacts, nor increase in severity of any previously identified significant impacts. These include: 1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ninyo and Moore, dated t/27/16. 2. Acoustical Analysis Report by Eilar and Associates dated 11/19/15. 3. Preliminary Drainage Study by Chang Consultants dated 3/10/16. 4. Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Chang Consultants 'dated 3/I0/16. 5. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment by Group Delta Consultants dated 3/5/16 6. Traffic Letter Assessment by Linscott, Law and Greenspan dated 1/25/16. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) study prepared by Helix Environmental Planning dated May 5, 2016. 8. Shadow studies were conducted by the Project architects as part of the design of the Project (refer to sheet A5.0 in the drawing set dated 03/t0/16). Land Use Compatibility The proposed Project is located within the C1 District of the UCSP. The C1 District and the Neighborhood Transition Combining District (NTCD) contain development standards and design guidelines intended to ensure that new development structures are compatible with existing adjacent development in the neighborhood. These development standards are related to building height, setbacks, step-backs, parking, open space, mud landscaping. The proposed Project has been reviewed pursuant to these standards and guidelines, and it has been determined that the project complies with these requirements (with the exception of FAR, as described further below), which will provide land use compatibility with the adjacent commercial and residential area. The UCSP also contains provisions that permit an increase above the base floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 (45,738 square-feet), if certain project amenities are provided, su%h as fully enclosed parking (10% increase), pnblic open space (10% increase), and LEED Gold certification (30% increase). These items would be provided by the Project, thus, the FAR would be permitted to increase to 1.50 (68,607 square-fee0 per the UCSP incentives. The UCSP also allows the City Planning Commission (or City Council if applicable) to grant exceptions to the development regulations, if certain findings required by the UCSP are made. The Project applicant has requested an exception to the FAR regulations to increase the FAR from 1.50 to 1.99, which based on the proposed design, would accommodate 71 dwetling units. The findings include the following: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan; 2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan; 3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives in Section F Urban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter; and Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 4 -1082016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 356 N Addendum to Final EIR 06-01 June 7, 2016 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. Staff has determined that the Project complies With these findings because the Project does not affect the implementation of the UCSP and the General Plan, and because it complies with all other regulations and development standards of the UCSP. The Project will provide additional public benefits that exceed the minimum requirements, including the following provisions: a) 17,646 square-feet of common and private usable open space for residents, which exceeds the UCSP requirements; b) High quality architectural design and materials that will provide a focal point for the neighborhood; c) Seven guest parking spaces to reduce the demand for on-street parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood (no guest parking is required by the UCSP); d) Two wall spaces for public art including a public mural on the north iacing wail, and a fountain or sculpture in the public plaza at the intersection of Third Avenue and K Street; and e) An enhanced 10-foot sidewalk along Third Avenue, which wilI be wider than a standard sidewalk and include street trees with tree-ates and street furninzre. Landform/Aesthetics: Visual Character As discussed within the Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06 0 t, potentially significant impacts with respect to visual character would be avoided by requiring that the projects adhere to regnlafions and design guidelines of the USCP. Mitigation Measures 5.2.5-1 and 5.2.5-2 of FEIR 06-01 specifically require that future projects conform to relevant development regulations and design requirements of the UCSP. These development regulations include the NTCD regulations, C-1 zoning regulations, and Design Guidelines, which include setbacks, stepbacks, screening, landscaping, building design and other appropriate measures to avoid or minimize adjacency issues related to building mass and form, aesthetics, solar access, ventilation, and other effects specifically noted in mitigation measures 5.2.5-1 and 5.2.5-2 of FE1R 06-0t. Light and Glare Effects As noted in the FEIR 06-01, Summary of Environmental Analysis Results, the UCSP allows for substantial intensification of existing land uses by allowing taller bnilding heights and more building masses. Potential light or glare impacts could effect surrounding sensitive residential uses and, therefore, appropiate mitigation measures were identified that all subsequent development projects in the UCSP area shall comply with UCSP development regulations and design guidelines that are necessary to reduce light and glare effects. The proposed Project is required to comply with mitigation measure 5.2.5-2 of FEIR 06-01; a condition will be included Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEtR 06-01 5 -109 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 357 Addendum to Final EiR 06-01 June 7, 2016 in the Design Review/Urban Core Development Permit to that effect. significant light and giare impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no additional Air Quality: The Project complies with mitigation measure 5.i0.5-2 of FEIR-06-01 by supposing smart growth principles, such as providing a mix of compatible land uses, providing a range of infill housing opportunities, compact buiIding design, and providing multi-family housing on MTS bus route 29. The Project also complies with mitigation measure 5.t0.5-3 by providing a wide and enhanced sidewalk on the Third Avenue frontage to encourage pedestrian access and activity. The Project will also be required to comply with mitigation measure 5.10.5-4 regarding dust control measures to be employed to reduce air quality impacts from the generation of dust during construction activities, which will also be shown on all applicable ading and building plans. - Hazards/Risk of Upset: Hazardous Materials The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Ninyo & Moore on January 27, 2016 found no significant Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC).oil the Project site. However, due to the age of the existing buildings constructed in the 1950% the consultant determined that there is a potential that asbestos and lead paint may be present in the existing buiIdings. There also is a potential for presence of lead and organochlorine pesticides in localized areas of contaminated soil in the vicinity of the building footprints that may be encountered during grading activities. Although this does not meet the strict definition of an REC for the Project, because of the potential that workers or other persons in the vicinity could be exposed to releases of hazardous materials during demolition and grading, the consultant recommends: (1) That a survey for presence of lead and asbestos be condncted by a @alified inspector prior to demolition of the existing buildings; (2) That a soil management plan be prepared and hnplemented during construction activities;. (3) That a worker health and safety ptan be prepared. These potential impacts will be addressed by compliance with FEIR-06-02 Mitigation Measure 5.13-2, which requires performance of a risk assessment where contamination has been identified or discovered during construction activities. Mitigation Measure 5;13.2 requires a licensed abatement contractor to remove and properly dispose of any hazardous materials, such as ACM's " and Lead, prior to demolition. Mitigation Measure 5.13-3 requires a hazardous materials building survey prior to demolition activities. A condition of approval will be included as part of the Design Review (Urban Core Development Permit) to require the compIetion of a building survey prior to begimning the building demolition activities. Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 6 -1102016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 358 Addendum to Final EIR 06-01 June 7, 2016 Noise: The City's Noise Ordinance, and the California Administrative Code, requires that interior noise levels in habitable rooms, from noise generated by exterior sources, shall net exceed 45 dBA CNEL. An Acoustical Analysis Report was prepared for the Project by Eilar Associates, ½c. on November 19, 20 I5. The analysis reviewed the potential impacts from current and furore noise environments, including street traffic noise and other outside dements. Traffic-related noise levels that would potentially create noise impacts to residential units facing Third Avenue and K Street range from approximately 63 to 69 dBA are forecast. Typical residential construction, including walls, windows and mechanical ventilation, may lower the interior noise levels with windows dosed, however, verification that the interior noise levels will meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL must be provided. As required by Mitigation Measures 5.9-2 and 5.9-3, the Applicant wii1 be required to submit a noise ietter report including data that shows that the construction will ensure that interior noise levels comply with the interior noise level standards. Installation of mechanical ventilation and/or air conditioning in accordance with the California Bnilding Code is necessary to ensure that windows can be closed to achieve compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. The proposed ground floor commercial suite will share a flooffceiling assembly with a residential unit above. The UCSP requires internal compatibility between dissimilar uses in mixed-use buildings. The study found that a floor/ceiling assembly with a sound rating of 50 Sound Transmission Class (STC) is needed to ensure that acceptabIe noise levels within the upstairs residential unit will be provided. As required by Mitigation Measure 5.9-4, the Applicant will be required to submit a noise letter report verifying that a floor/ceiling assembly with a minimum sound rating of 50 STC will be provided to ensure that-the requirements of the-Noise Control Ordinance and UCSP are met. iThe Noise study also anticipated that average construction noise levels at the closest residential receiver would be 75 dBA, generated at 58 feet from the closest Project noise source to the nearest residential property line. Thus, the adjacent residential population to the east and commercial properties to the north and south may be exposed to excessive construction noise associated with short-term grading and construction activities. These impacts tend to be variable due to the variety of noise generation characteristics of the heavy equipment and vehicles used, including the function and power of the heavy equipment or vehicle, and the timing of their operation, which ranges from periods where no heavy equipment or vehicles are operated, to simultaneous operations. Also, construction projects are short term in nature, so impacts will not be long-term. The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code does not provide noise limits for temporary construction activity at surrounding noise-sensitive property lines. However, the Project wilt be required to comply with the Section 17.24.040(C.8) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which requires that noise generated by Project-related grading, demolition or construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. The contractor can also limit noise impacts to adjacent properties by following measures including reasonable maintenance of equipment, avoiding simultaneous operation of noise-generating equipment as much. as possible, and using equipment with effective mufflers. Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 7 -111 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 359 Addendum to Final E1R 06-01 June 7, 2016 Traffic/Circ ation: Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-3 requires Project applicants to prepare a traffic assessment, pay any applicable Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) and traffic signal fees, and construct any required street improvements. The Project proposes 71 multi-family dwelling units and one 616 square-foot commercial suite, which would generate a total of 667 average daily trips. This is below the City's minimum threshold to require the Applicant to prepare a full traffic study. However, due to public concerns about Project traffic, the Applicant submitted a traffic letter assessment prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) dated January 25, 2016, which focused on near-term traffic impacts associated with the Project. The study looked at the closest major intersections to the Project site, including Third Avenue and K Street, Third Avenue and J Street, Third Avenue and L Street, K Street and Church Street, and the Project entry driveway on K Street. The. study looked at the existing traffic conditions for these intersections, and compared them to the existing conditions plus the addifioh of the Project traffic at these 'intersections. The study found that the intersections currently operate at acceptable Level of Service "C" or better, and when the Projects traffic is added, these intersections still operate at acceptable Level of Service "C" or better. The LLG sta!dy concluded that no ttaffic-capacity related impacts Lo these intersections would occur. The Project's entry drive is located approximately 160 feet from the Bank of America driveway located across K Street from Project site. There is potential that traffic making a left turn from K Street to Third Avenue will block access to the site from K Street. The study recommends a "keep clear" striping detail be placed at the combined PrejeedBank of America driveway to ensure that vehicles queuing westbound on Third Avenue do not block the driveway. The Project will be required to pay TDIF Fees and traKic signal fees, prior to issuance of building permits. The street improvements required by the Project include an upgraded sidewalk on the Third Avenue frontage. Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Greenhouse gas (OHG) emissions include gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N20). They occur both naturally, and are produced by human activities, s ,lch as by automobile emissions and emissions from production of electricity to provide power to homes and businesses. These gases prevent heat from escaping the earth's atmosphere, while allowing in sunlight, which has the effect of warming the air temperature. Cahfomia ,Jloeat Warming Solutions Act ofCalifornia Assembly Bill (AB) 32, known as the " " : "" ' 2006" established a goal to reduce statewide eenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Other regulations have been enacted at the statewide level to address GHG impacts, including emissions standards for vehicles, low carbon fuels, and generation of electricity from renewable resources. These programs are being implemented at the state level, and as such compliance at the project love1 is not addressed. The City uses a screening level emission threshold of 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2 per year) to evaluate whether a project must conduct flzrther analysis. This standard is based on the California Addendum to Final EnvironmentaI impact Report FEIR 06-01 8 -1122016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 360 Addendum to Final EIR 06-01 June 7, 2016 Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report entitled "CEQA and Climate Change" dated January 2008. The GHG study prepared by Helix Envirom-nental Planning utilized the California Emission Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2 to evaluate criteria air pollutants and estimate GHG emissions from various urban land uses, including mobile (vehicular) and stationary source emissions, associated with both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Existing Land Uses: The existing land uses on the site include 3 buildings with a combined square footage of 20,450 square feet that support a health club, medical office and other business office space. Tile study found that these uses generate emissions of 432 NIT CO2 per year. These uses are being removed, and thus the study concluded that existing GHG emissions can be subtracted from the forecasted emissions generated by the Project. Construction Emissions: The GHG study found that construction emissions would be created by veticIe engine eMlaust from construction equipment, truck trips, and employee cormmuting trips. Construction of the project was assumed to occur over 15 months, and thus would be short term and temporary. Therefore, construction emissions were amortized over a 30 year period. The amortized construction emissions were estimated to be 12 MT CO2 per year, associated with construction of the project. Operational Emissions: Operational emission sources include energy use (natnraI gas and elec{icity), 'area sources (landscaping equipment), vehicle use, solid waste generation and water use and conveyance. The operational erdfssions associated with operation of the project were estimated to be 857 MT CO2 per year. To obtain the total estimated GHG emissions for the Project, the study added the operational and construction emissions to establish a Project subtotal of 869 MT CO2 per year emissions, and then subtracted the existing GHG emissions of 432 MT CO2 per year, to arrive at a total. estimated GHG emissions value of 437 MT CO2 per year, compared to existing conditions, which is below the City's significance t eshold of 900 MT CO2 per year (See Table 3 be!ow from the OHG Study). Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 9 -1132016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 361 Addendum to Final E1R 06-01 June 7, 2016 Area 1 Energy I 1 O4 Mobile 715 Solid Waste Less Existing Emissions Significant Impac-,? Source: CalEEMod emissions modeling by HELIX 2016 (output data is Attachment A). Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years TOTAL NET PROJECT INCREASE 437 Screening Threshold 900 No Water Operational Subtotal Construction Emissions - Project Subtotal 29 857 12 869 (432) provided in Conclusion: Construction of the Project is not expected te generate enough @HO's to result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory, or to individually influence climate change. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts, and there are no non-cumulative impacts recognized from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA 2008). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with GHG. Shade/Shadow Study The project plans include a shade and shadow study (Sheet AS.0 of the plans in Attachment 9 of the staff report). This study looks at the best and worst case scenarios based upon smnmer 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. According to the shade/shadow analysis, no parcels within the project vicinity would be permanently shaded by the project. The shadow study shows that there would be shading occurring on the two residential properties located to the immediate east of the project site throughout the day on the winter solstice. Because this shading occurs on a limffed (worst case) basis on only a few parcels, shading is not considered to be a significant project impact. Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 10 -1142016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 362 Addendum to Final EIR 06-01 June 7, 2016 IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion and substantial evidence in the record supporting said discussion, I hereby find that the proposed Project will result in only minor technical changes or additions, and therefore, does not result in the need for the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section's 15162 and 15163, respectively. Miguel Tapia, AICP Senior Plarmer Attachments: Exhibit A - Project site plan Exhibit B - Executive Summary to FEIR 06-0t References:General Plan, City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, Title 19/City of Chnla Vista Urban Core Specific Plan Urban Core Specific Plan Finar Environmental Impact Report (September 2006) Addendum to Finn Environmental Impact Report FEIR 06-01 11-1152016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 363 THIS PAGE LE -t16=2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 364 ei !A elnqo '^V ]!q£ 6Z 077 laa S 3 "2 p £ JeW lap B S!A ddd #F < , u G5 O¸ i, gg mg_ i aa, ExhibitA2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 365 J tAI @P $S!A o Yq .............. I::.L::::_:1 i -1182016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 366 097 laa4S ">t "a' pie Je JlaP ls!A 'll l ,Isa N$ o < I I I @ Bq 65 5 e i -1192016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 367 IS!A lnqo 'aA'pJEq 6Z J lAl lap ,S!A Z £ i s o o o o anua nqo ® -1202016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 368 elAI lap e s!A ssS S s,,£ LT © G © { I ! ® @ r 121 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 369 ": i - i S!A lnqO 'aAV PJ!41 $6L 077 laaJ { "2 pJ J l lep 8 S!A os CO ° = ° @ $ $5 $ ,$ $ $ @ i -1222016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 370 II/1il Q -t23 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 371 8 07718e S pig o,i ? '1 d ............ ' Z .... ® -t242016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 372 %s inq3 'a^V PJ!H± g6L 071 }easl ">i PJC J IAI lep s S!A il!i 0 < 2 C -iiii.,. ; ................. o ,i, ........... .,., : .............. $$$ $@ i -1252016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 373 < . / I © -126 / @ 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 374 L---I !A lrtqO e v pJ!q± 8/_ Oqq ;aa4s N '2 pJ£ JelAI lep s;S!A c!. ,q • i L : .... I -127 I 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 375 @ o = ® i -1282016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 376 l z : ¢ i i i I i I I I I @ Q 1 I ! I III _ L_ Lllb_o4_ J .f ,.<: ...... = , I" J I J [Jfl @ -1292016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 377 @ @ ® i =1302016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 378 077 lee $ pJ£ < a 5 © x W E -1312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 379 Jel//tap e ,S!A £ < -be 3N t tJ ImF N N I -.b.2 q2 5 S L q p N r #N [ -1322016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 380 z leOJ d eAV PJ!q/ liil °- 0 e r S : ] -133 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 381 eI$!A elnqo 'i N 9 oAV pJ!q± Tq se!Madol J !N leOJ cl eAV PaqJ. ° i NN NgN 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 382 iID @I / 0 kL0 LUkUZ ZLU oi I 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 383 ®@ v o U.0 WWZ • ZW '" l "4b 2 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 384 • ¸2¸:£ 2:2 : : • > L 2: p : Lt0 Z ZLU® r 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 385 T S PAGE LE T BLA }( -1382016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 386 QTY OFGqU I5 fA L. -139- Exhibit 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 387 -1402016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 388 QW OFCHUbVGFA L . - Ap 2.907 City Council Ordinance Noo 3070 A.eHd,ed Fcbrua 20t 1] City CeuncH Ordinance No, 3184 A emded July 2011 (l aer) A eHded Apri 20i5 Prepared 1 or: City of Chula Vista 278 Fourth Avenue Chu a Vista, CA 91910 t . 7 Originally Prepared by: rrm---, g, oup..... z creatihg environments, peq#e enioy : -1412016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 389 I -1422016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 390 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CHERYL COX MAYOR As the City of Chula Vista approaches its 100th birthday in 20 i I, it is poised to embark upon the next chapter in its history. The 2005 General Plan update established a vision for the 21st century. The Urban Core Specific Plan provides the tools to see that vision become a reaiity. The Plan will create opportunities to renew the economic vitality of the City's urban core. With this stimulus, the urban core can enjoy the vitality of the early 1900s when iemon orchards thrbed, tl 'ough the transition to the 1950s and the flourishing of Rohr industries. Another lifecycle of the City's urban core is now set to emerge. We are ready to see more great things happen. The City Council heard from the urban core's many stakeholders -- residents, property owners, business owners and havestors. The Plan strikes a balance among more housing, additional shopping opportunities, greater emphasis on walking instead of driving, and new revenue sources for the public improvements necessary to the revitaIized City's urban core. Over the coming years, I look forward to seeing the graduaI transformation of the City's re'ban core. Realization of that vision will take piace over the next 20-25 years. Today, the Urban Core Specific PI is in its infancy, about ready o make that first step. You can expect to see new and exciting activity in the oldest parts of ChuIa Vista. UltimateIy, the urban core will be strengtkened so that it remains the heart of our city with places to live, work, shop and play. Mayor 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista * California 91910 * (619) 69t-5044 • Fax (619) 476-5379 cco×@cimtavist aca.gov2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 391 f -1442016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 392 f Ackaow eddemeats city councii Cheryl Cox, Mayor Steve Castaneda, Councilmember John McCann, Councilmember Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember Jerry R. Rindone, Councilmember Planni Commission Bryan Felber, Chair Pamela Bensoussan Joanne Clayton Lisa Moctezuma Michael Spethman Bill Tripp Scott Vinson Urban Core Specmc FOan Adwsorv Commsttee Stephen C Padiila, Former Mayor, Chair Dr. Richard Freeman, Vice Chair Nikki Clay Diane Carpenter Brett Davis Sharon Floyd Henri Harb Tom Horn Peter Mabrey Greg Mattson Gary Nordstrom Manuel Oncina Bill Ostrem Debi Owen Jerry Rindone, City Councilmember Pedro Romero, Jr. Dave Rowlands, Former City Manager Colton Sudberry k -145 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 393 -146=2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 394 f Staff The following is a list of the core staff team involved in the original preparation of the Urban Core Specific Plan. It is acknowledged that mar, other staff members participated in the planning process. Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager Brian Sheehan, Senior Community Deveiopment Specialist Ray Pe, Senior Community Development Specialist Jim Sandovat, Planning Director Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director Luis Hernandez, Deputy Planning Director Ed Batchelder, Deputy Pianning Director Aiex A1-Agha, City Engineer Frank Rivera, Deputy City Engineer Samir Nuhaily, Senior Civil Engineer JimNewton, Civil Engineer Dave Kapian, Transportation Engineer Ann Moore, City Attorney Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner Ed Hall, Principal Recreation Manager Orng;naf.y Prepa[ed by; /::!:I \ ]CMT ¸ -147 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 395 -1482016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 396 f Table of Co,tents L Executive Summary #L #nttoductNon and Background A, What is a Specific Plan? B, Consistency with the Generat Plan C, Plan Purpose and Intent D. Boundaries and Setting E. Relevant City Documents F, Community Outreach Process UL Vis#on A. Vision for the Urban Core B, Ten Key Principles C. Vision Areas #V. Ex;smg Cond#f:on_ A. Introduction B. Historic Resources C. Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning D. Circulation and Mobility E. Economic Conditions Vo Mobi#ity A. introduction B, Pedestrian Facilities C. Bicycle Facilities D. Transit Routes E. Vehicle Traffic F. Parking 1-1 #1-1 I1-1 I1-2 II-4 II-5 II-9 II-20 #11-i 111-1 Ill-4 IIF5 117ol IV-1 IV-2 IV-12 IV-17 IV-19 V-1 V-1 V-2 V-5 V-9 V-14 V-46 VL Land Use and Deve#opment Regu#ations A. Administration B. Land Use Matrix C, Development Standards D, Speciai Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts and Transit Focus Areas E. Special Provisions / v,-4o :: :::: : fG-:" VF42 : .... -1492016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 397 -1502016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 398 Table CeHtents I. Executive Summary li, introduction and Background A, What is a Specific Plan? B. Consistency with the General Plan C. Plan Purpose and Intent D. Boundaries and Setting E. Relevant City Documents F. Community Outreach Process i °liL V,s on A. Vision for the Urban Core B, Ten Key Principles C. Vision Areas iV, Exisdnd Conditions A. introduction B. Historic Resources C. Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning D. Circulation and Mobility E. Economic Conditions V. Mobility A. Introduction B, Pedestrian Facilities C, Bicycle Facilities D, Transit Routes E. Vehicle Traffic F. Parking t-1 llol I1-1 Ii-2 11-4 II% tl-9 ti-20 t -1 lil-I 111-4 llF5 iV-1 V-1 IV-2 IW12 IV-17 -1V-:L9 V-1 V-2 V-2 V-E V-9 V-14 V-46 i :': ...... W, Land Use and Det/efopment Regulations Vbl A. Administration VI-1 B. Land Use Matrix VI-4 C. Development Standards VI-±O D. Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts and Transit Focus Areas E. Special Provisions i i!:: \ vt_4o .............. VI-42ii' :': i: ili -1512016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 399 R Urban Amenity Requirements and Incentives G. Signs H. Other Regulations I. Development Exceptions V L Development Design Guide b es A. Introduction and Background B. What is Urban Design? C. How to Use the Design Guidelines D. Village District E. U ban Core District F. Corridors District G. Special Guidelines W,JL PubF.c Rea m Design Gu defines A. Introduction B. Purpose C. Urban Design Treatment D. Village Theme E. Urban Core Theme R Urban Amenities, Tile Unifying Elements G. Landscape Treatment H. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Improvements I. Lighting Concepts J. Street Furnishings K. Key Intersections L. Gateways and Wayfinding M. Public Art N. Parks, Plazas, Paseos, and Public Spaces iX, Infrastructure and Public Facilides A. Introduction B. Growth Forecasts C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services E. Schools F. Parks and Recreation G, Energy and Telecommunications Vl-52 VI-53 V1 54 VIIF52 -152 \ HX-i IX-I IX-2 IX-3 tX-lS 1X-19 IX-23 tX-30 ......... 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 400 f Xo P1an implementation and Commuag y Benefits Program A. Introduction B. Regulatory Framework C. Visualization D, Long Term Implementation Process E. Description of Improvements E Mobility Improvements G, Urban Amenity Improvements H, Additional Community improvements l, Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects J. Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms and Funding Sources K. Community Benefit Analysis XL Pfan Adm n st atJo,s A. Introduction B, Specific Plan Adoption C. Specific Plan Administration D. Specific Plan Amendment E. Five Year Review A#pe d ces iBound under separate cover) Appendix A, Glossary Appendix B. Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C. Market Analysis Appendix D. Public Facilities and Secvices Program Appendix E, Third Avenue Village Outdoor Dining Design Guidelines Appendix F, Historic Preservation Program X-i X-2 X-4 X-9 X-!1 X-12 X-17 X-20 X-22 X-24 X-28 Xbl Xb± xI-2 XI-3 Xt-9 Xl-12 : :::: :: --153- 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 401 L -1542016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 402 1° :ecuti Sum \ -155 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 403 J -1562016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 404 f , E:xec t ve Summary The City of ChulaViata has grown s ,bstantial,yovertheyear throughannexations and development, and is the second largest city in San Diego County. Chula Vista continues to play a significant role in the region's growth and is emerging as the hub of civic and cultural activity in south San Diego County. Chula Vista :- : , is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the region with a projected population of approximately 300,000 by 2030. While much of the City's :. recent growth has occurred in large master planned communities developing on vacant land in the eastern portion of the City; demographic changes and other influences are bringing about population growth, renewed interest, and the need for revitalization and redevelopment in the western portion of the City. The recent update to the City of Chula Vista General Plan focused primarily on revitalization and redevelopment within the older, developed area in the western portion of the City. The Urban Core Specific Plan follows the direction ! i iii!! :: :iii!iii and vision provided in the City's General Plan and establishes a more detailed : i vision, guidelines, and regulations for future development and beautifi cation in the traditional downtown area. The Specific Plan area is generally located east of I-5, west of Second Avenue, north ofiL Street, and south of C Street. While there are approximately :L,700 acres within the Specifi c Plan boundary, it was determined that changes should be focused on areas more in need of redevelopment. Therefore, the Specific Plan focuses on the redevelopment of approximately 690 gross acres within the larger Specific Plan study area. The Specific Plan creates a framework to attract investment and be a catalyst for revitalization. The overall goat is to create pedestrian-friendly environments, gathering places, and public amenities through community devd.opment. The Specific Plan considers marketplace realities to increase the economic viability of the downtown and surrounding areas to meet City, business, and community needs. The Specific Plan addresses land use mixes and distributions; zoning; urban and sustainable design; vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation; parking; transit services and facilities; public improvements and infrastructure; gateways and image; street furniture and pedestrian amenities; parks and public spaces; implementation strategies and possible funding sources. The Specific Plan is based upon the valuable comments, and participation from residents, business leaders, and other community stakeholders, as welt as the diligent and committed Urban Core Specifi c Plan Advisory Committee. The intent off 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 a desirable San Diego County -157 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 405 destination for both visitors and residents alike, with an identity of its own. The Community wants a downtown that is vibrant and forward thinking and alive with thriving businesses, attractive housing, and entertainment, cultural and recreational activities; but respectful of its past. The Specific Plan envisions a broad mixture of uses and business opportunities, as well as a wide range of residential housing types. The Urban Core is envisioned to be the "heart" of the community, where people gather to enjoy special events, farmers markets, street performances, shopping and outdoor dining. It is a downtown with a synergistic mix of land uses, attractive streetscapes and sidewalks and full of people; all interconnected with a series of plazas and pedestrian paseos. To this end, the Specific Plan includes a variety of recommendations to help obtain this vision including: ! Mobility recommendations Land Use Development Standards Development Design Guidelines Public Realm Design Guidelines Plan Implementation Strategies and Community Benefits Program ! :::S:i : Mobi/;ty The Urban Core Specific Pian mobility recommendations provide a variety of approaches and strategies to "get people from here to there." improvements for the main thoroug!afares and other streets within the Urban Core are identified in Chapter V - Mobility and address pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobile and parking opportunities. Traffic calming elements and pedestrian improvements are introduced to sl0w traffic flow and create a more.pedestrian-friendly environment, along Third Avenue in the Village District. improvements include bulbouts (sidewalk extensions), narrowed travel lanes, reducing the number of travel widths in some areas, special paving at crosswalks and median refuge islands. Paseos and pedestrian watkways are emphasized in the Specific Plan as well. The Mobility chapter includes recommendations for new, and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both recreational and commuting users to accommodate for bicycle transit. Three transit focus areas within the Urban Core provide multi-modal opportunities for both local and regional transit. The transit stations located at ;' I 5/H Street and I-5/E Street link to the San Diego Trolley's Blue Line. As a feature of the Specific Plan, a new shuttie loop system called the West Side .. Shuttle is proposed. The shuttle route ,,viii serve both tile Urban Core Specific i. : .i ii: Plan and Bayfront Master Plan areas in western Chula Vista. This new service would complement existing and planned future transit improvements. -1582016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 406 f A program for improvements to the roadway network is proposed, especially reintroducing the street grid in areas where it has been interrupted over time. The Mobility chapter also addresses off-street parking within the Urban Core Districts and offers public parking strategies, including parking districts for portions of Third Avenue and strategically located parking structures particularly for the transit focus areas. Land Use Development Standards Chapter VI - Land Use and Deveiopment Standards; establishes three main Specific Plan Districts: Village, Urban Core and Corridors, as well as 23 subdistdcts. Within these three main districts to allow for customized regulations and standards. The subdistricts regulations shape the building form and intensity, allowable land uses, and parking requirements. In summa% the land uses are customized to encourage a mix of pedestrian oriented uses integrated with higher density residential. The development and ..... : ': : parking standards have been relaxed to encourage investment in the Urban Core, including locating buildings closer to the street with parking behind or tucked under the bu,d,ng The Sp c,f,c Ptan regu,ationa stress f, exib,,ty and piazas., transit, cultural a s and mixed use devefopment. The tallest buildings are allowed in the transit focus areas located at I-5/H Street and t-5/E Street where support by alternative modes of transportation is readily available. Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts have been created for subdistricts adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zoning areas to protect existing residential neighborhoods and ensure compatible, steppe&back buitd[ng heights and setbacks. Special provisions address live/work units, mixed-uses and parking structures. Zoning incentives are provided to e,]tioe developers to provide urban amenities such as parks and plazas beyond .... [ ! t:required levels. Devefopment Design Guidelines in Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines, comprehensive design guidelines are prgvided for developmentwithin thethreeSpecific Plan Districts, as well as special guidelines for hotels, mixed-use projects, multi-family residential projects, and sustainability principles. The form-based guidelines supplement the Specific Plan development regulations, and the City's Zoning Ordinanceto create a more attractive, well-designed urban environment. The guidelines apply to construction, conservation, adaptive reuse, and enhancement of buildings and street scenes while preserving historipal resources. Although no specific architecturai style is prescribed, the quaiity of design is guided by policies addressing site planning, building height/form/ mass, building materials/colors, storefront design, landscaping, lighting, parking, circulation, signs and other development considerations, The goal of the guide ines is to create a positive image for tlne Urban Core and rame the streets and sidewalks with inviting buildings, entrances, awnings and outdoor dining areas as well as other attractive features.:"" "I -1592016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 407 Public Realm Design Guidelines Chapter Vltt - Public Realm Design Guidelines focus on ways to create more attractive and pedestrian-friendly public environmenLs and gathering places Street furniture, landscaping, sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, paseos, public art, parks, and plaza concepts are defined. Two main themes emerge within the Specific Plan: an art-deco inspired design theme along Third Avenue, building upon the era when much of the development along the street occurred, and a more contemporary theme for the remaining public realm areas in the Urban Core, indicative of a forward-looking Chuta Vista. The Third Avenue Village Gateway entry sign at Third Avenue & Park Way welcomes the public to tile village. Gateway treatments are proposed at other locations to welcome people to the Urban Core and to reinforce the identity of the Urban Core. Plan implementation Strategies and Community Benefits Program One of the most important elements of the Specific Plan is identifying the implementation programs that will result in the desired changes emphasized for the Urban Core. The sole purpose of the Specific Plan is to improve the quality of life for Chula Vista in general, with a paricular focus on the west side. I J- •Visual simulations f poLentEal future conditions for four areas of the Specific Ptan are provided to help illustrate the pess[ble positive changes and community benefi ts envisioned. The visions expressed in the Specific Plan include investments in streets, transit, parks, plazas, cultural facilities, protection and preservation of historic Iresources, schools, and improvements to City services such as utilities, police, fire, health and human services. These investments win be supported by a partnership between the City and the private sector as new development occurs. Chapter X - Plan implementation and Community Benefits Program contains realization strategies and forms a critical link between the improvements the City desires, and how both the City and private investment will contribute to make the improvements happen. Specific improvements are identifi ed, and fi nancial tools and strategies are outlined. j . -1602016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 408 ;! i [ 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 409 THIS PAGE LEFT BLAN:K -1622016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 410 4,,,I E U < J IA[ I p e S!A #-<u o3 eJ . 8 m N / g ®® a s.6 At)achment 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 411 els!A glnRo 'B^V PJ!q£ 6 . JelAl lap e,s!A .......... mnueAV qoJnqo I -1642016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 412 I !A mlnqO 'AV pJ!qJ_ 6Z JelAl lep S!A o,O cq< ® -165 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 413 C.I'< els!A Inqo '^V PJ!LL £6/ 071 aJi$ >I pJ JelAI lep e s!A Z eq< o (£>- ........ i I ® -1662016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 414 L--L--I :IS!A elnqO 'o^v pJ!q± 6L 033 laaJIs "pg JelA! lap elS!A o o°< b ® -167 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 415 JelAI lap e S!A #_ 03 c4 -oo o ° = o . mN2e ® -1682016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 416 L_._f : ° JelAl lep e S!A o o ® i -169 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 417 oC ° o < el !A Inqo 'AV PJ!ql @Z elAl lop e ,s!A E L LO < ® i -1702016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 418 i¸ : • 077 laeJ pie JeN lap 8 S!A eq< © @ $ ® -1712016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 419 077 Ise S pJ£ JelAI loP e S!A 3 @ 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 420 077 lae £ M PJ . elAl lep e S!A < i -1732016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 421 elS!A elnqo '^V P!ql S6% Oqq laa S "PJ£ JelAl lep e S!A Q r _=a O9 < E -1742016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 422 Ill Ill III I I II I _J__i_ Q J_J -1752016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 423 :z=_ Inqo 'a,V PJ!ql SSL 077 laa4s >i "2 pJ JelAllap elS!A @ Q z® I -176=2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 424 JelAf lap e ,stA 2 ¢D g {,5UJ / / I -1772016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 425 __o S!A mlnqo 'aAV PJ!ql g6J 077 leeJl M pJ£ JelAI leP elS!A ® 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 426 1 OG] sl!IJldoid !I!N leOJecl aAV PJ!ql Li i ==99S 99S ! 3nN Vl40 nH i -1792016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 427 m !A glnqO 'IS ear pJ!LLL a | 077 a!padoJcl !){iN "iii, Ill IlL ill i ! ILIII 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 428 :I II=== !!i:i :i ii° I i!I kk0 LULU ILl :i £== I r :o \ -181 IIi 1.1 II I:I =0 @Iii ==ii =I!I=IIii Iii =.=,io:.ll I=i I ! 111 ii i=a: iii_..i M2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 429 -18z2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 430 -1 / iii Lt0 LULUZ ® !t ii II iiilllll lllHi !1!1 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 431 TH S PAGE LEFT BLANK -1842016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 432 : : 2 • : .... • A'FrACHMENT 10 J ! q i ! i! E "8o 0 N, o -185- Attachrae t 102016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 433 TN S PAGE LEFT BLANK -1862016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 434 STUDIO E A R C H i T E C T S Project Memorandum 2258 First Avenue San Diego, CaEifornla 92101 T 619.235.9262 F 619.235.0522 DAT : PROJECT: TO: FROM: SU 3JECT: COPKF.S TO: March 28, 2016 14118 Vista del Mar Miguel Tapia, City of Chula Vista Maxine Ward, Studio E Architects Preliminary LEED narrative File MEMORANDUM: Please review the narrative below in conjunction with the Preliminary LEED checklist (attached) Location and Transooation Floodplain avoidance - Prerequisite The proposed development is not within a flood plain Site Selection: The proposed development utilizes a previously developed lot (4 points) and is considered infill development (2 points) and is located within an existing street network (1 point) \ Compact Development: The proposed development provides m re than 55 Dwelling units/acre (2 points) Community Resources: The proposed deveJopment is within 1/2 mile walking distance to more than 12 community uses such as supermarkets, community-serving retail, community services such as banks, civic and community facilities. 2 points are anticipated. • i Access to Transit: The proposed development is within 1/4 mile walking distance of a bus stop (Routes 929 and 704). The number of points is dependent on the minimum daily transit service based on the number of trips. 2 points are a nticipated. At least 1 po!nt will be obtained. Sustainable Sites Construction activity pollution prevention - Prerequisite The proposed development witl comply with local, state and federal regulations with regards to controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust during construction. No invasive plants - Prerequisite The proposed development will not use any invasive plant species -187- Attachment 11 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 435 Heat Island Reduction: The proposed development will have more than 75% of hardscape and roof surfaces either shaded or shall be af a light-colored, high-albedo material or vegetation covered (2 points) Rainwater management: The proposed development will utilize low-impact development (LID) techniques to minimize the amount of stormwater that leaves the site. By utilizing planters on roofs and at grade, infiltration planters and permeable paving, we anticipate 65-79% of the total lot area will comply (2 points) Nomtoxic pest control: It is not anticipated that the project will attempt these 2 points at this time. Water Efficiency Water metering - Prerequisite The proposed development will instal[ a water submeter for each unit and residents wilt be aware of their individual water use. Total water use: The proposed development will utilize high efficiency plumbing fixtures and water efficient landscaping irrigation and drought toterant plants. Of the 12 available points for this credit we anticipate obtaining 5 points by reducing overall indoor and outdoor water use by 30% over baseline. Energy and Atmosphere Minimum energy performance - Prerequisite The proposed development will be 5% better than the baseline energy performance rating based on ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, as shown via a whole-building energy simulation. The development will be commissioned using Energy Star protocols or a prescriptive path. Energy metering - Prerequisite The proposed development will have an electric submeter for each unit and residents will be aware of their individual energy use. Education of homeowner or tenant - Prerequisite The developer shall create an operations and maintenance manual and provide to all tenants outlining the energy efficient features of their ome. Annual energy use: Of the 30 available points for this credit we anticipate obtaining 15 points by improving the building's energy performance by 20?; over baseline (ASHRAE 90.1-2010) Efficient hot water distribution system: The proposed development shall be designed with an energy efficient hot water distribution system based on maximum pipe length requirements or maximum pipe volume limits (2 points). In addition insulation will be provided on all domestic hat water piping (2 points) Advanced utility tracking: It is not anticipated that the project will attempt these points at this time. -1882016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 436 Materials and Resources Certified Tropical Wood - Prerequisite The use of tropieat wood in the building is nat anticipated. Durability Management - Prerequisite The proposed development will take required interior moisture control measures such as water resistant flooring at kitchens and bathrooms, drain and drain pan at washers. Durability M a nagement Vedfication: The development will be inspected to ensure compliance with each measure relating ta durability management (1 point) Environmentally preferable products: Out of the total of 5 points available, the proposed development anticipates achieving 3 points through the use of local production such as aggregate and sand for concrete and through the use of reclaimed,'bic-based FSC certified or recycled materials Construction waste management: The proposed development will reduce total construction waste 60% below the baseline by recycling materials and diverting from landfills (3 points) Indoor Environmental Ouality Ventilation - Prerequisite The proposed development will provide a whole-unit ventilation system that complies with ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Combustion venting - Prerequisite Any combustion appliances will be vented to the exterior, such as fireplaces, if they occur. Carbon monoxide sensors will be provided in each unit. Garage Pollutant Protection - Prerequisite All air-handling equipme and ductwark serving residential units shall be placed outside the garage envelope. Shared surfaces between the garage and residential units shall be tightly sealed. Radon-Resistant Construction - Prerequisite Since the proposed residential development is above a garage level, the development is inherently resistant to the transfer of radon gas from the soil to the occu pants. Air Filtering - Prerequisite MERV 8 air filters shall be used at recirculating air conditioning systems perASHRAE 62.2 2010 Environmental Tobacco Smoke - Prerequisite The proposed development will prohibit smoking in all common areas. Any exterior designated smoking areas, including balconies where smoking is permitted, will be located at least 25 feet from entries, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows opening to common areas. Compartmentalization - Prerequisite Each residential unit will be compartmentalized from another to minimize air leakage between units by sealing penetrations, weatherstripping doors. Units shall be tested to demonstrate compliance. Enhanced Ventilation: The proposed development will utilize an occupancy sensor or delay timer or automatic humidistat controller or a cantinuously operating exhaust fan atthe dwelling unit bathrooms to control the exhaust fan (1 point) Each dwelling unit will have a balanced whole-house ventilation system per ASH RAE 62.2-2010 and will not exceed the standard by more than 10% (2 points) Contaminant Control: The proposed development wilt have a pre-occupancy flush of the systems and air testing. -189 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 437 During construction all permanent ducts and vents will be sealed to minimize contamination from construction and upon completion of construction will be flushed with fresh air (0.5 points). Air testing will be performed at the end of construction to ensure that contaminants do not exceed maximum allowed levels (0.5 points) Balancing of Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems The proposed development will test supply air flow and pressure balance the ductwprk and HVAC system within each residential unit (2 points) Enhanced Compartmentalization It is not anticipated that the project will attempt these points at this time. Enhanced Combustion Venting The proposed development meets the requirements of this credit by not installing any fireplaces of wood stoves (2 points) Enhanced Garage Pollutant Protection The proposed development will provide an exhaust fan on controls within the multi-car garage per ASHRAE 62.2-2010 (1 point) Law Emitting Products The proposed development will use products for interior paints and coatings, flooring, insula{ion and adhesives and sealants that have been tested and found compliant with the California Department of Public Health Standard Method V1.1-2010, using CA Section 01350,Appendix B, New Single-Family Residence Scenario, for emissions testing guidance (3 points) No Environmental Tobacco Smoke It is not anticipated that the project will attempt these points at this time. Innovation Preliminary Rating - Prerequisite Design and construction team will conduct a preliminary LEED meeting in the early stages of design to confirm and document LEED goals. Innovation: The proposed development anticipates receiving 2 points for inriovation for measures such as green cleaning program, acoustical performance, solid waste management policy, green building education. Specific measures to be determined. LEED AP Homes: The project team will include a professional who is LEED AP Homes accredited (1 point) Regional Priority The proposed development anticipates receiving 3 additional points for credits which have a regional priority. EN D OF MEMORANDUM -1902016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 438 Zco E O 00 "0 ,_m (Q ,E " nn co £o_ . ..J O_ 3 ;l::li !I ¸ ilii , I -1912016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 439 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK -1922016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 440 Date: 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 Oliner Schiffman 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 Plarming 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 generalIy 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 Issues/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 shouId not be granted because it does not advance purpose of the deveIopment exemption provisions Introduction Project offers little in design Findings cannot be made to support exemption VII. Streamiined 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. = 1 9 3- Attachment 12 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 441 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page 12 SECTION I. SUMNIARY 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%. FoIlowing are the calculations based on the Project's latest specifications: * Project site area: 45,738 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 I, DeveI0pment Exceptions). The request for an exception, as weI1 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. -1942016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 442 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22. 2016 Page 3 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 struc res 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 strucW.re 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, whicb 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 separafion 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 shouId be addressed; in the case of the Project the issue raised is privacy. Balconies are important design and fimctional elements of the Project. The UCSP provisions for multi-family 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 fagade 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 punic -195 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 443 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 tie 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 Io the creation of a vibrant environment within the District, with thriving businesses, attractive housing, entertainment, cultural and recreational activities. "fhe 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 adverse!y affect the goals and objectives.'' The four findings and their substantiating statements are contained in the Planning Commission Report and Resoiutions, 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. -1962016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 444 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 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-pro'pose 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 famiIies would tal<e 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 comer of Third Avenue and K Street with art and furniture will provide an amenity that wili 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 alI 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 landscaped areas are also provided in excess of the minimum requij:ed. 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): -197 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 445 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz 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; 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 comer 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 C1 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 CI District to support the existing and future commercial development. The Project's FAR of 2..0 is appropriate for an urban mixed use de.veloement 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 tl e 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 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 comer 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 REOUEST FOR BONUS AWARDS OF FAR, STAFF DID CONSIDER THE PROJECTED BUILD-OUT THAT WOULD OCCUR IF ALL THE BONUS PROVISIONS ALLOWABLE UNDER 'I'ItE 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 fuli implementation of the projected development within -1982016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 446 Response Memorandum to HeidelberJJentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page 17 a specific period of time (approximateIy 20 years). In this long-term context, the implementation of one proj ect cannot be used to speculate on the implementation of the UCSP's projected build out. At the same time, the results of such a specuiative 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 onstatic 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 Coun_cil and/or Planning Commission have approved 11 development projects (commercial and residential) within the UCSP area: four mixed-use projects; one retalI 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 Councih 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 infrastructuraI 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 contribmes its share of infrastructure and that said infrastructure is provided prior to the completion of the project. -199 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 447 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page 18 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 infrastrucmral 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 punic 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 weli 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 weI1 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 reiiable metric -2002016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 448 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 wiI1 enhance the quality of life within the Urban Core. These requirements and incentives are expressed in terms of increases in FAR that aproject 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 encIosed within the structure; An approximately 1,700 square-foot Outdoor Space laza ( 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 4_r enities 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 -201 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 449 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page IlO 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 wii1 be famished 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 comer 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 wiI1 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 envirommental 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 envirol raeutal quality, and CO2 emissions reduction. The Project will therefore conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and UCSP by being environmen{ally 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% (I3,721 sq. ft.) -2022016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 450 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page Ill SECTION VI. A DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO THE FAR LIMIT PERMITTING A FAR OF APPROXIMATELY 2.1) 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 gnidelines and the exemption findings are included below. UCSP Design Guidelines In addition to the development standards and regulations listed in the C1 District, the UCSP also contMns 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 C1 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 desigu 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 harmfid external effects' and providing strong transit, automobile, and pedestrian connections. '" The proposed Pro)eat 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 comer 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 improved 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 -2032016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 451 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment 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 (I0 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 from 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-fsxnily 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 comer 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 -2042016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 452 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page 113 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 bnilding fagade 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 fimction of the building. " "Consideration should be given for privacy relative to adjoining properties. Orient buEdings and decks' to maximize views while preserving the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. " Balconies and windows are an integral part of the bnilding 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 Ioss 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 aI1 the elements of a well organized and articulated building. "The physical design of Jb.cades should utilize such techniques as: Break or articulation of the fafade; 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 de1 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 comer 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 comer of Third and K shows the elevations that divide the bnilding into four smaller parts, a 5-story portion with a plaster finish along Third Avenue, a 5-story comer portion with different materials and sloped roof line, a 4-story portion with piaster finish along K and a 3-story portion along Church with a more residential roofline with overhanging eaves at the balconies. -205 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 453 Response Memorandum to HeidelberjJentz Comment Letter June 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 fagade. Windows are vertically oriented, full height and are recessed in the building wail. The windows are distributed in an off-set pattern within the plaster wail and in a regular pattern within the metal clad wall. The fagade 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 pIans 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 sunnmer 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. Findinvs 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 Commission to grant said request. It is staffs position that the FAR increase will advance the UCSP provisions and that the required findings can be made as follows: J. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Speci c Plan and General Plan. -2062016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 454 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 Comer 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 CI District are envisioned to be vibrant, forward thinking but respectful of its past and alive with thriving businesses, attractive housing and entertainment, culta.tral and recreational activities. The Urban Core Vision alms 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. 211e building mass and form 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 comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. As indicated in the Development Standards table in the staff report to the Plarming 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 he!ghi 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 mMmum 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 p!ace 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. -207 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 455 Response Memorandum to HeidelberJJentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page L16 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/recreatiunal space. Building fagade 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 anaen ties and community benefits as follows: As indicated previously, the Project will provide fourteen parkklg spaces that exceed the parking regulations and provide guest parking spaces within the parking garage. The proposed Project wiI1 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. J 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 modem 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. -20,82016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 456 Response Memorandum to Heidelberg/Jentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page 117 ,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 Spec c 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 CI D/strict is characterized by having mostly retaii 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 C1 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-I 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 comer 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, -2092016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 457 Response Memorandum to HeidelberdJentz Comment Letter June 22, 2016 Page 118 staff was able to prepare an Addendum to FEIR 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 fuIly disclose any new potential significant environmental impacts, of which there were none. Attachment: Exhibit A - Hildenberg/Jenz Comment Letter -2102016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 458 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN soUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at LaW 12750 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE, SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130 TELEPHONE (858) 367-7676 FACSIMILE (858) 345-1991 WRETER'5 E MAIL ADIDRESS eheidelberg@cgs3 .corn WRITffR'S DIRECT PHONE NO. (858) 779-1718 April 15, 2016 VIA E-MAlL (RZumwalt(,ehulavistaca.gov) Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP Development Services Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChuIa Vista, CA 91910 Re: Vista Del Mar/Project # DR15-0015: PCS 15-006 Dear Mr. Zumwalt: On behalf of our client, Balboa Equity Capital, Inc., we are providing comments on the above-referenced project application ("Application"), as revised by the applicant's submittal to you dated March 10, 2016. I. SUM1VIARY OF ISSUES The fundamental concern with the Application is that the FAR requested exceeds by 95 percent that which is authorized by the base FAR for the C-1 Third Avenue South Neighborhood Transition Zone: Base floor area allowed under C-1: (FAR 1.0) and lot size: Maximum FAR bonuses from Urban Amenities Table: -- 10 percent PAR increase if parking is provided onsite: -- 10 percent FAR increase for public outdoor space: -- 30 percent FAR increase for LEED Gold: Total floor area (base plus maximum for three bonuses): 45,213 s.f. 4,521 s.f. 4,521 s.f. 13 564 s.f. 67,820 s.f. PROPOSED PROJECT FLOOR AREA:88,323 s.f. DISCREPANCY:20,503 s.f. PROPOSED PROJECT FAR:1.95 Part of the 20,503 square foot discrepancy between the proposed project's floor area and the authorized floor area under C-I plus maximum bonuses under the Urban Amenities Table is purportedly accounted for by correspondence from the applicant to the City, in which the applicant asserts a right to the cumulative calculation of each bonus, such that maximum FAR from the first bonus is added to the base FAR, and that enhanced base FAR is used as the basis for calculation 4828-3439-1344.3 -211 Exhibit A2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 459 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 2 of the second bonus, and so on. By this unauthorized cumulative approach to calculating the bonus FAR, the applicant claims an additional 3,299 square feet: 67,820 s.f. 99 s.f. 71,119 s.f. Even with the unauthorized additional floor area claimed by the applicant due to compounding of the calculations of three bonus awards, there is an unexplained deviation of 17,204 square feet of floor area (88,323 s.f. minus 71,119 s.f.). We assume that the applicant is seeking a Development Exception from the FAR standard to authorize the additional 17,204 (or properly calculated, 20,503) square feet of floor area. (UCSP, VI-54.) Such a Development Exception should not be granted, for the reasons set forth below. In addition to the excessive FAR for a project abutting a single-family residential neighborhood that is to be protected by the Neighborhood Transition Combining District designation, we offer the following comments which should be addressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission: .The Application fails to comply with an express requirement of the Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts, in that it would include a large second-floor terrace and 28 units with balconies and eight units with patios, all of which overlook the rear yards arid homes of adjacent single-}amily residences. As such, the Application cannot be approved because it is inconsistent with the UCSP and its implementing zoning regulations. .In analyzing the Application's request for FAR bonus awards, the UCSP expressly requires consideration of the projected build-out that would occur if all the bonus provisions allowable under the Urban Amenities Incentives program were actually awarded. We submit that this analysis must conclude that the requested 50 percent increase in FAR, if applied to all other properties within the 690-acre Urban Core Subdistrict Areas, would result in land use intensities exceeding by several factors the assumed maximum levels of residential, retail, and office development in the Urban Core Specific Plan and EIR. Such analysis should conclude with a recommendation to deny the requested 50 percent FAR bonus award, although some lower level of bonus award may be justified. .In preparing a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding how much FAR bonus should be granted for each of the Urban Amenities, the staff report must evaluate the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project. We submit that the public benefit provided by the urban amenities proposed in the Application 4828-3439-1344.3 -2122016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 460 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFN£AN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 3 does not warrant a 50 percent increase in FAR, although some lesser increase in FAR may be justified. .There is absolutely no basis in the UCSP for the Application's assumption that the City may add an award of FAR bonus to the proposed project's FAR, which then becomes the base for calculation of another award of.FAR for an additional amenity. This sort of compounding of permitted FAR would result in an unwarranted additional seven (7) percent increase in the proposed project's FAR. .On top of the requested 50 percent FAR bonus sought by the Application for inclusion of three amenities, and the wholly unsuppotted seven percent FAR bonus that would result if FAR bonus awards were compounded as described in #4 above, the Application apparently seeks a Development Exception to the FAR limit, so as to permit a total project FAR of 1.95, or almost double the base FAR in the applicable C-I zone of 1.0. We submit that the required findings to support such an exception cannot be made, because (1) the proposed development will adversely affect the goals and objectives of the UCSP, (2) will not comply with all applicable regulations of the UCSP (including but not limited to the requirement that balconies overlooking rear yards of abutting single-family homes must be avoided so as to ensure that building design is cognizant of adjacent low density areas), and (3) the exception is not appropriate for the location and will not result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through conformance with the UCSP development regulations. The bulk and mass of the project as proposed is simply too extreme a deviation from the base FAR of 1.0, particularly where the project is located in a Neighborhood Transition Combining Area. ,The City may not rely on provisions of CEQA allowing streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with applicable plans, because as set forth above the Application does not propose a project that is "consistent" with the density standard expressed for the parcel in the UCSP. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15183 (a); see also Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3(c)). Accordingly, preparation of a subsequent EIR would be necessary in order to comply with CEQA. These issues are discussed in the following sections. II*THE APPLICATION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE NTCD REQUIREMENT THAT BUILDING DESIGN .BE COGNIZANT OF ADJACENT LOW DENSITY USES AND AVOID BALCONIES OVERLOOKING HEAR YARDS The UCSP establishes special regulations for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts ("NTCDs") "to ensure that the character of zones within the Specific Plan area Will be 4828-3439-1344.3 -2132016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 461 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMKN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 4 compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas." (UCSP, VI-40.) The C-1 zone, in which the proposed project is located, is an NTCD. (Id.) One of the express "Requirements" of the NTCD is as follows: ,Requirements g. Building design shall be cognizant of adjacent low density uses (i.e., avoid balconies overlooking rear yards. Id., VI-40-41. To be clear, this is an express requirement of the zoning that is an integral part of the UCSP; it is not a mere guideline, such as the Design Review Guidelines found elsewhere in the UCSP. The Application proposes a total of 28 balconies and eight patios that overlook rear yards of adjacent single-family uses, as well as a second-floor terrace that suffers from the same building design defect. Specifically, there are sLx east-facing balconies (three each on the second and third floors) at the east end of the proposed projecL less than five feet from the west side of Church Street right-of-way, wh-i'ch lconies face east, overlooking single-family residences an& rear yards of these residences. And there is one unit on the third floor which in a prior version of the Application had a north-facing balcony, which in the latest version hasa west-facing balcony. This shift of the orientation of the balcony, however, does not eliminate, the intrusion on the privacy of those living in the single-family residences on the west side of Church Street, apparently approximately 20 to 25 feet from the property" line, because the occupants of the unit will still be able to look north into the yards and homes of those single-family residences when the occupants are using the balcony. In addition, there are 21 east-facing balconies (seven each on the third, fourth and fifth floors) that directly overlook the slngle-family homes and rear yards of those residences on the west side of Church Street. These balconies are as close as 47 horizontal feet and are located on a recessed easM acing portion of the building. Also, there are seven east-facing patios just below those balconies. Finally, there is a large second-floor terrace that faces both east and north, with views facing into the rear yards of single-family homes on the west side of Church Street. From the portion of the terrace facing east, only I3 feet and seven inches separates the edge of the terrace from a rear yard of a single-family home. From the portion of the terrace facing north, only 13 feet and one inch separates the edge of the terrace from the yard of a single-family residence. The applicant apparently asserts that trees to be planted in containers at the edge of the terrace will mitigate the violation of the requirement that building design be cognizant of adjacent low density uses, but the trees will mitigate the ability of those in the abutting single-family residences to view users of the plaza from the yards of the single-family homes, but will not impede the ability of the residents of the 71 units (and their guests) using the terrace to look into the yards and homes of the adjacent single-family residences. 4828-3439-1344.3 -2142016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 462 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 5 f The fact that the specific example of how that requirement - that building design be cognizant of adjacent low density uses - is to be implemented - by avoiding balconies overlooking rear yards - is being violated by the Application makes the inconsistency with this requirement all the more obvious and e#egious. The only way that the Application could be approved with the 36. balconies or patios, plus the terrace, overlooldng adjacent single-family homes is if the Planning Commission were to authorize Development Exceptions from the above-cited requirement to ensure that building design be cognizant of adjacent low density uses by avoiding balconies and other features that overlook rear yards. We submit that three of the four the findings that are required to be made if a Development Exception is to be granted could not be made in this instance. Specifically, the finding could not be made that the proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the UCSP and the General Plan. (UCSP, VI-54.) As cited above, the NTCD establishes special regulations "to ensure that the character of zones within the Specific Plan area will be compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas." (Id. at VI-40.) Having residents of 71 units overlooking the yards of, and into the homes of, single-family residences located in some cases just a few yards away can hardly be considered to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the UCSP and in particular the purpose of the NTCD's special regulations. The second required finding to grant a Development Exception - that the proposed development will comply with all other re flations of the Specific Plan - cannot be made, for two reasons: the Application calls for a near doubling of the applicable FAR limit.of 1.0. With respect to the inability of the required findings to be made for the increased FAR, see Section VI. below. Finally, the fourth finding required to authorize an exception cannot be made, namely, that the exception that would allow the residents of 7i units, either from their private balconies or patios or from the terrace that is part of the common area of the complex, to overlook the yards and into the homes of adjacent single-family residences is "appropriate for this location and will result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through strict conformance with the UCSP development regulations." (UCSP, VI-54.) Ill.IN ANALYZING THE APPLICATION'S REQUEST FOR BONUS AWARDS OF FAR, STAFF MUST CONSIDER THE PROJECTED BUILD-OUT THAT WOULD OCCUR IF ALL THE BONUS PROVISIONS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE URBAN" AMENITIES INCENTIVES PROGRAM WERE ACTUALLY AWARDED The UCSP makes it clear that "It]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 allowable under the program were actually awarded." (UCSP, VI-48.) This can only refer to projected build-out under the UCSP, which is assumed to occur over 20 to 25 years after adoption of the UCSP in 2007, or by 2027 to 2032. (UCSP, II-2.) Buildout is assumed as follows: a net increase of 7,100 multi-family dwelling units; a net increase of 1.0 million square feet of 4828-3439-1344.3 -2152016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 463 CROSBIE GLINER SCHItrFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 6 retail space, a net increase of 1.3 million square feet of office space, and a net increase of 1.3 million square feet of visitor-serving uses within the UCSP Subdistricts area. (UCSP, II-2.) If we assume that 80 percent of the 690 acres comprising the UCSP Subdistricts Area is intended to be the subject of infill or redevelopment at higher densities during the build-out periods, and those 552 acres were to be developed with the three amenities proposed by the Application - parking within the building (for up to a 10 percent increase in FAR), LEED gold (for up to a 30 percent increase in FAR), and public open space (for up to a 10 percent increase in FAR) - then the resulting intensity of land use would be 50 percent greater than is contemplated in the UCSP or in its EIR. This assumption does not take into account additional density bonuses that may be granted for projects which provide affordable housing, or FAR waivers that are available for preservation and maintenance of features of historic structures or projects which include community or human services. (UCSP, VI-51.) This means that either build-out (as defined by the net increases in various uses as specified in the preceding paragraph) would be reached without the redevelopment of approximately 50 percent of the existing land area which the UCSP seeks to have redeveloped, or that the 552 acres will be redeveloped at 50 percent greater intensity of ase. It is obvious that either alternative would have significant potential impacts: under the former scenario, a large number of parcels would remain in their underutilized, vacant and/or deteriorated status; and under the latter scenaiio, the intensity of land use would outstrip the capacity of the UCSP's planned transportation and other infrastructure improvements to serve the residential population and users of the commercial space. Ne}ther outcome is consistent with the UCSP and neither outcome was evaluated in the EIR for the UCSP. Comparing the Application to the assumed build-out of the entire ucsP Subdistricts Area is instructive. As the Application calls for 71 residential units, the proposed project would account for exactly one percent of the anticipated build-out of multi-family units for the entire UCSP Subdistricts Area. But, the project site is only 45,213 square feet, or 1.04 acre. The entire UCSP Subdistricts Area is 690 acres, and so the project site is only 0.15 percent of the entire UCSP Subdistricts Area. The disparity between the Application's allocation of the UCSP's residential build-out - one percent - and the Application's project site size as compared to the total acreage . in the UCSP Subdistricts Area - 0.15 percent - indicates that the project site would capture more than 6.6 times its proportionate share of residential units. The staff report on the Application must therefore, consistent with the directive in the UCSP cited above, take into account the consequences if the other 689 acres of the UCSP (or as suggested above, some proportion of the entire 690-acre Subdistricts Area that is presumed to be redeveloped by 2032) are redeveloped with 50 percent FAR bonuses awarded through the Urban Amenities Incentives provisions of the UCSP. 4828-3439-1344.3 -2162016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 464 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LL;P Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 7 IV. THE STAFF REPORT ON THE APPLICATION MUST EVALUATE THE DEGREE OF PUBLIC BENEFIT PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND BASE ITS RECOMMENDED PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FAR ON THAT ANALYSIS Correspondence submitted to the City by the applicant seems to assume that the City will automatically award the proposed project a 50 percent increase in FAR because the proposed project would include parking on site, LEED Gold features, and a 650-square foot public plaza. But the UCSP makes it clear that, in addition to the analysis referred to in Section IIi hereof, the award of bonus FAR for providing amenities identified in the UCSP's Urban Amenities Table (UCSP, VI-51) is discretionary and that Planning Commission, in determining "just how much additional FAR or FAR waiver should be granted" must first "take into account the value added to the property by the amenity or design, and a reasonable share of additional FAR or FAR waiver that will proportionally compensate the developer for the additional amenities or design provisions." (UCSP, VI-48.) Second, the Planning Commission must evaluate incentive requests "case-by-case based on the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project." This case-by-case analysis should consider, for example, that a maximum 10 percent FAR bonus is available to be awarded for "Public Parks and Plazas, including Sports/Recreation Facilities, Play Lots, Water Features, Trails, Par Courses, Equipment, Gardens, Art Works." (UCSP, VI-51.) The public open space must have the following characteristics: an area greater than 500 square feet with a minimum depth of 30 feet; provides tables ahd chairs; provides pedestrian-scaled lighting, and has outdoor public art and other desired amenities, such as fountains. (Id) Here, the Application provides nothing more than a 650-square foot plaza at the raised primary entrances to the residential structure and to the small commercial use. It will likely be perceived by members of the public as an amenity belonging to the residents of the units or patrons of the commercial use, as distinguished from, say, a pocket park that might be located on the side of the structure, away from the primary entrance to the residential structure or retail space, which would more readily be perceived as a public space. As noted, the Planfling Commission is obligated to evaluate incentive requests on a "case by-case basis based on the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project." We submit that the proposed plaza, which is not much larger than the minimum size required tobe awarded a bonus, should not be awarded the full i0 percent FAR bonus, because it would have the effect of discouraging other developers from including a more useful and larger public open space area, such as a play lot, or a sports or recreation facility. The City should reserve an award of the full 10 percent FAR bonus for "Public Parks and Plazas" to a property owner whose project incorporates public open space which provides more significant public benefit. 4828-3439-1344.3 -217 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 465 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTFIARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 8 • V. THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE UCSP TO ALLOW FOR COMPOUNDING OF FAR BONUSES FOR AMENITIES in addition to wrongly assuming that the proposed project is entitled to the maximum available amount of FAR bonus for providing three separate urban amenities, the applicant is assuming that the award of an FAR bonus for providing one urban amenity can then be added to the base project FAR for purposes of calculating the percentage FAR bonus for a second urban amenity, and that the resulting FAR bonus for the second amenity can be added to the base project FAR for purposes of calculating the amount of the FAR bonus for the third amenity. (Through this attempt to claim a right to a higher FAR bonus than it is entitled by providing three urban amenities, the applicant is seeking to reduce the amount of the Development Exception from FAR limits it is seeking from the City, from a request for an exception in the amount of .45 additional FAR (i.e., an exception allowing 45 percent more floor area than allowed after application of the maximum FAR bonuses for three urban amenities), to a request for .38 additional FAR. See Section VI. Below.) To be specific, the applicant is claiming that it is entitled to a bonus of 4,521 square feet (10 percent of the size of the parcel, which is 45,213 square feet) for providing parking on site, and that that 4,521 is added to the 45,213, yielding 49,734 as the base to which the 10 percent FAR bonus is awarded for providing the above-referenced 650-square foot public plaza. Then, the applicant claims that the resulting 4,973 square feet of bonus floor area for the public plaza is added to the 49,734, yielding 54,707 square feet which would be the base fldor area to which the 30 percent FAR bonus for LEED Oold is applied, resulting in a third floor area bonus in the amount of 16,412. The 16,412 would be added to the 54,707 square feet to get a total floor area, purportedly authorized by the bonus awards for providing urban amenities, of71,119 square feet. There is absolutely no support for this "compounding" of the calculation of FAR bonus awards in the UCSP. In the absence of language specifically authorizing that compounding, each FAR bonus award should be separately added to the total FAR. So, the FAR bonus awards, even if the Planning Commission were to determine, after the case-by-case analysis of public benefit conferred by each urban amenity, that the maximum FAR bonus should be awarded to the project for each of the three amenities to be provided, should be calculated as follows: base floor area of 45,213; plus 4,521 for parking on site; plus 4,521 for public plaza; plus 13,564 for LEED Gold. The sum total floor area after application of the maximum bonus FAR for the proposed project cannot exceed 67,819 square feet. 4828-3439-I344.3 -2182016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 466 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt,AICP April i5, 2016 Page 9 V[,A DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO THE FAR LIMIT PERMITTING AN FAR OF 1.95 SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ADVANCE THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION PROVISION, AND THE REQUIRED FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE A. Introduction Even if awarded the maximum FAR bonus for three urban amenities, and even if the awards for such FAR bonuses were compounded as discussed in Section V, the Application requires the Planning Commission to grant a substantial "Development Exception" to the FAR limit in order for the Application to be approved. As discussed in Sections IV and V, the base floor area for the parcel is 45,213 square feet, as the base FAR is t.0. The Application proposes a project that is 88,323 square feet, with a resulting FAR of 1.95. Even if the maximum floor area bonuses were awarded for the project's inclusion of three urban amenities and those FAR bonuses were simply added to the base floor area (rather than being compounded as described in Section V), the Application seeks approval of a project that is 88,323 square feet, with a FAR of 1.95, or almost 50 percent above the 1.5 FAR that would result with maximum floor area bonuses awarded. Thus, the Application cannot be approyed unless the Planning Commission issues a "Development Exception" as set forth in the Section VI.I of the UCSP. A Development Exception is intended to encourage innovative design and allows flexibility in the application of certain development standards. (UCSP, VI-54.) Because the Application does not offer much if anything in the way of innovative design, but rather seeks only to maximize intensity of use of the property, and because the required findings cannot be made to support a "Development Exception" that would grant an additional 0.45 FAR, we submit that the Application must be denied. B. The Application Offers Little in the Way of the Desired Design Features Set Forth in the Design Guidelines Applicable in the Corridors District. The Application does not reflect the incorporation of any significant number of the design and site planning principles applicable to projects proposed in the Corridors District. (UCSP, VII 107-138.) Consequently, it does not merit the substantial exception to the FAR limit sought by the Application. First, the Application does not embody variety in building form, facades and features, as called for in the Design Guidelines. (UCSP, VII-108.) The project consists essentially of two rectangular boxes maximizing lot coverage along the Third Avenue and K Street frontages, with the only design feature providing any reIief being the plaza at the juncture of the two rectangles. 4828-3439-1344.3 -2192016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 467 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD &: SWANSON LLP Attorneys .at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 10 There appears to be some variation in the finish materials, but essentially no articulation except at the intersection of the two boxes at the plaza. Second, the Application does not comply with the second desigr principle, which calls for new development to "demonstrate sensitivity to surrounding uses. Such efforts should include limitingbuildingmassing ...." (UCSP, VI-108.) The Application shows no sensitivitywhatsoever to the abutting single-family residential use: As discussed above in Section II, the Application caIls for 28 balconies, eight patios and a large second-floor terrace that overlook the immediately abutting single-family yards and homes. And instead of limiting building massing, as expressly called for in order to ensure compatibility between different uses(UCSP, VI- 108), the Application seeks a Development Exception to allow it to exceed the othe vise maximum permissible FAR by a full 0.45 (to 1.95 from the 1.0 base and the maximum 1.5 if the fulI amount of incentive bonuses are added). Similarly, the proposed project hardly exemplifies the architectural guidelines for the Corridor District. They call for varying building heights and setbacks from adjacent or adjoining buildings. (UCSP, VIM 15.) Here, the two rectangles do not provide diversity in building gcpe, nor in height or setbacks. In addition, apart from the balconies, the facades show little break or articulation or vertical and horizontal offsets to minimize large blank walls and reduce building bulk. (Id.) The design guidelines regarding roof and upper story detail are similarly not incorporated into the proposed project. There appear to be no large overhangs featuring open rafters or tails, nor are there any building vertical focal elements, such as towers, spires, or domes, all of which are encouraged. (UCSP, VII-117.) It does not appear that the required perimeter wall along the eastern boundary of the property adjacent to the single-family homes is offset every 50 feet or designed to reduce monotony, or that there are landscape pockets along the wall at regular intervals. (UCSP, VII-118.) Thus, the Application does not reflect the incorporation of a significant number of the desired UCSP desigu features for the Corridors district, let alone exemplify innovative design, which is the stated purpose of the provision allowing Development Exceptions. Accordingly, the staff report must address exactly why the Planning Commission should grant such a large exception (almost 50 percent) to the fundamental land use regulation governing development in the UCSP Subarea Districts, the limit on FAR. 4828 3439-1344.3 -2202016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 468 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 11 C. The Required Findings Cannot Be Made to Support an Exeeption to the FAR Limit In addition to the Application not farthering the purposes that the Development Exception provision is intended to serve - innovative design - the findings required for a Development Exception cannot be made in this instance. The Planning Commission cannot grant a Development Exception unless four findings are made. Here, only one of the four findings can be made, namely, that the proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities. (UCSP, VI-54.) None of the other three required findings can be made: (1) that the proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the UCSP and the General Plan; (2) that the proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the UCSP; and (3) that the exception is appropriate for this location and Will result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through strict conformance with the UCSP development regulations. 1. A Findinz Cannot Be Made that the Proposed Development Will Not Adversely Affect the Goals and Objectives of the UCSP and General Plan Just as the UCSP requires that projected buildout be considered if all the bonus provisions allowable under the Urban Amenities Incentives Program were actually awarded (as discussed in Section III above), so too must the Planning Commission consider the cumulative impact on the goals and objectives of the UCSP of granting a Development Exception that would allow an almost 50 percent increase in the permissible FAR (assuming that the fall amount of potential FAR bonus for inclusion of three Urban Amenities were awarded) or a 95 percent increase in the permissible FAR (if no FAR bonus were awarded for inclusion of Urban Amenities). Such a Development Exception would set a precedent that would mean either that build-out under the UCSP (i.e., net increase of 7,100 dwelling units, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, 1.3 million square feet of office space, and 1.3 million square feet of visitor-serving space) would be reached without the redevelopment of approximately 50 percent of the 690 acres in the UCSP Subarea Districts, or that that area will be redeveloped at approximately 50 percent greater intensity of land use. Either alternative would deter the achievement of the goals and objectives of the UCSP, and result in potential environmental impacts not assessed in the.EIR. Under the former, a large number of vacant, underutilized and/or deteriorated parcels would remain in that status, because all of the projected and planned for growth will have occurred on a small fraction of the parcels that happened to be developed first. Under the latter scenario, the City would ignore the projected build-out numbers and allow growth at almost double the intensity of that planned in the UCSP throughout the UCSP Subdistricts Area, growth that would outstrip the capacity of the planned infrastructure to accommodate it without adverse environmental and other impacts. 4828-3439-1344.3 -2212016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 469 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 12 In addition to the general inconsistency of the requested Development Exception with the entire framework of the UCSP, it is fundamentally at odds with the Neighborlmod Transition Combining District and its goal that "the character of zones within the Specific Plan area will be compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas." (UCSP, VI-40.) Simply put, a near doubling of the base FAR (which results if the Application is approved with minimal or no FAR bonuses awarded for inclusion of three Urban Amenities) or a near 50 percent increase in the base FAR (which results if the Application is approved with the maximum available FAR bonuses for inclusion of those three Urban Amenities) is inconsistent with the goal of ensuring that growth in the Urban Subdistricts areas that are designated as NTCDs (as is the C-1 district in which the subject property is located) is compatible with adjacent single-family residential areas. 2. A Findin Cannot Be Made that the Proposed Development Complies with All Other Regulations of the UCSP As discussed in Section I, the Application includes 28 balconies, eight patios, and large wrap-arotmd terrace which all overlook adjacent single-family residences, in violation of the requirement oZ the NTCD that "[b]uilding design shall he cognizant of adjacent low densi*y uses (i.e., avoid balconies overlooking rear yards." (UCSP, VI-40-41.) It would make a mockery of the NTCD provisions, and the UCSP generally, were the Planning Commission to grant a Development Exception to allow the sought-after 28 balconies, eight patios and large terrace, in addition to a Development Exception for the almost 50 percent increase in permissible floor area (assuming that full credit were granted for the three Urban Amenities). 3. A Finding Cannot Be Made that the Development Exceptions Are Appropriate/'or the Location and Will Result in a Better Design or Greater Public Benefit Than Could Be Achieved Through Strict Conformance with the Speei/ic Plan's' Development dations An increase of almost 50 percent in the permissible FAR (assuming maximum credit were given for inclusion of three Urban Amenities) in an area abutting fi single-family residential area and utter disregard of the NTCD's requirement that building design be cognizant of adjacent single-family residential development by 28 balconies, eight patios and a large terrace 6verDoking single-family homes and yards militate against a finding that the Development Exceptions are appropriate for the project site and that they will result in a better design or greater public benefit than if the project were to conform to the Specific Plan's development regulations. The Application seeks not a small variance from the UCSP's development regulations, but a major departure from the FAR limits and the protections afforded adjacent single-family residential areas, 4828 3439-1344.3 -2222016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 470 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFF [AN SOUTHARD SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 13 VII.STREAMLINED REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION UNDER CEQA WIL NOT SUFFICE BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY ESTABLI[SHED BY THE UCSP The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provides for streamlined environmental review for qualifying projects that are consistent with the applicable general plan, community plan and zoning designations. (Pub. Res. Code §21083.3; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (hereinafter "Guidelines") §15183.) "CEQA mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site...." (Guidelines, §15183(a) (emphasis added). "Consistent" means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning...." (Id. § 15183(i)(2) (emphasis supplied).) Here, the Application is not consistent with the development density established by the UCSP. The standard for the parcel at issue in the UCSP is an FAR of 1.0. The Application would authorize a project with an FAR of 1.95. The EIR for the UCSP did not discuss at all the potential effects of deoelopment occurring at densities greater than those set forth in the base FAR authorized for each UCSP Subdistrict. It simply stated, without explanation, that the UCSP at build-out would add 7, 100 dwelling units, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, i .3 million square feet of office space, and 1.3 million square feet of visitor-serving space. The source of these figures was not identified, nor was there any discussion in the UCSP or the EIR of how the base FAR authorized for each UCSP Subdistrict, let alone the authorized increases in FAR through the Urban Amenities, related to the build-out assumptions. Indeed, as noted above in Section III, the UCSP expressly mandates that the Planning Commission's determination as to "[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 allowable under the program were actually awarded." (UCSP, V!-48.) Accordingly, if up to a 50 percent increase in FAR were to be awarded to the proposed project through the provision of three Urban Amenities, that analysis must be undertaken because the UCSP requires it and the EIR did not address it. These principles apply with even more force in the case of the requested Development Exception that would allow an additional 0.45 FAR, on top of the maximum 0.5 FAR bonus sought through the Urban Amenities program. As Development Exceptions carl theoretically be granted as to any or all of the development standards applicable in any of the UCSP Subdistrict Areas, the 4828 3439-I344.3 -2232016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 471 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 14 EIR obviously could not (and did not) analyze the potential impacts of awards of Development Exceptions. Where, as here, the Development Exceptions sought by the Application include an increase in FARof between 0.45 and 0.95, as well as a blatant violation of the NTCD requirement that "building design shall be cognizant of adjacent low density uses (e.g., avoid balconies overlooking rear yards)," it is evident that the project is not consistent with the development density or other key provisions of the UCSPI The EIR for the UCSP could not possibly have analyzed the potential impacts of an infinite number, variety and extent of Development Exceptions to the various applicable development regulations, and did not address those potential impacts in any manner. Accordingly, the Application is not subject to an exemption from, or streamlined review under, CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21083.3. At minimum, a subsequent EIR would be required to comply with CEQA if the City were to approve the Application. EFH/me cc: Mr. Earl Jentz Sincerely, .-U ]i i / t; -. E elyn . Heldelberg "<''-P t Q J 4828-3439-13443 -2242016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 472 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR15-0015 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUMTO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL hMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN I. RECITALS WHEREAS, the parcel of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description consists of 1.05 acres located at 795 Third Avenue and 285 K Street, as identified in County Assessor Records as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 573-371-23 and 573 37t-12 (Project Site); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2015 duly verified applications requesting approval of Design Review Application DR15-0015, Tentative Subdivisioti Map Application PCS15-0006 (Chula Vista Tract No. 15-06) and Preliminary Enviromaental Review PER-12-003, were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Niki Properties, LLC ("Applicant" and "Owner"); and WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 to redevelop the Project Site with a mixed use, multi family residential/commerciai project known as Vista del Mar, whichincludes 71 residential units, 616 square-feet of commercial space, 142-parking space garage, active and passive open spaces, andthe associated access and circulation elements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on June 22, 2016 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs' presentation; and WHEREAS, the Plamdng Commission on said date reviewed and considered the Addendum to Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 06-01 and the application for Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015. - 2 2 5- Attachment 132016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 473 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chnla Vista that it does hereby find and determine as follows: II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW That the Chnla Vista Planning Cormnission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Preliminary Environmental Review of the Project conducted by the Director of Development Services for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the Project was covered by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council in May 2007. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to FEIR-06-01 are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. That the Chula Vista PIanning Commission, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in the form presented, which has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. III. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY'S URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN That the Chnla Vista Plarming Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings does hereby find that the Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 for the Project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan as follows. The proposed Project is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan and the objectives, policies and regulations of the UCSP. The General Plan and the UCSP envision the C1 Third Avenue South District as an area with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that contribute to create a vibrant and attractive area. 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 that would provide 71 new residential units (market rate and affordable) on Third Avenue, as well as 616 square-feet of retail space, and would bring people, improvements mad investment to the District. The Project would provide multi-family housing in this are of Chula Vista and would 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. The additional residents would contribute to create an active and vibrant atmosphere along Third Avenue as envisioned by the General Plan and the UCSP. The proposed punic plaza at the comer of Third Avenue and K Street, which includes art and famiture, will provide an amenity that will activate the street and create opportunities for civic engagement and interaction. The wider and famished sidewalks along Third Avenue and K Street will also contribute to activate the street and -2262016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 474 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 3 create a pedestrian-safe and friendly environment. The proposed Project is also consistent with the UCSP development regulations related to building height, building setbacks and step backs, parking, open space and landscaping. As shown in the staff report, the Project meets all of the regulations of the specific plan, except for FAR (see below),- and, in cases such as parking, usable open space and landscaping, the Project exceeds the minimum required standards. "IV. DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS The UCSP provides for and authorizes the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to the land use and development regulations, in order to encourage and achieve innovative design. The Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit in the amount of 0.5 or 22,869 square-feet. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission in cases where all of the following findings are made: l. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. 3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives in section F - Urban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter. 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. FAR Exception Findings BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Plarming Commission "hereby approves an exception to the FAR limit of 1.0 in the amount of 0.5 or 22,869 square-feet based upon the following Findings and substantiating facts thereto: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 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 residentiaI/comme cial use at the Comer of Third Avenue and K Street. The intent of the General and Specific Plans is to facilitate and encourage development and improvements that wiI1 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, cultttral 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 -2272016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 475 PC Resolution DRCI5-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 4 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 punic plaza that will create a pedestrian-friendly environment and foster civic engagement in a multi-purpose environment. The building mass and form 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 comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. As indicated in the Development Standards table above, 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 Project 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 welI 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. 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 tail landscape materials have been provided along the east and north perimeter to screen the homes from direct view of the balconies. X,Aaile the NTCD provisions indicate that baiconies should be avoided, balconies are still an 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 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 face of Third Avenue and become a new architectural landmark. -2282016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 476 ) 12 2 : PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 5 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. .The proposed development will incoiTorate 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 pIaza 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 Project 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 bullding'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 wiiI provide more options for clean, safe, energy efficient and modern housing for the Chula Vista workforce. These 71 dwelIg units will put more people on Third Avenue to support the small businesses located there and to create a more pedestrian-friendly street atmosphere. .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 compIy with the goals and objectives of the General Plan arid 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 C1 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 some additional residential development within the C1 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 of residential -2292016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 477 PC ResoIution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 6 development. The proposed Project FAR of 2.091,345 sq. ft.) represents approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the C1 District. 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 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 through periodic reviews and amendments to the UCSP as required by law, and based on changes to the physical conditions of the Urban Core and changes in economic activity). The proposed development creates a people activated, urban comer that contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the public realm through improved streetscape design and individual building character. V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is improved with Project The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Design Review Permit DR15-0015 consisting of the approved Site Plans, Floor Plans, Building Elevations, Roof Plans, and Concept Landscape Plans. VI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The conditions herein imposed on the Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit approval are approximately proportional both to the nature and extent of impact created by the proposed Project. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed by the Applicant, Owner or Successor-in-Interest to the Director of Development Services, or designee's satisfaction prior to approval of the first Building Permit, unless otherwise specified: GENERAL/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .The Applicant shall obtain approval of Tentative Subdivision_Ma'e.t. CVT-15-06 (PCS15 0006) and a Final Subdivision Map for the Project prior to approval of Building Permits in reliance on this Design Review Permit approval. 2 The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer, the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum to Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 06-01 for the Project within the timeframe specified in said MMRP. -2302016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 478 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 7 3. The Applicant shall pay in fulI any unpaid balance for the Project, including Deposit Account No. DQ3021. ,Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 8.24 - Solid Waste and Litter, and Chapter 8.25 - Recycling, related to mixed-use/multi-family residential development projects, to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Environmental Services Division. These requirements include, but are not limited to the following: a. The Applicant shall contract with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the Project. b.The Applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance, including submittal of a Waste Management Report per CVMC 8.25.095.B, to the Environmental Services Division. ,The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of detailed Landscape Improvement Plans in accordance with the City Landscape Manual, and the Water Conservation Ordinance, prior to the issuance of applicable permits or other discretionary approval. Landscape Plans shall be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect and shall be consistent with the approved Concept Landscape Plan. ,Project plans shall incorporate street furniture along the Third Avenue and K Street frontage such as ornamental benches, ornamental tree grates, and ornamental light fixtures consistent with the UCSP. .The public plaza shall include approximately 1,700 squared-feet in area and shall incorporate decorative street furniture, including chairs and benches, and an art feature, including a water fountain or a sculptural art piece. 8. The 10-foot sidewalk along the Third Avenue frontage shall be reconstructed of decorative paving materials. 9. All private driveways and pedestrian walkways located along the Third Avenue and K Street project frontages shall be constructed of decorative paving materials, 10. The Project Applicant proposes to provide a mural on the building's north elevation. A preliminary proposal includes a mural that describes the history and culture of Chula Vista. The Applicant shall submit the mural proposal to the Development Services Director for review and approval prior to the installation on the wall. 11. 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. The Project approval is based on the -2312016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 479 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page s incorporation and construction of all the LEED features as outlined in Attachment 10 of the staff report. The Project was designed to include a 30% increase in the building Floor Area Ratio contingent on the (a) incorporation and construction of all LEED features and (b) receipt of the LEED Gold Certification from the US Green Building Council. If the Project plans are found at the time of building permit to not meet the criteria for LEED Gold Certification, the Project plans shall be revised to include all the features outlined in Attachment 10 and ffflly meet all of the LEED Gold Certification criteria. If this does not occur, then Project approval is suspended and new or revised plans shall be presented to the Planning Commission for approyal prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. 12.The Building Permit plans shall show that the Project has been designed to comply with applicable requirements of CVMC 15.56.020 "Condominium Projects, Condominium Conversions and Occupancy thereof." 13. Applicant shall design and install a "Keep Clear" striping detail at the combined Project/BaN< of America driveway to 'ensure that vehicles stopped at Third Avemle and queuing westbound on K Street do not block the Project driveway. Said striping detail will be designed to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. 14. Applicant shall prepare and submit a lighting plan for City approval that demonstrates compIiance with Chapter 17.28 (Unnecessary Lights) of the Chula Municipal Code, and compliance with the UCSP. 15. A lighting plan shali be provided with- the Building Permit submittal showing that lighting of all enclosed parking, pedestrian walkways, recreational areas, building entries and other public areas have been provided. 16. The Applicant shall reserve a minimum of one parking space for the commercial use and a minimum of seven parking spaces in the garage for use of its residents' guests. These spaces shall be marked by appropriate signage. A note to this effect shall be shown on the Site Plan to be submitted to the City as part of the building permit application. HOUSING DIVISION 17.The City of Chula Vista General Plan Housing Element established Policy 5.1.1 (the "Balanced Community Policy"), which requires the occupancy and affordability of ten percent (10%) of each housing development of 50 or more units for low and moderate income households, with at least one half of those units (5% of project total units) being designated for low-income households (the "Affordable Housing Obligation"). In satisfaction of the Balanced Community Policy, the Project Applicant shall execute an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder over the entirety of the Proj ect Site. The Afibrdable Housing Agreement shall provide that 10% of the total number of qualified low income (5%) and moderate housing units (5%) shall be constructed on site or pay'the In lieu fee of $124,220 per unit. The -2322016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 480 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 9 trigger point to pay the in lieu fee is determined by the City Manager and City Attorney or their designees. BUILDING DIVISION 18.The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of Building Permit(s) to the satisfaction of the City BuiIding Official. The Building Permits shall comply with npdated codes and requirements, including but not limited to the following: 2013 Edition of the California Building Code as amended by CVMC 15.08; 2013 Edition of the California Residential Code CVMC 15.09; 2013 Edition of California Mechanical Code CVMC 15.16; 2013 Edition of the California Plumbing Code as amended by CVMC 15.28; 2013 Edition of the California Electrical Code as amended by CVMC 15.24; 2013 Edition of the California Fire Code as amended CVMC 15.36; 2013 Edition of the California Green Building Standards Code as amended CVMC 15.12; 2010 Edition of the California Energy Code as amended CVMC 15.26; 2000 Edition of the Urban-Wildland Interface Code as amended CVMC 15.38; 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code as amended CVMC 15.20; and 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings as amended CVMC 15.18. LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION: 19. The following fees are payable prior to issuance of Building Permits, based on the Final Building Plans submitted: a. Sewer Connection and Capacity Fees b. Traffic Si nal Fees c. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) d. Western Transportation Development Impact Fees (WTDIF) e. Other Engineering Fees as applicable 20.Applicant shall pay Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees per dwelling unit as required prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in accordance with CVMC 17.I0. 100. The current PAD Fee for West Chula Vista Projects is $7,607 for each Multi Family Residential dwelling. The PAD Fee is adjusted on an annual basis on October 1 based on the Engineer Construction Cost Index. The payment of the PAD Fee amoant in place at the time of the recording of the Final Map is required. The PAD Fee for the project at this time is $540,097 (71 @ $7,607/unit). 21.All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parldng shall be designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, ADA Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable. -2332016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 481 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 10 22. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shalI obtain approval of street addresses to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. 23. Applicant shalI obtain approval of a sign permit prior to construction of any proposed signage. WASTEWATER ENGINEERING SECTION 24. Applicant shall submit a revised Sewer Study to reflect the methodology, standards and generation factors listed in the City of Chula Vista Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, dated May 2014, prepared by Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. 25. The Peak to Average sewer flow shall be calculated based on City of Chula Vista CVD SW01. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 26. For 67,873 square feet of Type IA construction and or 102,763 square feet of Type VA construction, this project will require a fire flow of 6906 gallons per minute for a 4-hour duration at 20 p.s.i. The respective water authority will be requested to perform a hydranlic flow analysis of their system to determine if the fire flow is available. No reductions in fire flow will be granted for buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 27. Based upon the re@red fire flow for Type VA and IA construction type, a minimum of 7 fire hydrant(s) are required to serve this project. Existing public hydrants may be used to fulfill this requirement, however at least one new punic hydrant will need to be added along the east side of Third Avenue at the northwest end of the building due to distance to the next exiting hydrant along Third Avenue. 28. Fire Hydrants shall be located and spaced in accordance with California Fire Code, Appendix C. For a fire flow requirement of 6;906 gpm, fire hydrants shall be spaced at an average of 250 feet. 29. Knox boxes shall be instailed at all stairwell entrances, the lobby entrance, the resident lounge entrance, the fire control room and for the commercial space• entrance in accordance with Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) details. Any automatic gates that restrict vehicular access into the parking garage shall be provided with a Knox Key Switch. 30. The fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm panel shall be located in a fire control room that is accessible directly from the exterior of the building. The Fire Control Room shall be dimensioned in accordance with CVFD standard detail and located along the Third Avenue or K Street exterior wails. The Fire Control Room cannot be used for anything besides the fire riser(s) and fire alarm control panel. -2342016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 482 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 20t6 Page I I 31. A Post Indicating Valve that controls the supply of the fire sprinkler system will not be re@red for this project due to the zero lot lines along Third and K; however, a control valve shall be installed on the fire sprinkler riser. 32. The Fire Department Connection (FDC) is allowed to be located on the face of the building due to zero lot lines. The FDC shall be within 50' of a fire hydrant. Consider this when locating the fire control room as the FDC is typically located close to the system riser. 33. At least one elevator car shall be dimensioned to accommodate a gumey in accordance with CBC 3002.4@). VII. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020@) and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in connection with the pr@ct; and it does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has p eviously expired. VIII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk. Failure to record this document shall indicate the property owner and Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as Document No. Sigaaature of Applicant Printed Name of Applicant Date -2352016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 483 PC Resolution DRC15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 12 Signature of Property Owner Date Printed Name of Applicant IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILUR OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The AppIicant shall be notified ten (10) days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and diligent time frame. X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect alo initio. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DRC 15-0015 for 71 residential units, 616 square-feet of commercial unit, 142-parldng space garage, active and passive open spaces, and the associated access and circulation elements 795 Third Avenue subject to the conditions of approval contained lierein. -2362016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 484 PC Resolution DRCI5-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 13 Presented by:Approved as to form by: Kelly Broughton Director of Development Services Glen R. Googins City Attorney PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of June 2016, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Yolanda Calvo, Chair ATTEST: Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary -2372016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 485 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK -2382016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 486 MASONIC TEMPLE VERDE PARK APARTMENTS CLEANERS THIRD AVENUE PLAZA OFFICES SF SF SF SF SF SP SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSF OFF/CES GARDEN APARTMENTS AM/P &ALVA GARDENS APARTMENTS BANK OFAMERICA GREENJACK TREEIN THE FOUNTAINBOX APARTMENT CHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER APN 5733771200 APN 5733712300 PINE VISTA APARTMENTS WELLS FARGO BANK " SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVUCES DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Vista Del Mar PROJECTOESCR, Pr,oN:APPLICANT: E S|GN R '| W PROJECT NEC Third Av & K St Project Summary: Proposal for e mixed use 3-5 story, 71 condo units N616 sq ADDRESS: APN's 5733711200 & 5733712300 ft of commercial space and 142 below grade parldng statls, . SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH Related cases: j:piann(nglpubffc noUc sldr dr150015 8 xlO.al -239- Exhibit A2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 487 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK -2402016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 488 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PCS-15-0006 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUMTO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP PCS150006 TO COMBINE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AT 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN RECITALS WHEREAS, the parcei of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is depicted in Exhibit °A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description consists of 1.05 acres located at 795 Third Avenue, as identified in County Assessor Records as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 573-371-12-00 and 573-371 23-00 (Project Site); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2015 duly verified applications for the Vista Del Mar Project requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS 15-0006, Chula Vista Tract No. 15-06), Design Review (DR15-0015), and Preliminary Environmental Review (PER15 0004), w r filed with the City of Chula V--ista Development Services Department by Niki Properties, LLC ("Applicant" and °Owner"); and WHEREAS, said AppIicant requests approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide 1.05 acres into a one-lot Condominium. Subdivision, including 71 multi-family residential units, 1 616 square-foot commercial unit, 142 parking spaces and 17,646 square-feet of public, common and private usable open space, (the °°Project"); and WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and i WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Planning Commission on June 22, 2016 in the Council Chambers, 276 Foul Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs' presentation; and considered the applications for the Preliminary Environmentai Review (PER15-0004) and Tentative Map (PCS 15-0006). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pianning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it does hereby find and determine as follows: - 2 41 - Attachment 14 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 489 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 2 II.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW That the Chula Vista Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Prelimin,ary Environmental Review of the Project conducted by the Director of Development Services for compIiance with the California EnviromnentaI Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the Project was covered by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council in May 2007. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to FEIR-06-01 are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. That the Chula Vista Planning Commission, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in the form presented, which has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. III.DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS The UCSP provides for and authorizes the PIanning Commission to grant exceptions to the land use and development regulations, in order to encourage and achieve innovative design. The Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit in the amount of 0.5 or approximately 22,738 square-feet. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission in cases where all of the foIlowing findings are made: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. 3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives in section F - Urban Amenities Requirements and Incentives, of this chapter. 4. The exception or exceptions are appropriate for this location and wEl result in a better design or greater public beneft than could be achieved through strict conformance with the Specific Plan development regulations. FAR Exception Findings BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Plarming Commission hereby approves an exception to the FAR limit of 1.0 in the amount of 0.5 or 22,738 square-feet based upon the foUowing Findings and substantiating facts thereto: -2422016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 490 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 3 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 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 Comer 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 alms 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-propose environment. The building mass and form allows the Project to have the number of residential units and the assoeiated parking, landscaping, recreational spaces and other features that provide a multi-purpose environment and activities to meet the goals and objectives oft he General and Specific Plans. 2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulation of the Specific Plan. As indicated in the Development Standards table in the staff report, 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 buiIding parapets and elevator shaft achieve a height of 60 feet, which is the maximum permitted by the UCSP). The building setbacks are within those required 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 Project 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 rednced building mass and height near the residential properties, as well as, distancing the Project as much as possible from the residential properties. -2432016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 491 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 20t6 Page 4 The UCSP's Special Provisions for the NTCD indicate that "Building design shal(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. 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. AIso, 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 should be avoided, balconies are still an 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 fagade 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. .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 following three amenities, are fully described in the staff report: 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 foUows: 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 Project 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 Ss 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 modem housing for the Chula Vista worki'orce. These 71 dwelling units will put more people on Third Avenue to support the small businesses located -2442016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 492 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 5 there and to create a more pedestrian-friendly street atmosphere. ,The exception or exceptions are appropriate for this location and will result in a better design or greater public beneJ t than could be achieved through strict conformance with the Spee c Plan development regulations. 21ae 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 C1 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 some additional residential development within the C1 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 Dis*rict 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 2.0 (91,345 sq. ft.) represents approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the C 1 District. 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 maximtun 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 through periodic reviews and amendments to the UCSP as required by law, and based on changes to the physical conditions of the Urban Core and changes in economic activity). The proposed development creates a people activated, urban comer that contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enI ances the public realm through improved streetscape design and individual building character. IV.. WAIVER OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 19.09.050, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the requirement for a Public Facilities Financing Plan is hereby waived because the Project is infill development located in a developed portion of the City where adequate public faciiities exist or will be provided concurrent with development of the Project Site, therefore there are no public service, facility or phasing needs that warrant the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan. -2452016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 493 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 20t6 Page 6 V,TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for the Project, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following Findings and substantiating facts thereto: 1. Land Use and Circulation The General Plan land use designation is the Mid-Third Avenue District, which permits office, commercial and residential uses, and is also regulated by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), which further refines and implements the General Plan. The Project Site is designated the C1 Corridor Third Avenue South District by the UCSP, which permits mixed commercial and multi-family residential uses pursuant to the UCSP deveIopment standards. The Project would provide a mixed use development of 71 multi family residential units; and one 616 commercial unit, at a FAR of 2.0. The UCSP contains provisions that permit an increase above the base FAR of 1.0, if certain project amenities are provided. The Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the UCSP- Also, the Findings required for the exception to increase the proposed FAR to 2.0 have been made and substantiated herein. The Project has direct frontage on K Street, which is a residential street that provides access to Third Avenue, which is designated as a 4-lane Class 1 Collector Street in the General Plan. Third Avenue wiI1 be improved by the Applicant, in accordance with the conditions of approval, to provide sidewalk and landscape improvements in compliance with City design standards and requirements. Projects proposed for the western Chula Vista area are also required to pay the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee prior to Building Permit issuance, to pay their share of costs associated with future road construction in the area. 2. Economic Development The Project will provide 71 new, high-quality, energy-efficient multi-family homes that will enhance the image and appearance of the neighborhood, help revitalize the commercial businesses in the area, and create jobs related to the construction and the use of the Project, that will benefit the local economy. The Project will provide new rental and for-sale multi-family housing in a commercial area that will improve the housing mix and enhance residential and commercial opportunities in the neighborhood. The Project Site location near the intersection of Third Avenue and K Street wilI provide convenient access for residents to neafoy public transportation, jobs, schools, and commerc{al services. The development of the site will also increase the amount of property tax revenue to the City. The Project will be constructed using green building and landscaping features that comply with the Cal Green Building Standards. Thus, approval of the Project will help achieve the General Plan objectives that seek to promote a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve the City's jobs/housing balance, provide a diverse economic base, and encourage the growth of small businesses. -2462016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 494 PC Resolution PCS t 5-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 7 3. PuNic Facilities and Services The Project Site is located in the attendance area of the Rice Elementary School, within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The Project is also within the attendance area of Chula Vista Middle SchooI and Chula Vista High School, within the Sweetwater Union High School District. Both school districts responded that they would be able to accommodate the additional students generated by the Project, and that the schools would not be adversely impacted by the approval of the Project. The Project Site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater services area. The existing sewer facility system includes an existing 4-inch public sewer main line located along the southwest property line of the Project Site. New 8 inch sewer laterats are proposed to service the Project. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed Project. The Project has been conditioned to ensure that ali necessary public facilities and services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those services. The City Engineer and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City policies and have determined that the proposal meets those standards. The proposed Project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a mixed commercial/residential infill project and would not adversely impact existing or proposed park and recreational facilities. The Project has been conditioned to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees prior to issuance of Building Permits. Project construction will be required to comply with the 2014 California Green Building Standards, the Ca1 Green Building Standards and the 2013 California Energy Code. In addition, the Applicant will construct the Project to comply with LEED Gold standards, and therefore energy-efficient multi-family homes will be developed. .Housing The Project will be granted FAR bonuses and exceptions specified herein and therefore is consistent with the FAR and density prescribed within the UCSP C-1 Corridors District zoning, and will provide additional opportunities for high-quality, market-rate multi-family residential home ownership in the southwestern portion of the City. The Project Site is subject to the Balanced Con 'nunities -Affordable Housing Program of the City's Housing Element. For all new residential projects consisting of 50 or more dwelling units, 10% of the units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households, with 5% for lower income and 5% for moderate income. Pursuant to this program, the Project will be required to provide a total of 7 low and moderate affordable units, or pay an in-lieu fee. 5. Growth Manaffement The Project is in compliance with applicable Growth Management Element requirements because it is an infill project that will be served by existing public infrastructure. There are no public services, facilities, or phasing needs that warrant the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan. '-2472016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 495 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 8 6. Environmental The Project includes multi-family homes with common and private usabte open space that exceeds the minimum common usable open space requirements of the UCSP. The Project Site is currently developed with commercial structures that will be demolished in accordance with applicable state and local laws/to protect residents and workers from exposure to hazardous materials. The Project will be conditioned to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residents from noise and dust from construction and grading activities, to the maximum extent feasible. The Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to the UCSP FEIR-06-01, in compliance with the CEQA. Potential significant impacts to Landform/Aesthetics (including visual character and light and glare effects), Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Traffic will be mitigated upon completion of the Mitigation Measures specified in the UCSP FEIR-06-01 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which are required prior to issuance of the Final Map, Grading Plan, or Building Permits for the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the development of the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Conservation Element. B. That pursuant to Goverm-nent Code Section 66473.1, the configv,ration, orientation, and topography of the Project Site allows for the optimum siting of buildings for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities, and the development of the Site will be subject to Buliding Permit review pursuant to the 2013 California Building Code as amended and updated, inciuding Cal Green Building Standards, and the 2013 California Energy Code, to ensure the maximum utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. C. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the punic service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. D.That the Project Site is physically suited for residential development. The Project proposes to develop a level property that is developed with commercial structures, and is located on Third Avenue, a Circulation Element road, at the intersection of K Street. The Project design makes full utilization of the land, locates the building with convenient access to Third Avenue, an on-site parking garage, and to on-site common recreational amenities and open space areas. The Project Site is adjacent to commercial uses on the noith, south and west, and residential development on the east. The proposed Project design takes advantage of the location and characteristics of the Project Site to provide a mixed use building at height and scale that transitions from 34 feet, 3 stories adjacent to lower density residential uses on the east, to 60 feet, 5 stories facing Third Avenue to the west. The Project Site also has convenient access to the MTS bus route on Third Avenue. As conditioned, the Project conforms to all standards established by the City for a mixed use commercial/multi-family residential development. -2482016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 496 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 9 VI. TEN1 ATIVE MAP GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is Improved with Project The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest, shall improve the Proiect Site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract }qo. 12-07, located at 795 Third Avenue. VII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The conditions imposed on the Tentative Map approval herein are approximately proportional both to the nature and extent of impact created by the proposed Project. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements iisted below shall be fully completed by the Applicant, Owner or Successor-in-Interest to the Director of Development Services, or designee's, satisfaction prior to approval of the Final Map, unless otherwise specified: GENERAL/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The Project shall comply with the City of Chula Vista Standard Tentative Map Conditions, described in Section 5 of the City Subdivision Manual, as approved and amended from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and City Engineer. 2. Applicant shall pay in ! any unpaid balance for the Project, including Deposit Account No. DQ3021. .The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Direc}or of Development Services and the City Engineer, the mitigation measures identified in the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01for the Project, within the timeframe specified in the MMRP. 4 The Final Map shall include an exhibit delineating the open space and improvements to be maintained by the Applicant, Homeowner's Association or other entity, including the public plaza, common open space areas, landscaping, and bio-retention areas, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and City Engineer. .Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall obtain approval of Design Review Permit DR15-0015 and construct the Project in compliance with the approved Design Review plans and conditions of approval. ,The City of Chula Vista General Plan Housing Element established Poiicy 5.1.1 (the "Balanced Community Policy"), which requires the occupancy and affordability of ten percent (I0%) of each housing development of 50 or more units for low and moderate income households, with at least one half of those units (5% of project total units) being designated for low-income households (the "Affordable Housing Obligation"). In -2492016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 497 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 10 satisfaction of the Balanced Community Policy, the Project Applicant shall execute an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder over the entirety of the Project Site. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall provide that 10% of the total number of qualified low income (5%) and moderate housing units (5%), which equals a total of 7 low and moderate income units, shall be constructed on site or pay the In lieu fee of $124,220 per unit. The trigger point to pay the in lieu fee is determined by the City Manager and City Attorney or their designees. LAND DEVELOMENT DIVISION/GENERAL COMMENTS AND FEES: 7. The following fees shall be payable prior to issuance of Building Permits, based on the Final Building Plans submitted: a. Sewer Connection and Capacity Fees b. Traffic Signal Fees c. Public FaciIities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) d. Western Transportation Development Impact Fees (WTDIF) e. Other Engineering Fees as applicabIe per the Master Fee Schedule 8. Additional deposits or fees in accordance with the City Subdivision Manual, and Master Fee Schedule shall be required for the submittal of the following items: a. Grading Plans b. Street Improvement Plans c. Final Map ,Payment of the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee per dwelling unit shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in accordance with CVMC 17.10. 160. The current PAD Fee for West Chula Vista Projects is $7,607 for each Multi-Family Residential dwelling. The PAD Fee is adjusted on an annual basis each October 1 based on the Engineer Construction Cost Index. The payment of the PAD Fee amount in place at the time of the recording of the Final Map is required. The PAD Fee for the project at this time is $540,097 (71 @ $7,607/unit). ACCESS AND SITE PLAN: 10. All driveways shall conform to the City of Chula Vista'ssight distance requiremerts in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code. Also, landscaping, street furniture, or signs shalI not obstruct the visibility of driver at the street intersections or driveways. 11. Driveways shall be designated as private. -2502016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 498 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 11 SEWER 12. Clearly show the existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines and how the site will connect to the City's public sewage system. No sewer lines will be allowed to be located under existing or proposed buildings. Indicate whether sewer lirles are private or public. GRADING AND DRAINAGE: The foi1owing conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Grading Plan for the Project: 13. Depict and detail existing and proposed drainage to ensure adjacent properties are not impacted. 14. Provide two updated copies of the following technical reports with the first submittal of Grading Plans: a. Drainage study b. Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) c. Geotechnical Report t5. Applicant must obtain a Land Development Permit prior to begimning any earthwork activities at the Project Site and before issuance of Building Permits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 15.95. Applicant shall submit Grading Plans in con-formance with the City's Subdivision Manual and the City's Development Storm Water Manual requirementS, including, but not limited to the following: a. Grading Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. b. Drainage Study and Geotechnical/Soils Investigations are required with the first submittal of Grading Plans. The Drainage Study shall calculate the Pre Development and Post-Development flows and show how downstream properties and storm drain facilities are impacted. Design shall incorporate detention of stoma water runoff if Post-Development flows exceed Pre-Development flows; analysis shall include flows from 2 yr, 10 yr, and 50 yr. return frequency storms. c. Drainage Study shall also demonstrate that no property damage wilkoccur during the 100-year storm event. d. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private. e. Any off-site work will require Letters of Permission from the property owner(s). STORM WATER MANAGEMENT: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Grading Plan for the Project: -2512016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 499 PC Resolutiun PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page i2 16. This Project shall comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual (Storm Water Manual) for both construction and post-construction phases of the Project. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, documentation shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee, to demonstrate such compliance. 17. Development of this Project shall comply with all requirements of State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity, and any subsequent re-issuances thereof. In accordance with said permit, a Storm Water Polhition Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Monitoring Program Plan shall be developed and implemented concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall specify construction structural and non-structural pollution prevention measures. 18.A complete and accurate Notice-of-Intent .(NOI) shall be filed with the San Diego Regional Water Quality ControI Board (SRWQCB). A copy of the acknowledgement from the SRWQCB that a NOI has been received for this Project shall be filed with the City of Chula Vista when received. Further, a copy of the completed NOI from the SRWQCB showing the Permit Number for this project shall be flied with the City of Chula Vista when received. 19. Permanent storm water r quirements, including site design, source control, and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMP's), all as shown in the approved WQTR, shalI be incorporated into the Project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Provide sizing calculations and specifications for each BMP's. Any structural and non-structural BMP requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. 20. Pursuant to the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2013-0001, new regulations will come into effect on May 2015, which may impose additional requirements on development projects that have not begun construction at that time. 21.All on-site storm drain inlets and catch basins shall be provided with permanent stenciling and signage according to City of Chula Vista Standards to prohibit illegal discharge to the storm drain system. 22.The Applicant shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement to perpetually maintain private BMP's located within the project prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, whichever occurs first. 23. Project Site design shall include features to meet NPDES Standards. These features shall maximize infiltration and minimize impervious land coverage while conveying storm water runoff. -2522016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 500 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 13 24. The trash enclosure area(s) shall be covered with a solid roof or awrting to avoid contamination of runoff. The site shall be graded in such a way as to prevent run-on into, and run-off from, the trash enclosure area. 25. The Project Site runoff must be directed to a bioretention BMP. The bioretention BMP shall be designed in accordance with criteria established in the Countywide Model SUSMP and the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, BMP # TC-32. Details of the bioretention facility shall be shown on the plan. 26. The Municipal Permit requires runoff from all areas of a priority development project to be treated. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:f The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Final Map for the Project: 27. Improvement Plans in conformance Construction Permit shall be required. limited to: with the City's Subdivision Manual and a The Improvement Plan shall include but not be a,Construct 10 foot sidewalk along Third Avenue, including 8 feet within the right-of way and 2 feet not within the right-of-way, and tree grates, as shown onthe Tentative Map. b.Removal and replacement of any broken or damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk per SDRSD G-2, and G-7 along the Project's frontage to the satisfaction Of the City Engineer. Sidewalk shall be designed and constructed with proper transitions to existing conditions. c. Additional asphalt paving for the replacement of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. d..Removal and replacement of existing pedestrian ramp on the comer of Third Avenue and K Street per Chula Vista Construction Standard CVCS-25. Current pedestrian ramp shall be replaced if it does not meet the City of Chuia Vista Design Standards/ADA Standards, or if existing pedestrian ramp is cracked or broken. e,Installatiofi of one 24 ft. wide driveway opening meeting design standards as shown in Chula Vista standard detail CVCS-1A. Dedication of right of way as needed in order for driveway to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. f. Instaliation of a sewer manhoie per SDRSD S-2 is required at the connection of the 8 inch sewer lateral to the main public sewer line. -2532016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 501 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 14 g. Installation of all sewer laterals per SDRSD S-13. h. Provide utilities trenching and restoration per CVCS No. 3 and No. 4. i.Sewer lateral and storm drain connections to existing public utilities. The PuNic Works Operations Section will need to inspect any existing sewer laterals and connections that are to be used by the new development. Laterals and connections may need replacement by Applicant as a result of this inspection. j. Relocation of existing utilities, as determined by the City Engineer, or designee. k. Installation of private streetlights and planters within the sidewalk per UCSP requirements. 28. Separate permits for other punic utilities (gas, electric, water, cable, telephone) shall be required, as necessary. 29.Any improvements in the right-of-way beyond the Project limits shall be designed and constructed as to not interfere with adjacent businesses, as approved by the City Engineer. 30. The construction and completion of all improvements and release requirements shall be secured in accordance with CVMC 18.16.220. SEWER: 31. Sewer lateral and storm drain connections to existing public utilities. The Public Works Operations Section shall inspect any existing sewer laterals and connections that are to be used by the new development. Laterals and connections may need replacement as a result of this inspection. 32. For the proposed private sewer facilities, manholes shall be used where 6" mains or larger are connected to public sewer. PRIVATE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Improvement Plans for the Project, as determined by the City Engineer: 33. The onsite sewer and storm drain system shall be private. All sewer laterals and storm drains shall be privately maintained from each building unit to the City-maintained public facilities. -2542016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 502 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 15 34. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parking shall be designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, ADA Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable. MAPPING: 35.The Project will require the filing of a Condominium Final Map in accordance with Sections 66426 and 66427 of the Subdivision Map Act. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement prior to approval of the Final Map to secure all Public Improvements required for the development of the Project. 36.Prior to Final Map, Grading or Street Improvement Plan approval, the Owner/Appli'cant shall upload copies of the Street Improvement Plan, Grading Plan, Final Map and Site Improvement Plan in digital format such as AutoCAD DWG or DXF (AutoCAD version 2000 or above), ESRI GIS shape file, file, or personal geodatabase (ArcGIS version 9.0 or above). The files should be transmitted directly to the GIS section using the City's digital submittal file upload website at http://www.chulavistaca.ov&oto/GIS. The data upload site only accepts zip fomaatted files. CC&R'S 37.Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) to the Director of Development Services for approval by the Director of Development Services, City Attorney and City Engineer, or designee's. Said CC&R's shall include the following: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Indemnification of City for private sewer spillage. Listing of maintained private facilities. The City's right but not the obligation to enforce the CC&R's. Provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become public unless 100% of the homeowners and 100% of the first mortgage holders have signed a written petition therefor. Maintenance of all walls, fences, lighting structures, paths, recreational amenities and structures, sewage facilities, drainage structures and landscaping. Implement education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of pollutants from all on-site sources to the storm water conveyance system. Identify if any common lots, driveways, or private facilities are proposed, or if one sewer lateral is serving multiple units. 38. Said CC&R's shall be consistent with CVMC I8.44, and shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. -2552016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 503 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 16 CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING): The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Improvement Plans for the Project, as determined by the City Engineer, or designee: 39. Any private facilities (if applicable) within public right-of-way or City easement will require an Encroachment Permit prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. 40. All utilities serving the subject property and existing utilities located within or adjacent to the subject property shall be under grounded in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section. Further, all new utilities serving the subject property shall be under grounded prior to the issuance of Bnilding Permits. VIII. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE Purs iant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a) and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in com ection with the project; and it does .not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired. IX. EXECUTION" AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have each read understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk. Failure to record this document shall indicate the property owner and Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for Building Permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as Document No. Signature of Applicant Printed Name of Applicant Date -2562016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 504 PC Resolution PCSI5-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 17 Signature of Property Owner Date Printed Name of Applicant X*CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of ali future Building Permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified ten (10) days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and diligent time frame. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shalI be deemed to be automaticaily revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. " BE IT URTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Tentative Subdivision Map (Chula Vista Tract No. 15-06) to combine multiple parcels into one for 71 residential units, and one commercial unit for individual ownership located at 795 Third Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval contained herein. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS -2572016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 505 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 18 Presented by:Approved as to form by: Kelly Broughton Director of Development Services Glen R. Googins City Attorney PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, t fis 22nd day of June 2016, by the following vote, to-wit: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Yolanda Calvo, Chair ATTEST: Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary -2sa2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 506 MASONIC TEMPLE SF SF SFSF SF SF SF SF SF SFU.& THIRD SF POST AVENUE SEOFFICE PLAZA SF SF SF VERDE PARK APARTMENTS GARDEN APARTMENTS ALVA GAP, DENS APARTMENTS AM/PM & MINI MARI APN 5733711200 APN 5733772300 JACK IN THE BOX CHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER Lgg TWg GREEN I"REE FOUNTAIN APARTMENTS FINE VISTA APARTMENTS WELLS FARGO BANK " SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER CHULA LOCATOR (!) NORTH j:planningpublic noces\dr drlSO0i5 8xl 0,al ADORESS: AP N's 5733711200 & 5733712300 SCALE: FiLE NUMBER: No Scale DR15-0015 VISTA DEVELC)PMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Vista Del Mar,IDESIGNAPPLICANT:REVIEW PROJECT NEC Third Av & K St Project Summary: Proposal for a mixed use 3-5 story, 71 condo units w th 616 sq rt of commercial space and 142 below grade parking stalls. Related cases: - 2 5 9- Exhibit A2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 507 THiS PAGE LEFT BLANK -2602016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 508 CHUIA VISTA H : ! Development Services Department Planning Division [ Development Processing APPEAL APPLICATION FORM Appeal the decision of the: oning Administrator " 130 Planning Commission Application Informat,ion Name of Appellant ¢Q Jy_'Lo ..C r ._zl ¢...... Phone ..... Project A d d r e s s _//. T Cd_.L 2d_ #i-C e - ......... (Example: v iance onal use permit', design review, etc.) Please use the space below to provide a response tothe decision you are appealing, Attach additional sheets, if necessary. Grounds for an appeal must be based on at least one of the following: (1} Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving, conditlonal]y approving, or denying a permit, map, or other matter was inaccurate; (2) New information. New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available through that person's reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision; or (3) Findings Not Supported, The decision maker's stated findings to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit, map, or other matter are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker. In order for an appeal to be valid, detailed responses must be included which cite at least one of the above reasons for the appeal along with substantiation of the facts and circumstances on which the claim of theappeal is based. If an appeal is filed within the • time limit specified, and determined to be valid, it automaticaliystays proceedings in the matter until a determination is made by the c,ty Counc,,. _ L_-E-E_-IF Appeal Form Directions f- | IJ Pursuant to the Chuia Vista Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.14, an interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, | ': or Planning Commission to the City Coundl. The appellant must be an interested party. An interested party means a person who was | [ present at a publlc hearing from which an appeal arose and who had filed a speaker slip with the decision maker at that public hearing, | _or a person who expressed an interest in the project in writing to that decislon maker before the close of the public hearing or a decision | JJ'L on an action from whlch an appeal may be filed. The appellant m st file a complete appeal appllcation form within the specified appeal r--z period (I0 business days after the decision has been made), complete the Disclosure Statement, and pay the required fee. Once a valid I appeal form is filed, the appeal will be scheduled for a hearing by the City Council within 30 days. , Signature of Appellant Date.__// DO NOT WRITE iN THIS SPACE The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: [] City Council On __/____/._ Iofi --- Development Services Department City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue I ChulaVista ICalifornia I 91910 I (619) 691.51012016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 509 :i:i!i i . : Dlsclosum Statement Pursuant.t° co..c Po t01-ot, wfor to any a on zq on readers tbet ,z acben by the Cou l;Planning Comndes/on and all other offidal bodies of the CITY,- a stathment of d[sdosure Of cedain o mmddp or financial L 1. Usttl . names ofa]| pemons hav g a finan d Interest In the propmty that in the sub e app on e /0 ,,' / 3 4, If rP/pemon* identit l punsuant to {1) above Is a coqx)ratinn or pmlnershlp, list the nmnes b a'$2ooo Inves qem in the b s nese (esrpomt)on )a ershlp) enU . If any person* ]derdlfind pursuant to " " "(1) above Is a non-plroflt OlgenlzaUorl or bust, list 1P, e. names-of any Pel;son sdnHng as d]rector of the non-profit n or as bxrstee or beselfdap/or thjstor of the f u • . , • . . . . . • ,Please 1 ...e y esely person, including any agerds, emp yees, coesldinnts, or independent o tractors you have; ass)gr, ea to repmsem you bofom the City In this matter. 5. . Hasanypem n*ass dathdwt hIfdsc n mcthadanyfb1ancIs gs a daP*oftheCi y fChu`Is-. vmza as it relatesto this cocdmct wflldn the past 12 mofzths. Yes "No._____._ ff Yes, Ixiegy descWoe the nature of e finandal k rest the of Sdap may have in this contmc¢ 6 cHhu s made a coflbthutinn of jz ore than $250 within'the past twelve (12) months to a cum)nt member of the" U Vista City Coundl? No Yes If yes, whldl Council member? 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 510 i iilI 7.Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chuia Vista in the past twelve (12).,jl onths? (Thia Includes being a source of Income, money to reUre a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes__ No.t/__ If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? . " Pdnt or type name of Cor aclerlAppllce Person Is defined as: any Individual, firm, co-parthecship, joint venture, association, social club fraternal orgaalzaiton, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,-any other cou'nty, city, municipality, district or other political subdivlsian, -or any other group or somhlnafion acting as a unit. Official Includes, but is not limped to: Mayor, Council member, Chuia Vista Redevelopment Corporation member Planning Commissioner, member of a board, cee lsslou, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. September 8, 2006 t 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 511 Disclosure Statement Pumuant to Counc Policy 101-01, pflor to any'action upon matters that win require discretionary a on by the Council; Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of dlsctosure Of certain ownemhlp or flnandsl interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chcia Vista election must be f ed. The following information must be disclosed: 1, Usi the names of all persona having a f narlclal Interest In the property that is the subject of the application or the • contre ,, e.g., wner, appltcbnt, cantmctor, sub'.ontruc.,lor, mated.el supptier. 0 , 2,ff eny person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corpomUon or padnersh!p, st the names of a I ndivlduais with a'$2000 investment in the business (carporstisn/partnersh[p) entity. 3 4, If any person* tdentltled pursuant to (1) above Is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any I:;e on s 'vtag as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or bustor of the bust. tv/, \ Pisase Identify every person including any sgents, employees, consu nfs, or independent contractors you Ilave. assigned to represent you before the C in this matter. 5,Has any person* assodsted with this contract had any F anclal deatlnga wlth.an oifk i** of the City of Chuis Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months.' Yes - No If Yea, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the otcisl** may have In this canfmct, 6.Have you made a contr;bu'don of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chuts Vista City Council? No.Yes , If yes, which Council member? 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 512 7,Hove you provided more than $340 (or an m of equivalent value) to an oflcisl** of the C of Chula '4iata in the past twelve (t2)jnontha? (This Includes being e source of Income, money to retire a legal debt, g , loan, etc.) Yes Noj, f__ tf Yes, which offldal"* and what was the nature of tem provided? Date:• " i,','/..',,u,. ,',o.*,..' ' " Print or type name of ContraclorlAppllcent Person is defined as: any IndMdual, firm, cc-partnershlp, Joint venture, association, social c Yb, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, 'any other county, city, muntclpalRy, district, or other pelPJcel subdivizton, -or any other group or combination adJng as a unit. Official Includes, but is not limited to: Mayer, Council member, Chula Vsta Redevelopment CorpemlJon member, Planning Commissioner, meml r of • board cor "ntsslon, or comm ee of the City, employee, or staff members. September 8, 2006 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 513 Disclosure Statement Pumuant to Council Poll 101-01, prior to any a on upon matters that will requlm discretionary action by the council; Planntng Commission and all other off]dal bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial Interests, payments, or campaign contribution for a City of Chuis Vista election must be Red. The following tnform on must be disclosed: I. Usi the names of all parsons having a flnarlcisl Interest In the property that J8 the subject of the application or the • centm , e.g., olwner, sppllcant, contractor, sub:,.,ontm tor, matert:al supplier, //O p / 2,ff any person* identified pursuant to (1) above Is • cotporatlon or partnemh!p, list the names of all indivlduais with a$2000 investment in the business (corporetlon/parthershfp) entity, IV/R . 3, 4, ff any parson* Identified pursuant to (1) above Is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any pTefson sei'ving as director of the non-prefit oq]anlzaon or as trustee or beneficiary or bustor of the trust. tV/R" Please Identify every person, Including any agents, employees, consuttants, or dependent contractors you Ilave : " assigned to represent you before the City in this matter, Z. _/// 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financisl dealings with an official'* of the City of Chu'la Vista as It relates to this contract with n the past 12 months: Yes" No._y___.. If Yes, bdefly deson'be the nature of the financial Interest the of,cial" may have in thls contract, 6.Have you made a contribution ofjmore than $250 withln the past twelve (12) months to a cun'ent member of the Chula Vista City Council? No JYes _L' If yes, which Council member? 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 514 7°Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chum Vista in the •past twelve (12 onths? (This Includas being e source of Income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, ioan, etc..) Yes __ NO,._. if Yes, which oflldaP'* and what was the nature of item provided? Oa.:" 7-I /lgnature of Contractor/Ap#lcant Print or type name of Contmctor/Appllcent Person is defined as: any Individual, finn, co-pmtnershlp, Joint venture, assoclaUon, social club, fraternalorganlzatn, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other coc nty, city, municipality, district, or otherpolitical eubdlvislon, -or any other group or combination aotJng as a unit. Official Inc!udes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Chula Vlsta Redevelopment Corporation member Planning Commissioner, memb pr of a board, oommlsslen, or committee ofttte City, employee, or staff members. September 8, 2006 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 515 DELANO & DELANO July 1, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY City Clerk City of Chnla Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chnla Vista, CA 91910 Re: ' Appeal of Vista del Mar Proiect and Addendum, DR 15-0015 and PCS 15-0006, approved by the Plannin Commission on June 22, 2016 Dear City Clerk: Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, Corridor Coalition, Glenda de Vaney, Martha Coulson and Earl Jentz hereby appeal the procedure, actions and approval by the Chnla Vista Planning Commission of the Vista del Mar project ("Project") and Addendum. The decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned because: (1) the statements and evidence relied upon by the Planning Commission were inaccurate; (2) there is new information not previously available that supports denial of the Project; and (3) the findings of the Planning Commission are not supported by the information provided. This appeal is based upon the information contained in this letter, the attached letters, a completed Appeai Application form, the staff reports and evidence presented to the Planning Commission, and sueh other materials as appellants may bring to the attention of the City Council prior to and during its consideration of this appeal. // S" The evidence shows that the Project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Urban Core Specific Plan ("UCSP'), and Municipal Code. The evidence and statements of staff and others in support of the Project were inaccurate in numerous r e pect__a. The evidence also shows that the 2006 Environmental Impact Report ("UCSP EIR') inadequately addressed the Project's potential impacts. Indeed, because of the many inconsistencies, the Project is not "the same as or within the scope of the [UCSP] described inthe [UCSP EIR]." Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal,App.4th 1307, 1320 - 21. The Addendum is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'). U to O The City's failure to provide copies of records relevant to the Project and Addenduna prior to Planning Commission approval, including technical studies ' identified in the Addendum, violated both CEQA and the Public Record L,a UI b} 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 516 Appeal re Vista del Ma Project and Addendum July 1, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Act's information disclosure requirements. Those technical studies were only provided after Planning Commission approval. But they show additional violations of the UCSP. For example, USCP EIR Mitigation Measure 5.4.5-1 requires: "Prior to the approval of each subsequent development project, the project applicant shall submit a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation of the project site ... [which] shall include .,. a delineation of specific locations where liquefiable, compressive, and expansive soils would affect structural stability ...." A "Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Update" prepared for the Project fails to meet these requirements. Indeed, it reveals (p. 1) that the Project applicant rejected the "drilling of soil borings and laboratory testing" needed to actually delineate the specific site conditions. Instead, the report relies upon information gathered from. nearby sites (p. 3) and urges the applicant to "test the subgrade soils and evaluate that they are appropriate for the support of the footings or floor slabs" (p. 7). The attached letters provide additional reasons the Planning Commission's decision should be overturned. Accordingly, Corridor Coalition, Glenda de Vaney, Martha Coulson and Earl Jentz request that the City Council approve the appeal, rejecting the Project and the Addendum. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Enclosures: 1. Letter to City from Evelyn Heidelberg (4/15/16). 2. Letter to City from Everett DeLano (6/22/16). 3. Letter and materials to City from Evelyn Heidelberg (6/22/16). 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 517 EXHIBIT 1 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 518 CGS3 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law 12750 I'IIGtt BLUFF DRIVE, SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130 TELEPHONE (858) 36%7676 FACSIMILE (858) 345-1991 WRITER'5 E-MAIL ADDRESS eheidelberg@cgs3.com WR[TER'S DIRECT PHONE NO, (858) 779-1718 April 15, 2016 VIA E-MAIL (RZumwalt@chulavistaca.gov) Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP Development Services Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Vista Del Mar/Proiect # DR15-0015; PCS15-006 Dear Mr. Zumwalt: On behalf of our client, Balboa Equity Capital, Inc., we are providing comments on the above-referanced project application ("Application"), as revised by the applicant's submittal to you dated March 10, 2016. I. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The fundamental concern with the Application is that the FAR requested exceeds by 95 percent that which is authorized by the base FAR for the C-1 Third Avenue South Neighborhood Transition Zone: Base floor area allowed under C-1: (FAR 1.0) and lot size: Maximum FAR bonuses from Urban Amenities Table: -- 10 percent FAR increase if parking is provided onsite: -- 10 percent FAR increase for public outdoor space: -- 30 percent FAR increase for LEED Gold: Total floor area (base plus maximum for three bonuses): 45,213 s,£ 4,521 s.f. 4,521 s.f. 13 564 s.f. 67,820 s.f. PROPOSED PROJECT FLOOR AREA:88,323 s.f. DISCREPANCY: PROPOSED PROJECT FAR: 20,503 s.f. 1.95 Part of the 20,503 square foot discrepancy between the proposed project's floor area and the authorized floor area under C-1 plus maximum bonuses under the Urban Amenities Table is purportedly accounted for by correspondence from the applicant to the City, in which the applicant asserts a right to the cumulative calculation of each bonus, such that maximum FAR from the first bonus is added to the base FAR, and that enhanced base FAR is used as the basis for calculation 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 519 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD &; SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 2 of the second bonus, and so on. By this unauthorized cumulative approach to calculating the bonus FAR, the applicant claims an additional 3,299 square feet: 67,820 s.f. 3,299 s.f. 71,119 s.f. Even with the unauthorized additional floor area claimed by the applicant due to compounding of the calculations of three bonus awards, there is an unexplained deviation of 17,204 square feet of floor area (88,323 s.f. minus 71,119 s.f.). We assume that the applicant is seeking a Development Exception from the FAR standard to authorize the additional 17,204 (or properly calculated, 20,503) square feet of floor area. (UCSP, VI-54.) Such a Development Exception should not be granted, for the reasons set forth below. In addition to the excessive FAR for a project abutting a single-family residential neighborhood that is to be protected by the Neighborhood Transition Combining District designation, we offer the following comments which should be addressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission: i*The Application fails to comply with an express requirement of the Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts, in that it would include a large second-floor terrace and 28 units with balconies and eight units with patios, all of which overlook the rear yards and homes of adjacent single-family residences. As such, the Application cannot be approved because it is inconsistent with the UCSP and its implementing zoning regulations. .In analyzing the Application's request for FAR bonus awards, the UCSP expressly requires consideration of the projected build-out that would occur if all the bonus provisions allowable under the Urban Amenities Incentives program were actually awarded. We submit that this analysis must conclude that the requested 50 percent increase in FAR, if applied to all other properties within the 690-acre Urban Core Subdistrict Areas, would result in land use intensities exceeding by several factors the assumed maximum levels of residential, retail, and office development in the Urban ,Core Specific Plan and EIR. Such analysis should conclude with a recommendation to deny the requested 50 percent FAR bonus award, although some lower level of bonus award may be justified. .In preparing a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding how much FAR bonus should be granted for each of the Urban Amenities, the staffrepert must evaluate the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project. We submit that the public benefit provided by the urban amenities proposed in the Application 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 520 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 3 does not warrant a 50 percent increase in FAR, although some lesser increase in FAR may be justified. ,There is absolutely no basis in the UCSP for the Application's assumption that the City may add an award of FAR bonus to the proposed project's FAR, which then becomes the base for calculation of another award of FAR for an additional amenity. This sort of compounding of permitted FAR would result in an unwarranted additional seven (7) percent increase in the proposed project's FAR. ,On top of the requested 50 percent FAR bonus sought by the Application for inclugio l of three amenities, and the wholly unsupported seven percent FAR bonus that would result if FAR bonus awards were compounded as described in #4 above, the Application apparently seeks a Development Exception to the FAR limit, so as to permit a total project FAR of 1.95, or almost double the base FAR in the applicable C-1 zone of 1.0. We submit that the required findings to support such an exception cannot be made, because (1) the proposed development will adversely affect the goals and objectives of the UCSP, (2) will not comply with all applicable regulations of the UCSP (including but not limited to the requirement that balconies overlooking rear yards of abutting single-family homes must be avoided so as to ensure that building design is cognizant of adjacent low density areas), and (3) the exception is not appropriate for the location and will not result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through conformance with the UCSP development regulations. The bulk and mass of the project as proposed is simply too extreme a deviation from the base FAR of 1.0, particularly where the project is located in a Neighborhood Transition Combining Area. ,The City may not rely on provisions of CEQA allowing streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with applicable plans, because as set forth above the Application does not propose a project that is "consistent" with the density standard expressed for the parcel in the UCSP. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15183 (a); see also Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3(c)). Accordingly, preparation ofa subsequant EIR would be necessary in order to comply with CEQA. II. These issues are discussed in the following sections. THE APPLICATION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE NTCD REQUIREMENT THAT BUILDING DESIGN BE COGNIZANT OF ADJACENT LOW DENSITY USES AND AVOID BALCONIES OVERLOOKING REAR YARDS The UCSP establishes special regulations for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts ("NTCDs") "to ensure that the character of zones within the Specific Plan area will be 4828-3439-1344,3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 521 " i( CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law i; Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP .. April 15, 2016 Page 4 compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas." (UCSP, VI-40.) The C-1 zone, in which the proposed project is located, is an NTCD. (fd.) One of the express "Requirements" of the NTCD is as follows: .Requirements g. Building design shall be cognizant of adjacent low density uses (i.e., avoid balconies overlooking rear yards. M., VI-40-41. To be clear, this is an express requirement of the zoning that is an integral part of the UCSP; it is not a mere guideline, such as the Design Review Guidelines found elsewhere in the UCSP. The Application proposes a total of 28 balconies and eight patios that overlook rear yards of adjacent single-family uses, as well as a second-floor terrace that suffers from the same building design defect. Specifically, there are six east-facing balconies (three each on the second and third floors) at the east end of the proposed project, less than five feet from the west side of Church Street right-of-way, which balconies face east, overlooking single-family residences and rear yards of these residences. And there is one unit on the third floor which in a prior version of the Application had a north-facing balcony, which in the latest version has a west-facing balcony. This shift of the orientation of the balcony, however, does not eliminate the intrusion on the privacy of those living in the single-family residences on the west side of Church Street, apparently approximately 20 to 25 feet from the property line, because the occupants of the unit will still be able to look north into the yards and homes of those single-family residences when the occupants are using the balcony. In addition, there are 21 east-facing balconies (seven each on the third, fou and fifth floors) that directly overlook the single-family homes and rear yards of those residences on the west side of Church Street. These balconies are as close as 47 horizontal feet and are located on a recessed east-facing portion of the building. Also, there are seven east-facing patios just below those balconies. Finally, there is a large second-floor terrace that faces both east and north, with views facing into the rear yards of single-family homes on the west side of Church Street. From the portion of the terrace facing east, only 13 feet and seven inches separates the edge of the terrace from a rear yard of a single-family home. From the portion of the terrace facing north, only 13 feet and one inch separates the edge of the terrace from the yard of a single-family residence. The applicant apparently asserts that trees to be planted in containers at the edge of the terrace will mitigate the violation of the requirement that building design be cognizant of adjacent low density uses, but the trees will mitigate the ability of those in the abutting single-family residences to view users of the plaza from the yards of the single-family homes, but will not impede the ability of the residents of the 71 units (and their guests) using the terrace to look into the yards and homes of the adjacent single-family residences. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 522 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 5 The fact that the specific example of how that requirement - that building design be cognizant of adjacent low density uses - is to be implemented - by avoiding balconies overlooking rear yards - is being violated by the Application makes the inconsistency with this requirement all the more obvious and egregious. The only way that the Application could be approved with the 36 balconies or patios, plus the terrace, overlooking adjacent single-family homes is if the Planning Commission were to authorize Development Exceptions from the above-cited requirement to ensure that building design be cognizant of adjacent low density uses by avoiding balconies and other features that overlook rear yards. We submit that three of the four the findings that are required to be made if a Development Exception is to be granted could not be made in this instance. Specifically, the finding could not be made that the proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the UCSP and the General Plan. (UCSP, VI-54.) As cited above, the NTCD establishes special regulations "to ensure that the character of zones within the Specific Plan area will be compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas." (Id. at VI-40.) Having residents of 71 units overlooking the yards of, and into the homes of, single-family residences located in some cases just a few yards away can hardly be considered to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the UCSP and in particular the purpose of the NTCD's special regulations. The second required finding to grant a Development Exception - that the proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan - cannot be made, for two reasons: the Application calls for a near doubling of the applicable FAR limit of 1.0. With respect to the inability of the required findings to be made for the increased FAR, see Section VI. below. Finally, the fourth finding required to authorize an exception cannot be made, namely, that the exception that would allow the residents of 71 units, either from their private balconies or patios or from the terrace that is part of the common area of the complex, to overlook the yards and into the homes of adjacent single-family residences is "appropriate for this location and will result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through strict conformance with the UCSP development regulations." (UCSP, VI-54.) III.IN ANALYZING THE APPLICATION'S REQUEST FOR BONUS AWARDS OF FAR, STAFF MUST CONSIDER THE PROJECTED BUILD-OUT THAT WOULD OCCUR IF ALL THE BONUS PROVISIONS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE URBAN AMENITIES INCENTIVES PROGRAM WERE ACTUALLY AWARDED The UCSP makes it clear that "It]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 allowable under the program were actually awarded." (UCSP, VI-48.) This can only refer to projected build-out under the UCSP, which is assumed to occur over 20 to 25 years after adoption of the UCSP in 2007, or by 2027 to 2032. (UCSP, II-2.) Buildout is assumed as follows: a net increase of 7,100 multi-family dwelling units; a net increase of 1.0 million square feet of 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 523 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law i):!:!. • Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 6 retail space, a net increase of 1.3 million square feet of office space, and a net increase of 1.3 million square feet of visitor-serving uses within the UCSP Snbdistricts area. (UCSP, II-2.) If we assume that 80 percent of the 690 acres comprising the UCSP Subdistricts Area is intended to be the subject of infill or redevelopment at higher densities during the build-out periods, and those 552 acres were to be developed with the three amenities proposed by the Application - parking within the building (for up to a 10 percent increase in FAR), LEED gold (for up to a 30 percent increase in FAR), and public open space (for up to a i0 percent increase in FAR) - then the resulting intensity of land use would be 50 percent greater than is contemplated in the UCSP or in its EIR. This assumption does not take into account additional density bonuses that may be granted' for projects which provide affordable housing, or FAR waivers that are available for preservation and maintenance of features of historic structures or projects which include community or human services. (UCSP, VI-51.) This means that either build-out (as defined by the net increases in various uses as specified in the preceding paragraph) would be reached without the redevelopment of approximately 50 percent of the existing land area which the UCSP seeks to have redeveloped, or that the 552 acres will be redeveloped at 50 percent greater intensity of use. It is obvious that either alternative would have significant potential impacts: under the former scenario, a large number of parcels would remain in their underutilized, vacant and/or deteriorated status; and under the latter scenario, the intensity of land use would outstrip the capacity of the UCSP's plarmed transportation and other infrastructure improvements to serve the residential population and users of the commercial space. Neither outcome is consistent with the UCSP and neither outcome was evaluated in the EIR for the UCSP. Comparing the Application to the assumed build-out of the entire UCSP Subdistricts Area is instructive. As the Application calls for 71 residential units, the proposed project would account for exactly one percent of the anticipated build-out of multi-family omits for the entire UCSP Subdistricts Area. But, the project site is only 45,213 square feet, or 1.04 acre. The entire UCSP Subdistricts Area is 690 acres, and so the project site is only 0.15 percent of the entire UCSP Subdistricts Area. The disparity between the Application's allocation of the UCSP's residential build-out - one percent - and the Application's project site size as compared to the total acreage in the UCSP Subdistricts Area - 0.15 percent - indicates that the project site would capture more than 6.6 times its proportionate share of residential units. The staff repoi't on the Application must therefore, consistent with the directive in the UCSP cited above, take into account the consequences if the other 689 acres of the UCSP (or as suggested above, some proportion of the entire 690-acre Subdistricts Area that is presumed to be redeveloped by 2032) are redeveloped with 50 percent FAR bonuses awarded through the Urban Amenities Incentives provisions of the UCSP. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 524 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law ::::::i¸ : : Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 7 IV.THE STAFF REPORT ON THE APPLICATION MUST EVALUATE THE DEGREE OF PUBLIC BENEFIT PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND BASE ITS RECOMMENDED PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FAR ON THAT ANALYSIS Correspondence submitted to the City by the applicant seems to assume that the City will automatically award the proposed project a 50 percent increase in FAR because the proposed project would include parking on site, LEED Gold features, and a 650-square foot public plaza. But the UCSP maizes it clear that, in addition to the analysis referred to in Section III hereof, the award of bonus FAR for providing amenities identified in the UCSP's Urban Amenities Table (UCSP, VI-51) is d scfetionary and that Planning Commission, in determining "just how much additional FAR or FAR waiver should be granted" must first "take into account the value added to the property by the amenity or design, and a reasonable share of additional FAR or FAR waiver that will proportionally compensate the developer for the additional amenities or design provisions." (UCSP, VI-48.) Second, the Planning Commission must evaluate incentive requests "case-by-case based on the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project." This case-by-case analysis should consider, for example, that a maximum 10 percent FAR bonus is available to be awarded for "Public Parks and Plazas, including Sports/Recreation Facilities, Play Lots, Water Features, Trails, Par Courses, Equipment, Gardens, Art Works." (UCSP, VI-51.) The public open space must have the following characteristics: an area greater than 500 square feet with a minimum depth of 30 feet; provides tables and chairs; provides pedestrian-scaled lighting, and has outdoor public art and other desired amenities, such as fountains. (Id.) Here, the Application provides nothing more than a 650-square foot plaza at the raised primary entrances to the residential structure and to the small commercial use. It will likely be perceived by members of the public as an amenity belonging to the residents of the units or patrons of the commercial use, as distinguished from, say, a pocket park that might be located on the side of the structure, away from the primary entrance to the residential structure or retail space, which would more readily be perceived as a public space. As noted, the Planning Commission is obligated to evaluate incentive requests on a "case by-case basis based on the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project." We submit that the proposed plaza, which is not much larger than the minimum size required to be awarded a bonus, should not be awarded the full 10 percent FAR bonus, because it would have the effect of discouraging other developers from including a more useful and larger public open space area, such as a play lot, or a sports or recreation facility. The City should reserve an award of the full 10 percent FAR bonus for "Public Parks and Plazas" to a property owner whose project incorporates public open space which provides more significant public benefit. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 525 '!!::';i i iiiiiili CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP. April 15, 2016 Page 8 V. THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE UCSP TO ALLOW FOR COMPOUNDING OF FAR BONUSES FOR AMENITIES In addition to wrongly assuming that the proposed project is entitled to the maximum available amount of FAR bonus for providing three separate urban amenities, the applicant is assuming that the award of an FAR bonus for providing one urban amenity can then be added to the base project FAR for purposes of calculating the percentage FAR bonus for a second urban amenity, and that the resulting FAR bonus for the second amenity can be added to the base project FAR for purposes of calculating the amount of the FAR bonus for the third amenity. (Through this attempt to claim a right to a higher FAR bonus than it is entitled by providing three urban amenities, the applic-aIit is seeking to reduce the amount of the Development Exception from FAR limits it is seeking from the City, from a request for an exception in the amount of .45 additional FAR (i.e., an exception allowing 45 percent more floor area than allowed after application of the maximum FAR bonuses for three urban amenities), to a request for .38 additional FAR. See Section VI. Below.) To be specific, the applicant is claiming that it is entitled to a bonus of 4,521 square feet (10 percent of the size of the parcel, which is 45,213 square feet) for providing parking on site, and that that 4,521 is added to the 45,213, yielding 49,734 as the base to which the 10 percent FAR bonus is awarded for providing the above-referenced 650-square foot public plaza. Then, the applicant claims that the resulting 4,973 square feet of bonus floor area for the public plaza is added to the 49,734, yielding 54,707 square feet which would be the base floor area to which the 30 percent FAR bonus for LEED Gold is applied, resulting in a third floor area bonus in the amount of 16,412. The 16,412 would be added to the 54,707 square feet to get a total floor area, purportedly authorized by the bonus awards for providing urban amenities, of 71,119 square feet. There is absolutely no support for this "compounding" of the calculation of FAR bonus awards in the UCSP. In the absence of langnage specifically authorizing that compounding, each FAR bonus award should be separately added to the total FAR. So, the FAR bonus awards, even if the Planning Commission were to determine, after the case-by-case analysis of public benefit conferred by each urban amenity, that the maximum FAR bonus should be awarded to the project for each of the three amenities to be provided, should be calculated as follows: base floor area of 45,213; plus 4,521 for parking on site; plus 4,521 for public plaza; plus 13,564 for LEED Gold. The sum total floor area after application of the maximum bonus FAR for the proposed project cannot exceed 67,819 square feet. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 526 i: :: " : ]!i!: CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFPMAN SOUTHARD SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 9 VI.A DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO THE FAR LIMIT PERMITTING AN FAR OF 1.95 SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ADVANCE THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION PROVISION, AND THE REQUIRED FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE A. Introduction Even if awarded the maximum FAR bonus for three urban amenities, and even if the awards for such FAR bonuses were compounded as discussed in Section V, the Application requires the Planning Commission to grant a substantial "Development Exception" to the FAR limit in order for the Application tO be approved. As discussed in Sections IV and V, the base floor area for the parcel is 45,213 square feet, as the base FAR is 1.0. The Application proposes a project that is 88,323 square feet, with a resulting FAR of 1.95. Even if the maximum floor area bonuses were awarded for the project's inclusion of three urban amenities and those FAR bonuses were simply added to the base floor area (rather than being compounded as described in Section V), the Application seeks approval of a project that is 88,323 square feet, with a FAR of 1.95, or almost 50 percent above the 1.5 FAR that would result with maximum floor area bonuses awarded. Thus, the Application cannot be approved unless the Planning Commission issues a "Development Exception" as set forth in the Section VII of the UCSP. A Development Exception is intended to encourage innovative design and allows flexibility in the application of certain development standards. (UCSP, VI-54.) Because the Application does not offer much if anything in the way of iunovative design, but rather seeks only to maximize intensity of use of the property, and because the required findings cannot be made to support a "Development Exception" that would grant an additional 0.45 FAR, we submit that the Application must be denied. B. The Application Offers Little in the Way of the Desired Design Features Set Forth in the Design Guidelines Applicable in the Corridors District The Application does not reflect the incorporation of any significant number of the design and site planning principles applicable to projects proposed in the Corridors District. (UCSP, VII 107-138.) Consequently, it does not merit the substantial exception to the FAR limit sought by the Application. First, the Application does not embody variety in building form, facades and features, as called for ill the Design Guidelines. (UCSP, VII-108.) The project consists essentially of two rectangular boxes maximizing lot coverage alung the Third Avenue and K Street frontages, with the only design feature providing any relief being the plaza at the juncture of the two rectangles. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 527 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 10 There appears to be some variation in the finish materials, but essentially no articulation except at the intersection of the two boxes at the plaza. Second, the Application does not comply with the second design principle, which calls for new development to "demonstrate sensitivity to surrounding uses. Such effbrts should include limiting building massing...." (UCSP, VI- 108 .) The Application shows no sensitivity whatsoever to the abutting single-family residential use: As discussed above in Section II, the Application calls for 28 balconies, eight patios and a large second-floor terrace that overlook the immediately abutting single-family yards and homes. And instead of limiting building massing, as expressly called for in order to ensure compatibility between different uses(UCSP, VI- 108), the Application seeks a Developmen t Exception to allow it to exceed the otherwise maximum permissible FAR by a full 0.45 (to 1.95 from the 1.0 base and the maximum 1.5 if the full amount of incentive bonuses are added). Similarly, the proposed project hardly exemplifies the architectural guidelines for the Corridor District. They call for varying building heights and setbacks from adjacent or adjoining buildings. (UCSP, VII-115.) Here, the two rectangles do not provide diversity in building t3,pe, nor in height or setbacks. In addition, apart from the balconies, the facades show little break or articulation or vertical and horizontal offsets to minimize large blank walls and reduce building bulk. ([d) The design guidelines regarding roof and upper story detail are similarly not incorporated into the proposed project. There appear to be no large overhangs featuring open rafters or tails, nor are there any building vertical focal elements, such as towers, spires, or domes, all of which are encouraged. (UCSP, VII-117.) It does not appear that the required perimeter wall along the eastern boundary of the property adjacent to the single-family homes is offset every 50 feet or designed to reduce monotony, or that there are landscape pockets along the wall at regular intervals. (UCSP, VII-118.) Thus, the Application does not reflect the incorporation of a significant number of the desired UCSP design features for the Corridors district, let alone exemplify innovative design, which is the stated purpose of the provision allowing Development Exceptions. Accordingly, the staff report must address exactly why the Planning Commission should grant such a large exception (almost 50 percent) to the fundamental land use regulation governing development in the UCSP Subarea Districts, the limit on FAR. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 528 i i;!i! i:::¸¸ CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP . April 15, 2016 Page 11 C. The Required Findings Cannot Be Made to Support an Exception to the FAR Limit In addition to the Application not furthering the purposes that the Development Exception provision is intended to serve - innovative design - the findings required for a Development Exception cannot be made in this instance. The Planning Commission cannot grant a Development Exception unless four findings are made. Here, only one of the four timings can be made, namely, that the proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities. (UCSP, VI-54.) None of the other three required findings can be made: (1) that the proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the UCSP and the General Plan; (2) that the proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the UCSP; and (3) that the exception is appropriate for this location and will result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved through strict conformance with the UCSP development regulations. 1. A Finding Cannot Be Made that the Proposed Development Will Not AdverselF Affect the Goals and Ob/eetives of the UCSP and General Plan Just as the UCSP requires that projected buildout be considered if all the bonus provisions allowable under the Urban Amenities Incentives Program were actually awa 'ded (as discussed in Section III above), so too must the Planning Commission consider the cumulative impact on the goals and objectives of the UCSP of granting a Development Exception that would allow an almost 50 percent increase in the permissible FAR (assuming that the full amount of potential FAR bonus for inclusion of three Urban Amenities were awarded) or a 95 percent increase in the permissible FAR (if no FAR bonus were awarded fo? inclusion of Urban Amenities). Such a Development Exception would set a precedent that would mean either that build-out under the UCSP (i.e., net increase of 7,100 dwelling units, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, i .3 million square feet of office space, and 1.3 million square feet of visitor-serving space) would be reached without the redevelopment of approximately 50 percent of the 690 acres in the UCSP Subarea Districts, or that that area will be redeveloped at approximately 50 percent greater intensity of land use. Either alternative would deter the achievement of the goals and objectives of the UCSP, and result in potential environmental impacts not assessed in the EIR. Under the former, a large number of vacant, underntilized and/or deteriorated parcels would remain in that status, because all of the projected and planned for growth will have occurred on a small fraction of the parcels that happened to be developed first. Under the latter scenario, the City would ignore the projected build-out numbers and allow growth at almost double the intensity of that plarmed in the UCSP throughout the UCSP Subdistricts Area, growth that would outstrip the capacity of the planned infrastructure to accommodate it without adverse environmental and other impacts. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 529 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP. April 15, 2016 Page 12 In addition to the general inconsistency of the requested Development Exception with the entire framework of the UCSP, it is fundamentally at odds with the Neighborhood Transition Combining District and its goal that "the character of zones within the Specific Plan area will be compatible with and will complement surrounding residential areas." (UCSP, VI-40.) Simply put, a near doubling of the base FAR (which results if the Application is approved with minimal o1" no FAR bonuses awarded for inclusion of three Urban Amenities) or a near 50 percent increase in the base FAR (which results if the Application is approved with the maximum available FAR bonuses for inclusion of those three Urban Amenities) is inconsistent with the goal of ensuring that growth in the Urban Subdistricts areas that are designated as NTCDs (as is the C-1 district in which the subject pr_operty is located) is compatible with adjacent single-family residential areas. 2. A Finding Cannot Be Made that the Proposed DeveIopment Complies with All Other Regulations of the UCSP As discussed in Section II, the Application includes 28 balconies, eight patios, and large wrap-around terrace which all overlook adjacent single-family residences, in violation of the requirement of the NTCD that "[b]uilding design shall be cognizant of adjacent low density uses (i.e., avoid balconies overlooking rear yards." (UCSP, VI-40-41.) It would make a mockery of the NTCD provisions, and the UCSP generally, were the Planning Commission to 8xant a Development Exception to allow the sought-after 28 balconies, eight patios and large terrace, in addition to a Development Exception for the almost 50 percent increase in permissible floor area (assuming that full credit were granted for the three Urban Amenities). 3. A Finding Cannot Be Made that the Development Exceptions Are Appropriate for the Location and Will Result in a Better Design or Greater Public Benefit Than Could Be Achieved Through Strict Conformance with the Specific Plan's Development Regulations An increase of almost 50 percent in the permissible FAR (assuming maximum credit were given for inclusion of three Urban Amenities) in an area abutting a single-family residential area and utter disregard of the NTCD's requirement that building design be cognizant of adjacent single-family residential development by 28 balconies, eight patios and a large terrace overlooking single-family homes and yards militate against a finding that the Development Exceptions are appropriate for the project site and that they will result in a better design or greater punic benefit than if the project were to conform to the Specific Plan's development regulations. The Application seeks not a small variance from the UCSP's development regulations, but a major departure from the FAR limits and the protections afforded adjacent single-family residential areas. 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 530 -ii>: "• i ; .... CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP . April 15, 2016 Page 13 VII.STREAMLINED REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION UNDER CEQA WILL NOT SUFFICE BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY ESTABLISHED BY THE UCSP The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provides for streamlined environmental review for qualifying projects that are consistent with the applicable general plan, community plan and zoning designations. (Pub. Res. Code §21083.3; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (hereinafter "Guidelines") § 15183.) "CEQA mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examin hether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site...." (Guidelines, §15183(a) (emphasis added). "Consistent" means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning...." (Id. § 15183 (i)(2) (emphasis supplied).) Here, the Application is not consistent with the development density established by the UCSP. The standard for the parcel at issue in the UCSP is an FAR of 1.0. The Application would authorize a project with an FAR of 1.95. The EIR for the UCSP did not discuss at all the potential effects of development occurring at densities greater than those set forth in the base FAR authorized for each UCSP Subdistrict. It simply stated, without explanation, that the UCSP at build-out would add 7,100 dwelling units, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, 1.3 million square feet of office space, and 1.3 million square feet of visitor-serving space. The source of these figures was not identified, nor was there any discussion in the UCSP or the EIR of how the base FAR authorized for each UCSP Subdistrict, let alone the authorized increases in FAR through the Urban Amenities, related to the build-out assumptions. Indeed, as noted above in Section III, the UCSP expressly mandates that the Planning Commission's determination as to "[t]he amount ofbonns awards Chula Vista will make available should take into account the projected build-out that would occur if all of the bonus provisions allowable under the program were actually awarded." (UCSP, VI-48.) Accordingly, if up to a 50 percent increase in FAR were to be awarded to the proposed project through tile provision of three Urban Amenities, that!analysis must be undertaken because the UCSP requires it and the EIR did not address it. These principles apply with even more force in the case of the requested Development Exception that would allow an additional 0.45 FAR, on top of the maximum 0.5 FAR bonus sought through the Urban Amenities program. As Development Exceptions can theoretically be granted as to any or aU of the development standards applicable in any of the UCSP Subdistrict Areas, the 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 531 CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFIVlAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. Richard Zumwalt, AICP April 15, 2016 Page 14 EIR obviously could not (and did not) analyze the potential impacts of awards of Development Exceptions. Where, as here, the Development Exceptions sought by the Application include an increase in FAR of between 0.45 and 0.95, as well as a blatant violation of the NTCD requirement that "building design shall be cognizant of adjacent low density uses (e.g., avoid balconies overlooking rear ym?ds)," it is evident that the project is not consistent with the development density or other key provisions of the UCSP. The EIR for the UCSP could not possibly have analyzed the potential impacts of an infinite number, variety and extent of Development Exceptions to the various applicable development regulations, and did not address those potential impacts in any manner. Accordingly, the Application is not subject to an exemption from, or streamlined review under, CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21083.3. At minimum, a subsequent EIR woiild be required to comply with CEQA if the City were to approve the Application. EFH/me cc: Mr. Earl Jentz Sincerely, 4828-3439-1344.3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 532 ! • EXHIBIT 2 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 533 d DELANO & DELANO June 22, 2016 VIA E-MAIL Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Proposed Vista del Mm: Pr@ct, DR 15-00t5 and PCS 15-0006, and Addendum Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Colmnission: O This letter is submitted on behalf of Balboa Equity Capital, Inc, in cmmection with the proposed Vista del Mar project ("Prqiect") and related Addendum, The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., provides that an agency can use a "tiered" EIR in order to, mnong other things, stteamline regulatory procedures and avoid "repetitive discussions of the stone issues in successive environmental impact reports." Pub. Res. Code § 2t093(a). In order to qualify, however, the later project must be: 1. Consistent with the program, plan, policy or ordinance [br which a2n enviromnental impact report has been prepared and certified; 2. Consistent with applicable local l md use plans and zomng; and 3. Not subject to Section 21166 'O ld., § 21094(b) (emphasis added), Failing to meet any one of these three criteria would metal that a later project would not be covered by' an earlier tiered EIR. In this instance, the Project fails all three criteria, For example, the Project violates the UCSP itselfi including Key Principle #7, uires the City to "[t]ransition new development to minimize impacts on existing The staff report and &aft resolutions of approvat assert that the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan m d the Urban Core Specific Plan ("UCSP") and that the 2006 Environmental Impact Report ("UCSP EI£R") adequately addressed the Project's potential impacts. In fact, these assertions are incorrect, as the April 15, 20I 6 letter from Evelyn Heidelberg explains, Indeed, because of the many inconsistencies, the Pro ect Is not the same as or xwthm the scope of the [UCSP] described in the [UCSP EIR]. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cai,App.4 1307, 1320 -21, t'-} .> 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 534 Commen s re Vista dot Mar Project and Addendum June 22. 2016 Page 2 of 4 residentiai neighborhoods." Nor is the Project consistent with several General Plan objectives. Among other things, contrary m LUT-11. the Project does not '°[closure thai buildings and related site improvements .., are well designed and compatible with sm'rounding properties," particularly since it starkly abuts single-fancily residential uses, Co rary to LUT-7, the Project does not provide appropriate transitions between land uses, particularly since the Project would install a complex with 67 mitWacre immediately adjacem to single-family homes. Contrary to LUT-60, the Project is principally a residential use despite the requirement to "[1/loin force the existing land use pattern of.,. office uses on the east side of Third Avenue between J Street and L St, reet.' And contral3, to PFS-t4, the Pro joe* does not "'[p]rovide parks and recreation facilities and programs [] that are well maintained, safe, and accessible to all residents .... " UCSP Mi.tigation Measure 5,2,5-1 reqmres compliance with the special developmenE regmlations :for mixed-use project.% the Neighborhood Transition Combining District ("NTC, D") regulations, and the architectural desiga guidelines, The Project violates maily of these requirements, Araong other tNngs, it does not "[m]inimize the effects of any exterior noise, odors, glare, vellieular and pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts." UCSP at VI-41. It is not "consistent with the policies outlined in the [General Plan] which identi " low and mid rise building forms for this area," UCSP E)'R at 5-41, I L does not provide "paseos to provide walkable access to neighborhoods ... [or link] bikeways, sidewalks and urban plazas .... " Id, at 5 42. it does net "enhance pt btic views, minimize obstruction of views from adjoining structures, and provide adjacent sites with maximum stm and ventilation ... ," Id. at 5-69. And it does not "avoid or minimize solar access impacts." [d. at 5-44, UCSP Mitigation Measare 5.2.5-2 requires the City to "identify the provisions of the UCSP which shall be included in the conditions of approval in order to reduce potmltial light and glare impacts m below significance," The draR resolutions of approvaI fail to do so, UCSP Mitigation Measure 5,3.5-4 req),tires a determination of historical significance "if]or mose structures 45 years or older." And ffa structm'e is fbund to be historically significant, additional mitigation measures must be implemented. The staff report indicates the three buildings on-site %yore built during the 1950's and 1960's." Despite this fact. no historical analysis was performed, UCSP Mitigafion Measure 5,8,5-4 requires that "the traffic assessment prepared to quantify the projects' potential traffic impacts will aiso identi*} how alIernative modes of transportation will be accomplished." The Pro iect's traffic assessment failed to do sc UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.9-4 requires Iarojects with commercial uses to "demonstrate compliaa ce with the existing performance smudards in the City's Noise Ordinance" and requires "complimqce with the mixed-use provisions of Chapter VI of the UCSP," The Project has failed to demonstrate suctl compliance. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 535 Comments re Vista del betar Project and Addendum June 22. 2016 Page 3 of 4 UCSP Mitigation Measure 5,10.5-2 requires each project to "demo strate ... contbm ance with the relevant land use and de 'elopmenregulations .,, which suppor smart growth pnnctples such as providing a mix of compatible land uses; locating highest density near transit: utilizing compac.t building design and creating walkable communRies; providing a range of infill housing opportuNties; and increasing transportation choices," Similarly, UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.10,5-3 requires each project "to demonstrate complianee ,.. to mimmize air pollutant emissions," including promoting pedestrian activity, bicycle activity, public transit facilities. "mid reintroduction of the traditional street grid," The Prqiect has failed to demonstrate such compliance UCSP Mitigation Measure 5,11. I-! requires each project to "demonstrate that slgnific mt impacts to police services resulting fl-om m individual project are addressed" and requires each project to be evaluated '°for adequate access for police vehicles ... and integration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED techniques .... " The Projed h s failed to demonstrate such compliance, UCSP EIR Section 2,3.3 provides: "as each new developmem is proposed, a Secondary Study wilt be prepared m determine if the UCSP] EIR adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development." UCSP EIR at 2-11, The City has failed to prepare a Secondary Study, Beyond these inconsistencies, the Project wilI lead to significant impacts not adequately addressed in the UCSP EIR, For example, the Addendum acknowledges that °'adjacent residential poptflation to the east and commercial properties :o the north and south may be exposed m excessive construction noise .,,." Addendun* at 7. But there is no analysis of these issues because_ the Addendum claims_ "construction projects are d ort term in nature," Id, The mere fact that construction impacts may be temporary does not make them insignificant. See Berkeley Keep gels' Over the Ba), Comm. v. Board of Po 't Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal,A pp.4m 1344, 1380 - 81, Furthermore. although the Project applicant's acoustical report claims there are no applicable noise limits, the City's General Phm provides a 65 decibel exterior no se level {imit for residential land uses. UCSP ErR. Figure 5,9- h And the Noise Technical Report prepared for the UCSP states (p, 6): "fl e noise levels fi'om construction activities to residential receptors are not to exceed 75 dB, averaged over a 12-hour period," The Addendum and UCSP EIR do not accoun* for existing air quality conditions, Assumed compliance with air emission requirements does not ensure that impacts will not be signii]cant. Ki zgs Count) Farm Bureau v. City q/'HanJbrd (1990) 221 Cal,App.3d 692, 718. On April 29. 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15, which establishes a "new interim statewide greetfl ouse gas emission redaction target to retrace 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 536 7 , :<: Comments re Vista del Mar Project and Addendum June 22, 2016 Page 4 of 4 greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 .... " Neither file Addendum nor the UCSP EIR address compliance xd'd Executive Order B-30-I5. Were other projects to develop at the levels and intensity associated with the Project, the eumulative impacts would be substantial, These impacts were not analyzed in the UCSP EIR. See City of Santee v, County of %n Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452 ("even wojects anticipated beyond the near future should be analyzed:for their cmnulative effect"), "Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for furl.ire mitigation after completion of the CEQAprocess signifiematly tmden aines CEQA's goals 0f full disclosure and informed decisiortmaldng; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper defen'al of envkonmental assessment." CommunitiesJbr a Be#er Envib.onment v. City of Richmond (2010) 1184 Cal.AppA u 70, 92. The solution is "not tO defer the specification and adoption c f mRigation meaSffr& 1.ttttil a year after Project approval, but, rather, to defer approval of the Project until proposed mitigation measures were futly developed, clearly defined, a ad made available to the public and interested agencies tbr review and comment2' Id. at 95. The Addendum illegally defers anaJysis of hazardous materials and noise impacts. Addendum at 6 & 7. For the fbregoing reasons, Balboa.Equity Capital, Inc., requests that you reject the Project and Addendum. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns, Sincere!y, Everett DeLano 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 537 EXHIBIT 3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 538 12: i: CGo, CROSBIE GLINER SCHIFFMAN SOUTHARD & SWANSON LLP Attorneys at Law 12750 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE, SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130 TELEPHONE (858) 367 7676 FACSIMILE (858) 345-1991 WRITER'5 E-MAEL ADDRESS eheidelberg@cgs3 ,corn WRITER'5 DIRECT PHONE NO. (858) 779-1718 June 22, 2016 VIA E-MAIL Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Proposed Vista del Mar Project (Item #2, June 22, 2016 Agenda) Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of Balboa Equity Capital, Inc., I am submitting the attached material for your consideration this evening. EFH/pat Attachments .S i fer elaY'" f ' Evelyn F. Heidelberg ' ," 4815-3846- 1747, t 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 539 Item #2 - 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 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-famil r homes (see page 9). • Maximum FAR for C-1 NTCD is 1.0 (see page 10.) o Project's FAR is 2,0 • Project seeksan'award of an FAR bonus of 0.5 for inclusion of three amenities (parking on site, LEED gold eatures, 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 SHAIL BE COGNIZANT OF ADJACENT LOW DENSITY USES (I.E,, AVOID BALCONIES OVERLOOKING REAR YARDS.# (UCSP, Vl-40-41; see pages 7 - 8) 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." They cite no legislative history to support that argument, but rather only policies anc[ 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 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 540 if they overlook the rear yards of single-family homes, 0 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. 0 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 REQUIREM E NT 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. 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 tl e property line." "The balconies along the east building elevation are approximately 47 feet from the property line ...." 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 si{e will intrude on the privacy of the families living in those homes. II 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 541 .::!t!:!:: : : 0 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 [21] balconies" on the 3 d, 4th and 5th floors. THE AWARD OF FAR BONUS FOR AMENITIES IS DISCRETIONARY AND PLANNING COMMISSION IN DETERMINING "JUST-HOW 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 ADDmONAL AMENITIES OR DESIGN PROVISIONS." (UCSP, VI-4g.) 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, {hat the maximum amount of FAR bonus available. The Planning Commission must undertake this analysis, even though the staff report does not help you. In deciding whether to award the maximum 20 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 caf 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 542 THE UCSP ALSO REQUIRES THAT "iT)HE AMOUNT OF BONUS AWARDS CHULA VISTA WILL MAKE AVAIl.ABLE 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, Vl-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 c4ancepts of FAR and density. 0 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 Vl-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 res!dential capacity within the Cl 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 543 iI i!ii : 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, VI1-115; 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. 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 I( 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 wili 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 OE THIRD AVENUE FROM OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF GENERAL PLAN POLICIES. • 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 L JT 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.'; 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 544 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 545 H D. 8pet|am Prov|ons for Neighborhood TransitJQn Cor b aJng DMstrict and ]'ans t Focus Areas 1. Purpose The purpose of the Neighborh#od 7?a lsition Combining District (NTCD) is to DeJ'mlt speeia regul&r:ton to insure that the chafe ,',ter of zones within the Specific Plan area wlil be compatible with arid wifl camptes"ient surroundh g residential areas, Neighborhood TransRion Combining Districts apply o the subdistrtcts acl]acent to R-1 and R-2 zones: V-3, V-4, UC-5, UC-6, UC-13, C 1 and C-2, Transit Focus Areas provide special regulations to encourage the development and use of public transportation: UC-1, UC-2, UC-IO, UC-12, and UC-15. 27 Requirements 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 yat'd is contiguous and parallel with an alley, one-half the width of such alley shall be assumed [o be a portion of sucf) yard. Within transit focus areas, provide a minimum 15 feet of rear yard setback for structures ua to and aver 84 feet in height. -I,ide Yard e[back [eqe[rement 0<45 46<55 66<65 66<75 76<85 86<95 96<',0 |n]mum etback () lO 15 2O 26 80 85 4O b.For every 35 feet in height, the structure shall step back at lees 15 feet on tle side(s) of the structure that abut an R.I or R-2 district. Within Transit Focus Areas, provide a building stepback of at least 15 feet for every 35 feet in height abut ing residential uses. In addition _o meeting the stenback requirements, no part of the building shall be closer to the propery line than a 60-degree #lane extending from each stepback line, c. A landscaping plan should h clude one r# three small shade treefs) 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 (Le, trees not to be planted on the north facing facade of the building), 7 J 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 546 d. e. g, h, All exterior lighting shall focus internally within the tamperty to decrease the light pollution onto tie neighborlng properties. Screening and/or buffers shall be required to obscure features such as dumpsters, lear entrances, utility and maintenance structures and loading facilities. A six-foot solid or decorative metal fence shall be olaced on the property line. If the fence is solid, it shail have design treatment and be articulated r North...j \ every six to eight feet to avoid presenthTg a blank wall to the street or adjacent property. Au "ldfng destgn shaft be cognizant of adjacent Jaw density uses (J.e. avoid balconies overlooking rear yards). NAs part of the project design and .,, ,;, ... submittal, development's within Transit ,-, ',, Focus Areas shall conduct studies to, , assess the effects of light, e g solar :!'i::ii :, access, and shadowing, -::-- ....... #a tems on adjacent buildings and areas as determined necessary, 8 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 547 a -- t 1 .... ® 3AY l ® ® ® @ IV 73a 3^V m ® ® x. © ® ® ® ®S o C) @o H I:IAH:) ,: @@ @ [@ '@ ;;s}cr- ¢E , ,: e, @ 7 li: ) :CO 0 i i t,o q9 <<0 OIU r.- g 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 548 :iiii:::i:i:: ::i!!!iii :!;i f O1 Third Avenue oath (Neighborhood TranMtion Combinlng DtstreO Pl"imary td use: Retat (West of Third Avenue), Ofce (East of Third Avenue); Residend Urball egalat[oas 1, 2. Building Height: Min: 18" Max: 60' f 4, 5. Building Stepback: Not mandatery Street WatI Ftontage: 50% Mh Setbacks: Street M/n: 10' Street Max: 20' Neighborhood Transition: See Section D, for additional setbacks fbr parcels adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts : _ !i:i ii i ,ii:/i' Pa rking tegu at ons 1. Parking Locations: Anywhere on-site 2. Residential Parking: See CVMC 19.62.050 10" - 20' Setback 3 Non.Residential ParMng: Min; 2 spaces/i,000 sf Onsite Min: 50% Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations that may apply to eaclproperty. Please consult the remainder of the chapter for all criteria, I0 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 549 112016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 550 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 551 A R C H[T E CT S Project Memorandum 2258 First Avenue San Diego, Callforn]a 92101 T 19,235,9262 F S19.235,0522 DA'iE: - December 23, 2015 PROJE r 14118 Vista del Mar TO: Miguel Tupia, City of Chula Vista FROM: Max[no Ward, Studio E Architects SUBJIE *T: Findings COPIES TO: File As stated on page V1-54 oFthe Urban Core Specific Plan, the Chute Vista Planning Commission may authorlze'exceptlons to the land use and deveIapment regulations within Chapter VI hrough the issuance ot: an Urban Core Development Permit f all of the Following findings are made: 1, The proposed development wi/l not adveree affect the goals and objectives of the Specific P/on end Genercr/ P/an. 2. The proposed development will comp/x with eli other regulations of the SpeciEe P/on 3. The proposed development w/g /ncorpotz2te one or more of th Urban Amenlt/es incentives 4. The'excepb'one ore appropNate for thls location nd,w//I resu/t /n better de iEn or great rpub//e benefit then cou/d be oPh/eved threuEh strict conformance wlth the 5peciFle P/on development reEu/otions . Below are our responses to these findings: Item 1: The pn posed development will not adverse z effect t e Eoels and objecb'vee of e SpedE¢ Plan end GenenTI P/n. The intent of the Specific Plan is to Facilitate and encourage development end improvements that will help realize the community's vision for the Urben Core area. The community wants the Urban Core to be "vibrant, forward-thlnking but respectful of its past and alive with thriving businesses, altraetlve housing and entertainment, cultural and recreational act'v't'es." The Urban Core Vision aims to create a uniquely identifiable Urban Core for Chain V sta that is an economically vibrant, pedestrian-orlented an J 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 arecl of Third Avenue whicll is current|y under-performing and not living up to the stated vision of the Specific Plan, This project has the potential to spar 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 for the creation of a vibrant, urban atmosphere (Principle 1), t wi Foster civic amen tes n the Form el: a community urban plaza with outda0rdiping 13 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 552 ,ppor uhig s and will create a pedestrian-fl-iendly envbonment within a compact (Prindple 3 ffem 2: The proposed development wi/l comply w{th G// other regulations of the Sped& Plan. The proposed development complies with all other regulations of the Specific PI n. These include: Height: The height ]imi per the development regulations is 50',The proposed development is 6 stades, 68' high, Setbacks: The proposed development complies with all required setbacks and building stepbaeks a/the C-1 and Neighborhood Transitbn Combin ng District (NTCD} regulations. The building Form respects the adjacent R-1 zoning to the nbrth and east a/the site along Church by locating the 1 story portion with roof terrace adjacent to those property lines, screened by landscaping and locating the hulk of the 5 story building as Far as possible From those property lines. As required in the NTCD regulations the building also steps beck from the adjacent residential property and Church Ave, resulting n a reduced building mass and height in this location. Parking: The O1 zone regulations state that parking may be located anywhere on site. The proposed development provides a better design with greater public benefit by Ioaatbg the required parking below the building and architecturally screened from view. The development provides the required number of resident parking spaces (13 fi), 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 C-1 zone regu[atlans 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 end . public open space in the Form of a ghOsf public plaza at the corner of Third and K. For comparlson the UC-1 zone (also on Third Ave, 3 blocks north) has an open space requirement of 10Osf/du. The proposed development provides 236sF/du of open space and exceeds the requirements oFthe (]-1 zone. /tern 3: The proposed development w#/ /ncorporctte one or more o/the Urhrzn Amen 'ee /ncenb'ves Per the Urban Amenities Table in the Specific Plan, Figure 5.66 and 6.67, Page VI-50 & 51, the development incorporates the following Urban Amenities incentives and will be allowed an [neeative of a 60 PAR increase, for a tqtal PAR wfkh incentives of 1.S Urban Amenity Incentive ParNng below grade/within buildSng 10 FAR increase Pubtic Plaza 10% FAR increase Green Building LEED Gold: 30% Total Allowed PAR with Incentives I 1.5 Addional community benefits includ?: • 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 TNrd Avenue in the form of a 14 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 553 public art mural oil the north facing wail of the deveEopment. 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 dentities for focus areas through indMdualized streetscope design and public spaces" as stated in one of the ten key princlpies oFthe 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 far 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 cleon, safe, energy efficient and modern houslng for the Chulo 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 of the 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 llne with this vision. Item 4: The e cepbbna are appropriate for fhis location and w/lt result in a better deafen or ErecCerpuh//c hene£t t dn could be dc3/eved throudh strict conformance with the Specific Plan development mEu/atlons, The proposed development requests only one exception to the development regulations - 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 consider the benefits af the proposed development as a whal 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 llne with development trends elsewhere in the urban core area, The mass of the buHdlng is 5 stories (60' high as allowed by the (2-1 zone) and is locate# along the Third and K streets away from the existing residential. The applicant has taken 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 oFthe project, Furthermore, the form-based nature of the UCSP ensures that proposed development emphasize the importance of slte design and building farm {which last manyyears) over numerical parameters such as FAR, (which are likely to change over time). The proposed development creates a people activated, urban comer that contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the pubIic realm through improved streetscape design and indMdual building character, 15 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 554 The site is designated G1 in the UCSP. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0. The FAR is a measure of the bulk af the buildings on the site. The maxim um hefght limit is 60'. It is hlghly unusual for a zone with a n FAR of 1 to have such a high heig ht limit. The proposed FAR of 2.0 is appropriate for this location at a prominent Futersectian along Third Avenue which is being developed as Chula Vista's Urban Core and Viliage Center, only 4 blocks ta the north. Zone Max, FAR ! Max, Height %2 Z 45' V-3 &5 84' (45/ between F & Park) UG1 ¢ 84 UC-2 5 84' C-1 1 60' If we compare other zones along Third Avenue such as UC-1 and V-2 they have much higher maximum Floor Area Ratios and heights. In addltlon, other NTCD zones (UC-13, 1019, 6 & 5) have a maximum FAR of 2.0, not 1.0 and some of these are Further away from the urban core than this site. The attached diagrams shaw the incongruity beb, veen the base FAR of 1.0 and a height oF 60'. it is our opinion that the proposed development is o be ter design and in keeping with the overall vision of the UCSP, than the type of potential development that the regulations could allow on this site. Diagram 1 chows a S story building with an FAR of 1.0 which does not provide an activated urban street edge and has surface parking which does not centrlbute to the community character or enhanced public safety, Diagram 2 chows a 5 story building with an FAR of 1.0 which attempts to create a street edge along bath Third and K. The resulting dlmenelens of the L shaped form are not conducive to resldential 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 bE having the 5 400" mass biased towards the street. Diagram 4 illustrates the proposed development setback to the single family rear proper[7 line and the allowed setback condition with a different potential development, END OF MEMORANDUM 16 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 555 1° Un@od c o This section outlines Feouirements and incentives for u'ban amenities that will enhance tl e quality of life within the Urban Core ay 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. UncenCH e Zoning The Urban Core Slaecific Plan regulates the development of taroperty througt use and bulk restrictions. The tool selected for reg'ulating density at intensity in r## L#t?an Cote ;s a limitation on the allowable Fluor Area R.a.tio. FAR is the ra*io aetween the size of the lot and the maximum 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 prowsions related to a particular development project in exchange for gran ling an increase m the FAR or FAR waiver for the property being developed. Locations where the City may grant such incentives are clearly identified in this chaplet. Bonus awarcls may be as "of right" or discretionary. Discretionary authority to gran all FAR bonuses or fee waivers is delegated to the .G Planning Commission or City Council as necessa The emotmt of bonus' awards Chula Vista will make acailable shou take into account [he rJrojected build..eut that ,4a JId occur if all of the bonus provisions altowable undcrthe program were actually awarded. This total shculd not exceerZ the capaef of the land or the capacity of the City to provide infrastructure and services to support the build-out, To determh e ust how much additional EAR or FAR waiver should be granted, the ?=VR-e# Planning Commission should take into acceun[ n value added te the pmper y by ne arner#ty pr design; aria a reasonable shm'e of addi.tiona E R or FAR waiver that wiU proportionally cornpcnsa[e the developer for the additio al amenities er design provision& 17 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 556 :iii i if: !i ii !i :::: ii f 4o AtcMtectutM G OdeH nes a. lntzoductian 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. b. Building Height, Form and Mass 1) Building heights and setbacks should vary from adjacent or adjoin#Tg 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 buildings should be located farther away from the sidewalk and use a plaza as a transltfon from the right of way to the building, c, Facades 1)The physical design o facades shouid ut#ize such te:ohniq a : , Break orartlculatlon of tha fa ,,cf ; o Vertical and horizontal offsets to minimize large blank walls and reduce building bulk; Significant qange in :facade design; • Plaeementofwindowanddooropenings; and o Position of awnings and canopies. Building heights should enhance public views and provide adjacent sites with maximum sun and ventilation and protection from prevailing winds. 3) 18 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 557 !i!!: ?!i! 19 I 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 558 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 559 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 560 i¸ 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 561 TRANSPORTATION Caltrans > Business > Division of Design > Manuals & G e > iuidanc H ghway Design Manual Highway Design Manual ] The Highway Design Manual (HDM) has been revised with the 6th Edition HDM Chanee 12/30/15. 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 Blkeways/Cycle Tracks) to be published January t, 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 vehi ;le 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 multimodal design, and recognizes the value of other gu[clanee 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 Desiqn Flexibility and NACTO Endorsement. Would 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. Please 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. How can I propose changes to the manual? Changes can be proposed by submitting a Proposed Revision to the Hiqhway Design Manual form to the HDM editor: Antonette.Clark(,dot.ca.gov Desiqn Information Bulletins (DIB'si and Design Memos maysupercede this Manual Manual Chanqe Transmittals and Erratas Bikeway Research, Experimentation, Testing. Evaluation, or Verification Related to Desiqn Criteria Other Useful Links Highway Design Manual Table of Contents 23 http://www.dot.ca.govlhqloppdlhdmlhdmtoc.htm t/3 '2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 562 6/2112016 Caltrans Highway Design Manual Metric Version PDF LAST • •:i::i: :!i ::!::i 2:: Expanded Table of Contents Division of Design Designation of Highway Routes Federal-Aid Nomenclature Application of Design Standards Basic Design Policies Geometric Design and Structure Standards Geometric Cross Section 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 Corn posite Pavements Chapter 660 Pavement Drainage Chapter 660 Base and Subbase Foreword Contents Chapter 10 Chapter 20 Chapter 40 Chapter 60 Chapter 80 Chapter 100 Chapter 200 Chapter 306 Chapter 400 English Version PDF LAST VERSION UPDATED VERSION UPDATED fwd_¢, df 07-01-08 fwd__.&_p, df 07-01 - 15 t 07-01-06 t 12-30-16 06-26-06 12-30-15 07-01-04 06-07-12 07-01-95 12-30-15 06-06-08 12-30-t5 06-27-08 12-30-15 06-05-08 12-30-15 06-26-06 12-30-15 07-21-06 12-30-15 07-01-08 12-30-15 06-26-06 12-30-15 07-01-08 11-02-12 07-01-08 11-02-12 07-01-08 11-02-12 07-01-08 05-07-12 07-01-08 12-30-15 06-26-06 12-30-15 07-0%08 12-30-15 24 htt p://www.dot.ca.gov q/oppd/hdmfndrn tcc.htm 2/3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 563 IIIGI WAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-15 May7,2012 Figure 404.5A STAA Design Vehicle 56-Foot Radius 4ft 23 ft 41 ft 4ft 8,sft /./AV/'//'//'//.**'/'/'//'/. V///'///'/A / 0 25 50 75 100 (FEET) 90° ,,k, i 48' 41' 19' 3' 0' 4' 23' i¢> * Radius to outside wheel at beginning of curve. LEGEND Swept Width (Body) ......................... Tracking Width (Tires) STAA - STANDARD Tractor Width : 8,5'Trailer Width : 8.5'Tractor Track ; 8,5'Trailer Track : 8,5' Lock to Lock Time ; 6 secondsSteerin9 Lock Angle : 28.3 degreesArticulating Angle 1 70 degrees Note; For definitions, see indexes 404.1 and 404,5, 25 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 564 400-16 May 7, 2012 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 404.5B STAA Design Vehicle 67-Foot Radius / 23 ft t0 25 50 75 1(30 (FEET) 90oc> '.. ,?* Radius to outside wheel at beginning of curve. 19' 3' • , Ot Y 4' 23' 48' ,t,LEGEND SweptWidth (Body) TrackingWidth (Tires) Lock to Lock Time : 6 secondsSteering LockAngle : 20.3 degreesArticulating Angle : 70 degrees STAA - STANDARD Tractor Width : 8.5'Trailer Width : 8.5'Tractor Track : 8.5'Trailer Track : 8.5' Note: For definitions, see Indexes 404.1 end 404,5. 26 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 565 : iI : i HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-17 May 7, 2012 Figure 404.5C California Legal Design Vehicle 50=Foot Radius 3ft; 20 ft 38ff 4ft: 8,5 ft 10 25 50 75 100 (FEET) 90°E:> &, * Radius to outside wheel at beginning of curve. t5' 3' , Y 3' 20' 45' 38'LEGEND Swept Width (Body) ......................... Tracking Width (Tires) CA LEGAL • 65 FT Tractor Width : 8.5'Trailer Width : 8.5'Tractor Track : 8.5'Trailer Tcack i 8.5' Lock to Lock T me : 6 secondsSteering Lock Angle : 26.3 degreesArticulsling Angle ,' 70 degrees Note: For definitions, see Indexes 404,1 and 404,5. 27 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 566 400-18 May 7, 2012 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 404,5D California Legal Design Vehicle 60-Foot Radius 900E3, 3if: 20 ft 38 ft 10 25 50 75 t00 (FEET) CA LEGAL -65 FT Tractor Width : 8,5'Trailer Width : 8,5'Tractor Track : 8.5'Trailer Track : 8,5' Lock to Lock Time : 6 secondsSteering Lock Angle : 26.3 degreesArticulating Angle : 70 degrees 15' 45' , ,r , 38, __r 0 y: 3' 20' ¢O o 0 * Radius to outside wheel at beginning of curve, LEGEND Swept Width (Body) ........................ Tracking Width (Tires) Note: For defnitions see indexes 404.I and 404.5, 28 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 567 32 Mauchly, Suite B, Irvine, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 450-2100 Anaheim – Irvine – Oakland – Ontario – San Diego – Torrance – Victorville www.GroupDelta.com July 29, 2016 Project No. IR-406B California Retina Associates 835 3rd Avenue, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91911 Attention: Dr. Hamid Mani Subject: RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF VISTA DEL MAR PROJECT MIXED-USE PODIUM BUILDING 3RD AVENUE AND K STREET CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Dear Dr. Mani: As requested, Group Delta is providing a response to the appeal of the Vista del Mar project planned at the property located at the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and K Street in Chula Vista, California. We provide the results of our feasibility-level geotechnical evaluation in our Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Update report dated March 5, 2015, which was included in the application to the Chula Vista Planning Commission (Planning Commission) for project approval. We understand the Planning Commission has approved the subject project and that an appeal was subsequently submitted to the City of Chula Vista as summarized in a letter prepared by Everett DeLano dated July 1, 2016. The appeal letter summarizes a number of claims including one that the applicant violated the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) as summarized in an excerpt from the letter below. “…. technical studies were only provided after Planning Commission approval. But they show additional violations of the UCSP. For example, USCP EIR Mitigation Measure 5.4.5-1 requires: ‘Prior to the approval of each subsequent development project, the project applicant shall submit a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation of the project site … [which] shall include … a delineation of specific locations where liquefiable, compressive, and expansive soils would affect structural stability ….’ A ‘Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Update’ prepared for the Project fails to meet these requirements.” The mitigation measure cited above calls for the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation to evaluate the impact of geologic hazards. However, the measure also indicates that this be performed at the building permit stage. As discussed in the preliminary report, the results of our feasibility-level geotechnical assessment are based on a review of existing data, are provided for preliminary planning and cost estimating purposes, and must be confirmed by site- specific borings for final design. Accordingly, a site-specific geotechnical investigation (including test borings and laboratory testing of soil samples) will be performed at the building permit stage in support of final design consistent with the purpose of the measure. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 568 California Retina Associates July 29, 2016 Response to Appeal of Vista del Mar Project Page 2 3rd Avenue and K Street, Chula Vista In our opinion, the Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Update report prepared by Group Delta satisfies the purpose of the mitigation measures of the UCSP as it allows for a preliminary evaluation of the effect of geologic hazards on the design and construction of the project in support of planning. Such feasibility-level assessments are routinely performed using existing geotechnical data (such as soil borings). Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical assessment, liquefiable, compressive, and expansive soils have not been identified as significant considerations for the project. However, these preliminary findings will be further evaluated based on a site-specific geotechnical investigation to be performed in support of final design prior to building permit application submittal. We appreciate this opportunity to assist you with this project and look forward to our continued support during the final design. If you have any questions, comments, or require additional information, please call us at (949) 450-2100. Sincerely, GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS Benjamin Serna, PE, GE Senior Engineer 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 569 RESOLUTION NO. 2016- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL BY THE CORRIDOR COALITION AND REAFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF THE ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP PCS15-006 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP ON 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN WHEREAS, the parcel of land which isthe subject matter of this Resolution is depicted in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description consists of 1.05acres located at 795 Third Avenueand 285 K Street, as identified in County Assessor Records as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 573-371-23 and 573-371- 12 (Project Site); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2015 duly verified applications requesting approval of Design Review Application DR15-0015, Tentative Subdivision Map Application PCS15-0006 (Chula Vista Tract No. 15-06) and Preliminary Environmental Review PER-12-003, were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Niki Properties, LLC (“Applicant” and “Owner”); and WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 to redevelop the Project Site with a mixed use, multi-family residential-commercial project known as Vista del Mar, which includes 71 residential units, 616 square-feet of commercial space, 142-parking space garage, active and passive open spaces, and the associated access and circulation elements (the “Project”) and approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide 1.05 acres into a one-lot Condominium Subdivision for individual ownership; and WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on June 22, 2016 in the Council Chambers, 276 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 570 Resolution No. 2016-______ Page 2 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs’ presentation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on said date reviewed, considered and adopted the Addendum to Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 06-01 and approved Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 and Tentative Map PCS15-0006; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2016 the Corridor Coalition, Glenda de Vaney, Martha Coulson, and Earl Jentzfiled an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to adopt the Addendum and approve Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0010and Tentative Map PCS15-0006; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the appeal and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project Site at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said appeal at the time and place as advertised, namely August 16,2016at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine that under the provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.588.B, the appeal that is the subject of this Resolution is hereby denied and the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt the Addendum and approve the Project is hereby affirmedas follows: I.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Preliminary Environmental Review of the Project conducted by the Director of Development Services for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the Project was covered by the Urban Core Specific Plan (“UCSP” or “Specific Plan”) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council in May 2007. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to FEIR-06-01 are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in the form presented, which has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 571 Resolution No. 2016-______ Page 3 Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. II. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY’S URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN That the City of Council of the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise ofits independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings does hereby find that the Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 for the Project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan as follows. The proposed Project is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan and the objectives, policies and regulations of the UCSP. The General Plan and the UCSP envision the C1 Third Avenue South District as an area with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that contribute to create a vibrant and attractive area. 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 that would provide 71 new residential units (market rate and affordable) on Third Avenue, as well as 616 square-feet of retail space, and would bring people, improvements and investment to the District. The Project would provide multi-family housing in this area of Chula Vista and would 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. The additional 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, which includes art and furniture, will provide an amenity that will activate the street and create opportunities for civic engagement and interaction. The wider and furnished sidewalks along Third Avenue and K Street will also contribute to activate the street and create a pedestrian-safe and friendly environment. The proposed Project is also consistent with the UCSP development regulations related to building height, building setbacks and step backs, parking, open space and landscaping. As shown in the staff report, the Project meets all of the regulations of the Specific Plan, except for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (see below), and, in cases such as parking, usable open space and landscaping, the Project exceeds the minimum required standards. III.DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS The UCSP provides for and authorizes the City Council to grant exceptions to the land use and development regulations, in order to encourage and achieve innovative design. The Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit in theamount of 0.5 or 22,869 square-feet. Exceptions may be granted by the City Council in cases where all of the following findings are made: 1.The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 2.The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 572 Resolution No. 2016-______ Page 4 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. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves an exception to the FAR limit of 1.0 in the amount of 0.5 or 22,869 square-feet based upon the following Findings and substantiating facts thereto: 1.The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 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 implementsthe 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 Plan 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 form 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 comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. As indicated in the Development Standards table included in the Planning Commission Staff Report, incorporated herein by this reference, 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 573 Resolution No. 2016-______ Page 5 The building form respects the properties in the adjacent R-1 Zone to the north and east of the Project 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. 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 should be avoided, balconies are still an 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 toprovide usable open/recreational space. Building façade 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: 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 Project 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 identifythis new 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 574 Resolution No. 2016-______ Page 6 building in this area of Third Avenue, since no other art pieces like this exist now. In accordance with 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. 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 C1 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 some additional residential development within the C1 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 acresof residential development. 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. The Project’s FAR of 2.0 is appropriate for an urban mixed use development andis 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 withoutreducing 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 arelikely to change over time through periodic reviews and amendments to the UCSP as required by law, and based on changes to the physical conditions of the Urban Core and changes in economic activity). 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 575 Resolution No. 2016-______ Page 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine that the Appeal that is the subject of this Resolution is hereby DENIED and that the determination of the Planning Commissionis hereby AFFIRMED, in accordance with the applicable development standards, regulation and guidelines of the Urban Core Specific Planand the Conditions of Approval specified in Planning Commission Resolutions DR15-0015 and PCS15-0006datedJune 22, 2016, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (Exhibit “B”). PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 16thday of August, 2016by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Presented by:Approved as to form by: ___________________________________________________________ Kelly Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney Exhibits: Exhibit A –Locator Map Exhibit B –Planning Commission’s Resolutions DR15-0015 and PCS15-0006 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 576 DIAMOND JIMS AM/PM & MINI MART THIRD AVENUE PLAZA U.S. POST OFFICE PARKING LOT MASONIC TEMPLE OFFICES WELLS FARGO BANK JACK IN THE BOX GREEN TREE FOUNTAIN APARTMENTS BANK OF AMERICA CHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER BJ'S EQUIP RENTALS ALVA GARDENS APARTMENTS VERDE PARK APARTMENTS MEDITERRANEAN GARDEN APARTMENTS OFFICES THIRD AVE LIQUOR CLEANERS SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF PINE VISTA APARTMENTS MARQUEZ AUTO BODY & PAINT APN 5733711200 APN 5733712300 PRO JEC TLOCATION j:\planning\public notices\dr\dr150015 8x10.ai SCALE:FILE NUMBER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT ADDRESS:NEC Third Av & K St APN's 5733711200 & 5733712300 Related cases: No Scale DR15-0015 PROJECT APPLICANT:LOCATOR NORTH DESIGN REVIEWVista Del Mar Project Summary: Proposal for a mixed use 3-5 story, 71 condo units with 616 sq ft of commercial space and 142 below grade parking stalls. CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 577 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR15-0015 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15-0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT TO THECONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN I,RECITALS WHEREAS, the parcel of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general descritStion consists of 1.05 acres located at 795 Third Avenue and 285 K Street, as identified in County Assessor Records as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 573-371-23 and 573 371-12 (Project Site); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2015 duly verified applications requesting approval of Design Review Application DR15-0015, Tentative Subdivision Map Application PCS15-0006 (Chula Vista Tract No. 15-06) and Preliminary Environmental Review PER-12-003, were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Niki Properties, LLC ("Applicant" and "Owner"); and WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 to redevelop the Project Site with a mixed use, multi family residential/commercial project known as Vista del Mar, which includes 71 residential units, 616 square-feet of commercial space, 142-parking space garage, active and passive open spaces, and the associated access and circulation elements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on June 22, 2016 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fom Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs' presentation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on said date reviewed and considered the Addendum to Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro am FEIR 06-01 and the application for Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 578 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it does hereby find and determine as follows: II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW That the Chula Vista Pianning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Preliminary Environmental Review of the Project conducted by the Director of Development Services for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the Project was covered by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council in May 2007. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to FEIR-06-01 are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. That the Chula Vista Planning Commission, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in the form presented, which has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. III. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY'S URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN That the Chula Vista Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings does hereby find that the Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DR15-0015 for the Project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan as follows. The proposed Project is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan and the objectives, policies and regulations of the UCSP. The General Plan and the UCSP envision the C1 Third Avenue South District as an area with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that contribute to create a vibrant and attractive area. 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 that would provide 71 new residential units (market rate and affordable) on Third Avenue, as well as 616 square-feet of retail space, and would bring people, improvements and investment to the District. The Project would provide multi-family housing in this area of Chula Vista and would 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. The additional 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 comer of Third Avenue and K Street, which includes art and furniture, will provide an amenity that will activate the street and create opportunities for civic engagement and interaction. The wider and furnished sidewalks along Third Avenue and K Street will also contribute to activate the street and 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 579 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 3 create a pedestrian-safe and friendly environment. The proposed Project is also consistent with the UCSP development regulations related to building height, building setbacks and step backs, parking, open space and landscaping. As shown in the staff report, the Project meets all of the regulations of the specific plan, except for FAR (see below), and, in cases such as parking, usable open space and landscaping, the Project exceeds the minimum required standards. IV. DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS The UCSP provides for and authorizes the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to the land use and development regulations, in order to encourage and achieve innovative design. The Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit in the amount of 0.5 or 22,869 square-feet Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission in cases where all of the following findings are made: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. The propdsed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. 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. 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. FAR Exception Findings BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby approves an exception to the FAR limit of 1.0 in the amount of 0.5 or 22,869 square-feet based upon the following Findings and substantiating facts thereto: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 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 Comer 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 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 580 PC Resolution - DRC 15 -0015 June 22, 2016 Page 4 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 form allows the Project to have the number of residential units and the associated parking, landscaping, recreational spaces and other features that provide a multi-propose environment and activities to meet the goals and objectives of the General and Specific Plans. 2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the SpeciJic Plan. As indicated in the Deveiopment Standards table above, 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 Project 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. 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 should be avoided, balconies are still an 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 fagade 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 581 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 5 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. ,The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Ineenth es 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 fi niture; 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 Project 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 ]?rovide more options for clean, safe, energy efficient and modem 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. .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 aliow 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 C1 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 some additional residential development within the C1 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 of residential 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 582 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 6 development. The proposed Project FAR of 2.0 (91,345 sq. ft.) represents approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the CI District. 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 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 tal<en 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 through periodic reviews and amendments to the UCSP as required by law, and based on changes to the physical conditions of the Urban Core and changes in economic activity). The proposed development creates a people activated, urban comer that contributes to the city's goal of "Complete Streets" and enhances the public realm through improved streetscape design and individual building character. V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is improved with Project The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Design Review Permit DR15-0015 consisting of the approved Site Plans, Floor Plans, Building Elevations, Roof Plans, and Concept Landscape Plans. VI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The conditions herein imposed on the Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit approval are approximately proportional both to the nature and extent of impact created by the proposed Project. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed by the Applicant, Owner or Successor-in-Interest to the Director of Development Services, or designee's satisfaction prior to approval of the first Building Permit, unless otherwise specified: GENERAL/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1. The Applicant shall obtain approval of Tentative Subdivision Map CVT-15-06 (PCS15 0006) and a Final Subdivision Map for the Project prior to approval of Building Permits in reliance on this Design Review Permit approval. 2. The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of DeveIopment Services and the City Engineer, the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum to Urban Core Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 06-01 for the Project within the timeframe specified in said MMRP. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 583 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 7 3. The Applicant shall pay in full any unpaid balance for the Project, including Deposit Account No. DQ3021. ,Applicant shall meet and confer with staff to develop and implement feasible and effective measures with respect to balconies on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors of the Project with sight-lines onto adjacent residential yards to further address potential adverse effects on the privacy of occupants of adjacent residential properties to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. .Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Chula Vista Mmaicipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 8.24 - Solid Waste and Litter, and Chapter 8.25 - Recycling, related to mixed-use/multi-family residential development projects, to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Environmental Services Division. These requirements include, but are not limited to the following: a. The Applicant shall contract with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the Project. b,The Applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance, including submittal of a Waste Management Report per CVMC 8.25.095.B, to the Environmental Services Division. 6.The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of detailed Landscape Improvement Plans in accordance with the City Landscape Manual, and the Water Conservation Ordinance, prior to the issuance of applicable permits or other discretionary approval. Landscape Plans shall be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect and shall be consistent with the approved Concept Landscape Plan. 7 Project plans shall incorporate street furniture along the Third Avenue and K Street frontage such as ornamental benches, ornamental tree grates, and ornamental light fixtures consistent with the UCSP. ,The public plaza shall include approximately 1,700 squared-feet in area and shall incorporate decorative street furniture, including chairs and benches, and an art feature, including a water fountain or a sculptural art piece. 9. The 10-foot sidewalk along the Third Avenue frontage shall be reconstructed of decorative paving materials. 10. All private driveways and pedestrian walkways located along the Third Avenue and K Street project frontages shall be constructed of decorative paving materials. 11. The Project Applicant proposes to provide a mural on the building's north elevation. A preliminary proposal includes a mural that describes the history and culture of Chula 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 584 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 8 Vista. The Applicant shall submit the mural proposal to the Development Services Director for review and approval prior to the installati(m on the wall. i2. 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 Fmvironmental Design (LEED) Gold Certification. The Project approval is based on the incorporation and construction of all the LEED features as outlined in Attachment 10 of the staff report. The Project was designed to include a 30% increase in the building Floor Area Ratio contingent on the (a) incorporation and construction of all LEED features and (b) receipt of the LEED Gold Certification from the US Green Building Council. If the Project plans are found at the time of building permit to not meet the criteria for LEED Gold Certification, the Project plans shall be revised to include all the features outlined in Attachment 10 and fully meet all of the LEED Gold Certification criteria. If this does not occur, then Project approval is suspended and new or revised plans shall be presented to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. 13. The Building-Permit plans shali show that the Project has been designed to comply with applicable requirements of CVMC 15.56.020 "Condominium Projects, Condominium Conversions and Occupancy thereof." 14. Applicant shall design and install a "Keep Clear" striping detail at the combined Project/Bank of America driveway to ensure that vehicles stopped at Third Avenue and queuing westbound on K Street do not block the Project driveway. Said striping detail wilt be desiglaed to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. 15. Appiicant shall prepare and submit a lighting plan for City approval that demonstrates compliance with Chapter 17.28 (Unnecessary Lights) of the Chnia Municipal Code, and compliance with the UCSP. 16. A lighting plan shall be provided with the Building Permit submittal showing that lighting of all enclosed parking, pedestrian walkways, recreational areas, building entries and other public areas have been provided. 17. The Applicant shall reserve a minimum of one parking space for the commercial use and a minimum of seven parldng spaces in the garage for use of its residents' guests. These spaces shall be marked by appropriate signage. A note to this effect shall be shown on the Site Plan to be submitted to the City as part of the building permit application. HOUSING DIVISION 18. The City of Chula Vista General Pian Housing Element established Policy 5.1.1 (the "Balanced Community Policy"), which requires the occupancy and affordability of ten percent (10%) of each housing development of 50 or more units for low and moderate income households, with at least one half of those units (5% of project total units) being designated for low-income households (the "Affordable Housing Obligation"). In satisfaction of the Balanced Community Policy, the Project Applicant shall execute an 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 585 PC Resolution - DRC I5-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 9 Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder over the entirety of the Project Site. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall provide that 10% of the total number of qualified low income (5%) and moderate housing units (5%) shall be constructed on site or pay the In lieu fee of $124,220 per unit. The trigger point to pay the in lieu fee is determined by the City Manager and City Attorney or their designees. BUILDING DIVISION 19.The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of Building Permit(s) to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. The Building Permits shall comply with updated codes and requirements, including but not limited to the following: 2013 Edition of the California Building Code as amended by CVMC 15.08; 2013 Edition of the California Residential Code CVMC 15.09; 2013 Edition of California Mechanical Code CVMC 15.16; 2013 Edition of the California Plumbing Code as amended by CVMC 15.28; 2013 Edition of the California Electrical Code as amended by CVMC 15.24; 2013 Edition of the California Fire Code as amended CVMC 15.36; 2013 Edition of the California Green Building Standards Code as amended CVMC 15.12; 2010 Edition of the California Energy Code as amended CVMC 15.26; 2000 Edition of the Urban-Wildland Interface Code as amended CVMC 15.38; 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code as amended CVMC 15.20; and 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings as amended CVMC 15.18. LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION: 20. The foliowing fees are payable prior to issuance of Building Permits, based on the Final Building Plans submitted: a. Sewer Connection and Capacity Fees b. Traffic Signal Fees c. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) d. Western Transportation Development Impact Fees (WTDIF) e. Other Engineering Fees as applicable 21. Applicant shall pay Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees per dwelling unit as required prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in accordance with CVMC 17.10. 100. The current PAD Fee for West Chula Vista Projects is $7,607 for each Multi Family Residential dwelling. The PAD Fee is adjusted on an axnual basis on October 1 based on the Engineer Construction Cost Index. The payment of the PAD Fee amount in place at the time of the recording of the Final Map is required. The PAD Fee for the project at this time is $540,097 (71 @ $7,607/unit). 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 586 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 10 22. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parldng shall be designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, ADA Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable. 23. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall obtain approval of street addresses to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. 24. AppIicant shall obtain approval of a sign permit prior to construction of any proposed signage. WASTEWATER ENGINEERING SECTION 25. Applicant shall submit a revised Sewer Study to reflect the methodology, standards and generation factors listed in the City of Chula Vista Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, dated May 2014, prepared by Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. 26. The Peak to Average sewer flow shall be calculated based on City of Chula Vista CVD SW01. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 27. For 67,873 square feet of Type IA construction and or 102,763 square feet of Type VA construction, this project will require a fire flow of 6906 gallons per minute for a 4-hour duration at 20 p.s.i. The respective Water authority wilt be reqnested to perform a hydraulic flow analysis of their system to determine if the fire flow is available. No reductions in fire flow will be granted for buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 28. Based upon the required fire flow for Type VA and IA construction type, a minimum of 7 fire hydrant(s) are required to serve this project. Existing public hydrants may be used to fulfill this requirement, however at least one new public hydrant will need to be added along the east side of Third Avenue at the northwest end of the building due to distance to the next exiting hydrant along Third Avenue. 29. Fire Hydrants shall be located and spaced in accordance with California Fire Code, Appendix C. For a fire flow requirement of 6,906 gpm, fire hydrants shall be spaced at an average of 250 feet. 30. Knox boxes shall be installed at all stairwell entrances, the iobby entrance, the resident lounge entrance, the fire control room and for the commercial space entrance in accordance with Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) details. Any automatic gates that restrict vehicular access into the parking garage shall be provided with a Knox Key Switch. 31. The fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm panel shall be located in a fire control room that is accessible directly from the exterior of the building. The Fire Control Room shall be 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 587 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 1i dimensioned in accordance with CVFD standard detail and located along the Third Avenue or K Street exterior walls. The Fire Control Room cannot be used for anything besides the fire riser(s) and fire alarm control panel. 32.A Post Indicating Valve that controIs the supply of the fire sprinkler system will not be required for this project due to the zero lot lines along Third and K; however, a control valve shall be installed on the fire sprinlder riser. 33.The Fire Department Connection (FDC) is allowed to be located on the face of the building due to zero lot lines. The FDC shall be within 50' of a fire hydrant. Consider this when locating the fire control room as the FDC is typically located close to the system riser. 34. At least one elevator car shall be dimensioned to accommodate a gurney in accordance with CBC 3002.4(a). VII. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a) and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired. VIII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and AppIicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk. Failure to record this document shall indicate the property owner and Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as Document No.fi'/5"-" 0 CI t '. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 588 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 12 { Signatur of Applicant\Date Printed Name of Applicant S ignatu!g l!ro pX"er t y Owner ov i3,o/ v Date Printed Name of Applicant IX. INDEMNITYPROVISION The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Design Review Permit and (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated on the Project Site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Design Review Permit where indicated below. The Property Owner's and Applicant's compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property Owner's and Applicant's successors and assigns. X. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or fixrther condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified ten (10) day's in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and diligent time frame. XI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, or conditions are 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 589 PC Resolution - DRC 15-0015 June 22, 2016 Page 13 determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, iilegal or unenfbrceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no fitrther force and effect ab initio. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Chula Vista Pianning Commission does hereby approve the subject Design Review (Urban Core Development) Permit DRC 15-0015 for 71 residential units, 616 square-feet of commercial unit, 142-parking space garage, active and passive open spaces, and the associated access and circulation elements 795 Third Avenue subject to the conditions of approval contained herein. Approved as to form by: dd . e lenR." oog s .... Oi grney',...._S x.._) PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of June 2016, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: Liuag ABSENT: Fragomeno ABSTAIN: n/a Anaya, Fuentes, Gutierrez, Nava, Calvo Yolat Ja'al o, OI air A/T EST: 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 590 MASONIC TEMPLE U.S. POST OFFICE VERDE PARK APARTMENTS CLEANERS LIQUO OFFICES EQ ALVA GARDENS APARTMENTS GARDEN APARTMENTS AM/PM & MINI MAR-J THIRD AVENUE PLAZA OFFICES EXHIBIT A SF SF SFSF SF SF SF SF SF SFSF SF SF SF SF SFSF SF SF SF SF SF SFSF SF SFSF SF SFSF APN 5733711200 5733712300 BANK OF GREENAMERICATREEJACK FOUNTAIN IN THE APARTMENTSBOXCHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER IJECT LOCAT|OH PINE VISTA APARTMENTS WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Vista Del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION:APPLICANT: DESIGN REVIEW O PROJECT N EC Third Av & K St Project Summary: Proposal for a mixed use 3-5 story, 71 condo units with 616 sq ADDRESS: APN's 5733711200 & 5733712300 ft of commercial space and 142 below grade parking stalls. FILE NUMBER: Related cases: ¢ SCALE: NORTH No Scale DR15-0015 j:\plannJng\public notices\dr r150015 8xl 0.i2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 591 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PCS-15-0006 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06-01 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPPCS15-0006 TO COMBINE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AT 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THECONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN I.RECITALS WHEREAS, the parcel of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the pro-pose of general description consists of 1.05 acres located at 795 Third Avenue, as identified in Couney Assessor Records as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 573-371-12-00 and 573-371 23.-00 (Project Site); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2015 duly verified appIications for the Vista De1 Mar Project requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS15-0006, Chula Vista Tract No. 15.-06), Design Review (DR15-0015), and Preliminary Environrnental Review (PER15 0004), were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Niki Properties, LLC ("Applicant" and "Owner"); and WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide 1.05 acres into a one-lot Condominium Subdivision, including 7t multi-family residential units, 1 616 square-foot commercial unit, 142 parking spaces and 17,646 square-feet of public, common and private usable open space, (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, a hearing time and piace was set by the Plaxming Commission for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its pro'pose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Platming Commission on June 22, 2016 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs' presentation; and considered the applications for the Preliminary Environmental Review (PER15-0004) and Tentative Map (PCS15-0006). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista that it does hereby find and determine as follows: 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 592 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW That the Chula Vista Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Preliminary Environmental Review of the Project conducted by the Director of Development Services for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the Project was covered by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council in May 2007. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to FEIR-06-01 are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. That the Chula Vista Planning Commission, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in the form presented, which has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt the Addendum to UCSP FEIR-06-01. III. DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS The UCSP provides for and authorizes the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to the land use and development regxflations, in order to encourage and achieve innovative design. The Project is requesting one exception to the FAR limit in the amount of 0.5 or approximately 22,738 square-feet. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission in cases where all of the following findings are made: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. 3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban Amenities Incentives in section F - Urban Amenities Requirements' and Incentives, of this chapter. 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. FAR Exception Findings BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Platming Commission hereby approves an exception to the FAR limit of 1.0 in the amount of 0.5 or 22,738 square-feet based upon the following Findings and substantiating facts thereto: 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 593 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 3 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and objectives of the Spec c Plan and General Plan. 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 Comer 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 form allows the Project to have the number of residential units and the associated parking, landscaping, recreational spaces and other features that provide a multi-propose environment and activities to meet the goals and objectives of the General and Specific Plans. 2. The proposed development will eomply with all other regulations of the Specific Plan. As indicated in the Development Standards table in the staff report, 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 building setbacks are within those required by the UCSP. The Project provides all the required parldng 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 Project Site along Church Avenue by locating the second floor terrace and balconies as fax away as possible from the property lines, and provides heavy screening by Iax dscaping the perimeter of the structure. The 3 to 5-story building struc re 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-l:amily 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. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 594 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 4 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. 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 should be avoided, balconies are still an 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 fagade 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. .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 following three amenities, are fully described in the staff report: all required parking (on-site and enclosed); public outdoor space in the form of plaza with art feature and fumiture; and LEED Gold Certification. Additionally, the Project includes other amenities and community benefits as follows: 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 Project 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 furnitalre such as benches, trash cans and planters. Additionally, this residential development will provide more options for clean, safe, energy efficient and modem housing for the Chula Vista workfurce. These 71 dwelling units will put more people on Third Avenue to support the small businesses located 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 595 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 5 there and to create a more pedestrian-friendly street atmosphere. 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 alIow 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 C1 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 some additional residential development within the C1 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 2.0 (91,345 sq. ft.) represents approximately 9.5% of the total potential residential capacity within the C1 District. 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-I 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 through periodic reviews and amendments to the UCSP as required by law, and based on changes to the physical conditions of the Urban Core and changes in economic activity). 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. IV.WAIVER OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 19.09.050, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the requirement for a Public ):acilities Financing Plan is hereby waived because the Project is infill development located in a developed portion of the City where adequate public facilities exist or will be provided concurrent with development of the Project Site, therefore there are no public service, facility or phasing needs that warrant the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plarl. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 596 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 6 V,TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for the Project, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following Findings and substantiating facts thereto: I. Land Use and Circulation The General Plan land use designation is the Mid-Third Avenue District, which permits office, commercial and residential uses, and is also regulated by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), which timber refines and implements the General Plan. The Project Site is designated the C1 Corridor Third Avenue South District by the UCSP, which permits mixed commercial and multi-family residential uses pursuant to the UCSP development standards. The Project would provide a mixed use development of 71 multi-family residential units, and one 616 commercial unit, at a FAR of 2.0. The UCSP contains provisions that permit an increase above the base FAR of 1.0, if certain project amenities are provided. The Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the UCSP. Also, the Findings required for the exception to increase the proposed FAR to 2.0 have been made and substantiated herein. The Project has direct frontage on K Street, which is a residential street that provides access to Third Avenue, which is designated as a 4-lane Class 1 Collector Street in the General Plan. Third Avenue will be improved by the Applicant, in accordance with the conditions of approval, to provide sidewalk and landscape improvements in compliance with City design standards and requirements. Projects proposed for the western Chula Vista area are also required to pay the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee prior to Building Permit issuance, to pay their share of costs associated with future road construction in the area. 2. Economic Development The Project will provide 71 new, high-quality, energy-efficient multi-family homes that will enhance the image and appearance of the neighborhood, help revitalize the commercial businesses in the area, and create jobs related to the construction and the use of the Project, that will benefit the local economy. The Project will provide new rental and for-sale multi-family housing in a commercial area that will improve the housing mix and enhance residential and commercial opportunities in the neighborhood. The Project Site location near the intersection of Third Avenue and K Street will provide convenient access for residents to nearby public transportation, jobs, schools, and commercial services. The development of the site will also increase the amount of property tax revenue to the City. The Project will be constructed using green building and landscaping features that comply with the Cal Green Building Standards. Thus, approval of the Project will help achieve the General Plan objectives that seek to promote a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve the City's jobs/housing balance, provide a diverse economic base, and encourage the growth of small businesses. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 597 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 7 3. Public Facilities and Services The Project Site is located in the attendance area of the Rice Elementary School, within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The Project is also within the attendance area of Chula Vista Middle School and Chula Vista High School, within the Sweetwater Union High School District. Both School districts responded that they would be able to accommodate the additional students generated by the Project, and that the schools would not be adversely impacted by the approval of the Project. The Project Site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater services area. The existing sewer facility system includes an existing 4-inch public sewer main line located along the southwest property line of the Project Site. New 8 inch sewer laterals are proposed to service the Project. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed Project. The Project has been conditioned to ensure that all necessary public facilities and services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those services. The City Engineer and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City policies and have determined that the proposal meets those standards. The proposed Project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a mixed commercial/residential infill project and would not adversely impact existing or proposed park and recreational facilities. The Project has been conditioned to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees prior to issuance of Building Permits. Project construction will be required to comply with the 2014 California Green Building Standards, the Cal Green Building Standards and the 2013 California Energy Code. In addition, the Applicant will construct the Project to comply with LEED Gold standards, and therefore energy-efficient multi-family homes will be developed. .Housing The Project will be granted FAR bonuses and exceptions specified herein and therefore is consistent with the FAR and density prescribed within the UCSP C-1 Corridors District zoning, and will provide additional opportunities for high-quality, market-rate multi-family residential home ownerstlip in the southwestern portion of the City. The Project Site is subject to the Balanced Communities -Affordable Housing Program of the City's Housing Element. For all new residential projects consisting of 50 or more dwelling units, 10% of the units shall be affordabIe to low and moderate income households, with 5% for lower income and 5% for moderate income. Pursuant to this program, the Project will be required to provide a total of 7 low and moderate affordable units, or pay an inqieu fee. 5. Growth Management The Project is in compliance with applicable Growth Management Element requirements because it is an infill project that will be served by existing public infrastructure. There are no public services, facilities, or phasing needs that warrant the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 598 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 8 6. Environmental The Project includes multi-family homes with common and private usable open space that exceeds the minimum common usable open space requirements of the UCSP. The Project Site is currently developed with commercial structures that will be demolished in accordance with applicable state and local laws to protect residents and workers from exposure to hazardous materials. The Project will be conditioned to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residents from noise and dust from construction and grading activities, to the maximum extent feasible. The Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum to the UCSP FEIR-06-01, in compliance with the CEQA. Potential significant impacts to Landform/Aesthetics (including visual character and light and glare effects), Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Traffic will be mitigated upon completion of the Mitigation Measures specified in the UCSP FEIR-06-01 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which are required prior to issuance of the Final Map, Grading Plan, or Building Permits for the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the development of the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Conservation Element. B. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1, the configuration, orientation, and topography of the Project Site allows for the optimum siting of buildings for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities, and the development of the Site will be subject to Building Permit review pursuant to the 2013 California Building Code as amended and updated, including CaI Green Building Standards, and the 2013 California Energy Code, to ensure the maximum utilization of naW.ral and passive heating and cooling opportunities. C. That pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. D. That the Project Site is physically suited for residential development. The Project proposes to develop a level property that is developed with commercial structalres, and is located on Third Avenue, a Circulation Element road, at the intersection of K Street. The Project design mal<es full utilization of the land, locates the building with convenient access to Third Avenue, an on-site parking garage, and to on-site common recreational amenities and open space areas. The Project Site is adjacent to commercial uses on the north, south and west, and residential development on the east. The proposed Project design takes advantage of the location and characteristics of the Project Site to provide a mixed use building at height and scale that transitions from 34 feet, 3 stories adjacent to lower density residential uses on the east, to 60 feet, 5 stories facing Third Avenue to the west. The Project Site also has convenient access to the MTS bus route on Third Avenue. As conditioned, the Project conforms to all standards established by the City for a mixed use commercial/multi-family residential development. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 599 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 9 VI. TENTATIVE MAP GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is Improved with Project The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 12-07, located at 795 Third Avenue. VII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A.The conditions imposed on the Tentative Map approval herein are approximately proportional both to the nature and extent of impact created by the proposed Project. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed by the Applicant, Owner or Successor-in-Interest to the Director of Development Services, or designee's, satisfaction prior to approval of the Final Map, unless otherwise specified: GENERAL/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .The Project shali comply with the City of Chula Vista Standard Tentative Map Conditions, described in Section 5 of the City Subdivision Manual, as approved and amended from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and City Engineer. 2. Applicant shall pay in fuI1 any unpaid balance for the Project, including Deposit Account No. DQ3021. .The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer, the mitigation measures identified in the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR-06-01for the Project, within the timeframe specified in the MMRP. .The Final Map shall include an exhibit delineating the open space and improvements to be maintained by the Applicant, Homeowner's Association or other entity, including the public plaza, common open space areas, landscaping, and bio-retention areas, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and City Engineer. .Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall obtain approval of Design Review Permit DR15-0015 and construct the Project in compliance with the approved Design Review plans and conditions of approval. .The City of Chula Vista General Plan Housing Element established Policy 5.1.1 (the "Balanced Community Policy"), which requires the occupancy and affbrdability of ten percent (10%) of each housing development of 50 or more traits for low and moderate income households, with at least one half of those units (5% of project total units) being designated for low-income households (the "Affordable Housing Obligation"). In 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 600 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 10 satisfaction of the Balanced Community Policy, the Project Applicant shall execute an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder over the entirety of the Project Site. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall provide that I0% of the total number of qualified low income (5%) and moderate housing units (5%), which equals a total of 7 low and moderate income units, shall be constructed on site or pay the In lieu fee of $124,220 per unit. The trigger point to pay the in lieu fee is determined by the City Manager and City Attorney or their designees. LAND DEVELOMENT DIVISION/GENERAL COMMENTS AND FEES: 7. The following fees shall be payable prior to issuance of Building Permits, based on the Final Building Plans submitted: a. Sewer Connection and Capacity Fees b. Traffic Signal Fees c. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) d. Western Transportation Development Impact Fees (WTDIF) e. Other Engineering Fees as applicable per the Master Fee Schedule 8. Additional deposits or fees in accordance with the City Subdivision Manual, and Master Fee Schedule shall be required for the submittal of the following items: a. Grading Plans b. Street Improvement Plans c. Final Map 9. Payment of the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee per dwelling unit shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in accordance with CVMC 17.i0. 100. The current PAD Fee for West Chula Vista Projects is $7,607 for each Multi-Family Residential dwelling. The PAD Fee is adjusted on an annual basis each October 1 based on the Engineer Construction Cost Index. The payment of the PAD Fee amount in place at the time of the recording of the Final Map is re@red. The PAD Fee for the project at this time is $540,097 (71 @ $7,607/unit). ACCESS AND SITE PLAN: 10. All driveways shall conform to the City of Chula Vista's sight distance requirements in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code. Also, landscaping, street fumitar-e, or signs shall not obstruct the visibility of driver at the street intersections or driveways. 11. Driveways shall be designated as private. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 601 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 11 SEWER 12, Clearly show the existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines and how the site will connect to the City's public sewage system. No sewer lines will be allowed to be located under existing or proposed buildings. Indicate whether sewer lines are private or public. GRADING AND DRAINAGE: The foliowing conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Grading Plan for the Project: 13. Depict and detail existing and proposed drainage to ensure adjacent properties are not impacted. 14. Provide two updated copies of the following technical reports with the first submittal of Grading Plans: a. Drainage study b. Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) c. Geotechnical Report 15. Applicant must obtain a Land Development Permit prior to beginning any earthwork activities at the Project Site and before issuance of Building Permits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 15.05. Applicar shall submit Grading Plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and the City's Development Storm Water Manual requirements, including, but not limited to the following: a. Grading Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civii Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. b. Drainage Study and Geotechnical/Soils Investigations are required with the first submittal of Grading Plans. The Drainage Study shall calculate the Pre Development and Post-Development flows and show how downstream properties and storm drain facilities are impacted. Desig shall incorporate detention of storm water runoff if Post-Development flows exceed Pre-Development flows; analysis shall include flows from 2 yr, 10 yr, and 50 yr. return frequency storms. c. Drainage Study shall also demonstrate that no property damage will occur during the 100-year storm event. d. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private. e. Any off-site work will require Letters of Permission from the property owner(s). STORM WATER MANAGEMENT: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Grading Plan for the Project: 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 602 PC Resolution PCS15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 12 16. This Project shall comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual (Storm Water Manual) for both construction and post-construction phases of the Project. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, documentation shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee, to demonstrate such compliance. 17. Development of this Project shall comply with all requirements of State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity, and any subsequent re-issuances thereof. In accordance with said permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Monitoring Program Plan shall be developed and implemented concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall specify construction structural and non-structural pollution prevention measures. 18. A complete and accurate Notice-of-Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SRWQCB). A copy of the aclcnowledgement from the SRWQCB that a NOI has been received for this Project shall be filed with the City of Chula Vista when received. Further, a copy of the completed NOI from the SRWQCB showing the Permit Number for this project shall be filed with the City of Chula Vista when received. 19.Permm ent storm water requirements, including site design, sotcce control, and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMP's), all as shown in the approved WQTR, shall be incorporated into the Project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Provide sizing calculations and specifications for each BMP's. Pray structural and non-structural BMP requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. 20.Pursuant to the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2013-0001, new regulations will come into effect on May 2015, which may impose additional requirements on development projects that have not begun construction at that time. 21.All on-site storm drain inlets and catch basins shall be provided with permanent stenciling and signage according to City of Chula Vista Standards to prohibit illegal discharge to the storm drain system. 22.The Applicant shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement to perpetually maintain private BMP's located within the project prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, whichever occurs first. 23.Project Site design shall include features to meet NPDES Standards. These features shall maximize infiltration and minimize impervious land coverage while conveying storm water runoff. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 603 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 13 24.The trash enclosure area(s) shall be covered with a solid roof or awning to avoid contamination ofmnoff. The site shall be graded in such a way as to prevent run-on into, and run-off from, the trash enclosure area. 25.The Project Site runoff must be directed to a bioretention BMP. The bioretention BMP shall be designed in accordance with criteria established in the Countywide Model SUSMP and the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, BMP # TC-32. Details of the bioretention facility shall be shown on the plan. 26. The Municipal Permit requires runoff from all areas of a priority development project to be treated. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Final Map for the Project: 27. Improvement Plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and a Construction Permit shall be required. The Improvement Plan shall include but not be limited to: a.Construct 10 foot sidewalk along Third Avenue, including 8 feet within the right-of way and 2 feet not within the right-of-way, and tree grates, as shown on the Tentativ Map. b.Removal and replacement of any broken or damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk per SDRSD G-2, and G-7 along the Project's frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sidewalk shall be designed and constructed with proper transitions to existing conditions. c. Additional asphalt paving for the replacement of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. d Removal and replacement of existing pedestrian ramp on the comer of Third Avenue and K Street per Chula Vista Construction Standard CVCS-25. Current pedestrian ramp shall be replaced if it does not meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards/ADA Standards, or if existing pedestrian ramp is cracked or broken. e.Installation of one 24 ft. wide driveway opening meeting design standards as shown in Chula Vista standard detail CVCS-1A. Dedication of right of way as needed in order for driveway to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. f. Installation of a sewer manhole per SDRSD S-2 is required at the connection of the 8 inch sewer lateral to the main public sewer line. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 604 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 14 g. Installation of all sewer Iaterals per SDRSD S- 13. h. Provide utilities trenching and restoration per CVCS No. 3 and No. 4. i.Sewer lateral and storm drain connections to existing public utilities. The Public Works Operations Section will need to inspect any existing sewer laterals mad • connections that are to be used by the new development. Laterals and connections may need replacement by Applicant as a result of this inspection. j. Relocation of existing utilities, as determined by the City Engineer, or designee. k. Installation of private streetlights and pIanters within the sidewalk per UCSP requirements. 28. Separate permits tbr other public utilities (gas, electric, water, cable, telephone) shall be required, as necessary. 29.Any improvements in the right-of-way beyond the Project limits shall be designed and constructed as to not interfere with adjacent businesses, as approved by the City Engineer. 30. The construction and completion of all improvements and release requirements shall be secured in accordance with CVMC 18.16.220. SEWER: 2 31. Sewer lateral and storm drain connections to existing public utilities. Tile Public Works Operations Section shall inspect any existing sewer laterals and connections that are to be used by the new development. Laterals and connections may need replacement as a result of this inspection. 32. For the proposed private sewer facilities, manholes shall be used where 6" mains or larger are connected to public sewer. PRIVATE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Improvement Plans for the Project, as determined by the City Engineer: 33. The onsite sewer and storm drain system shall be private. AI1 sewer laterals and storm drains shall be privately maintained from each building unit to the City-maintained public facilities. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 605 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22. 2016 Page 15 34. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian rmnps, and disabIed parking shalI be designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, ADA Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable. MAPPING: 35. The Project will require the filing of a Condominium Final Map in accordance with Sections 66426 and 66427 of the Subdivision Map Act. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement prior to approval of the Final Map to secure all Public Improvements required for the development of the Project. 36. Prior to Final Map, Grading or Street Improvement Plan approval, the Owner/Applicant shall upload copies of the Street Improvement Plan, Grading Plan, Final Map and Site Improvement Plan in digital format such as AutoCAD DWG or DXF (AutoCAD version 2000 or above), ESRI GIS shape file, file, or personal geodatabase (ArcGIS version 9.0 or above). The files should be transmitted directly to the GIS section using the City's digital submittal file upload website at http://www.chulavistaca.ov&oto/GIS. The data upload site only accepts zip formatted files. CC&R'S 37.Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shali submit Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) to the Director of De eelopment Services for approval by the Director of Development Services, City Attorney and City Engineer, or designee's. Said CC&R's shall include the following: a) Indemnification of City for private sewer spillage. b) Listing of maintained private facilities. c) The City's right but not the obligation to enforce the CC&R's. d) Provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become public unless 100% of the homeowners and 100% of the first mortgage holders have signed a written petition therefor. e) Maintenance of all walls, fences, lighting structures, paths, recreational amenities and structures, sewage facilities, drainage structures and landscaping. f) Implement education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of pollutants from all on-site sources to the storm water conveyance system. g) Identify if any common lots, driveways, or private facilities are proposed, or if one sewer lateral is serving multiple units. 38. Said CC&R's shall be consistent with CVMC 18.44, and shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 606 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 16 CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING): The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Improvement Plans for the Project, as determined by the City Engineer, or designee: 39. Any private facilities (if applicable) within public right-of-way or City easement will require an Encroachment Permit prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. 40. All utilities serving the subject property and existing utilities located within or adjacent to the subject property shall be under grounded in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section. Further, all new utilities serving the subject property shall be under grounded prior to the issuance of Building Permits. VIII. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE Pursuant to Govdamlent Code Section 66020(d) (1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner tha complies with Section 66020(a) and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to plauning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired. IX. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be.recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk. Failure to record this document shall indicate the property owner and Applicant's desire that the Project; and the corresponding application for Building Permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and ktwl as Document No. "-- / 5-- O :9 G,. _Otc / Signature t- Date Printed Name of Applicant 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 607 PC Resolution PCS 15-0006 Jmle 22, 2016 Page 17 Signature o Property Owner Printed Name of Applicant X. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future Building Permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified ten (10) days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and diligent time frame. XI.INDEMNITY PROVISION The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Design Review Permit and (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated on the Project Site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Design Review Permit where indicated below. The Property Owner's and Applicant's compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property Owler's and Applicant's successors and assigns. XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every "ierm, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, picovision0 or, conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. ., 1 • ' :: " , . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Chuia Vista Plamling Commission does :'. , ,,., ',. " hereby approve the subject Tentative Subdivision Map (Chula Vista Tract No. 15-06)to • :. ", .. ; • combine multiple parcels into one for 71 residential traits, and one .cormnercial unit for z: .. ,:. individual ownership located at 795 Third Avenue, subject to,the conditions of approval contained herein. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 608 PC ResoIution PCS 15-0006 June 22, 2016 Page 18 i , i : i, ';c' Director of Development Services J Approved as to form.by: . .. (alenR. G Dogin : : i'.. ']: " ..... ky--Atto/mey k..: y .C:jc :. PASSED AND :APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF .THE: CITY. Ot?" : CHULA VISTA .ALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of June 2016, by the following VOte, to:wit:: : AYES: Anaya, Fnentes, Gutien'ez, Nava, Calvo NOES: Liuag ABSENT: Fragomeno ABSTAIN: n/a AfI ES T: f''A 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 609 MASONIC TEMPLE EXHIBITA SF SF SF SF SF SF SFTHIRD SFU.S.POST AVENUE SFPLAZA SFOFFICE SF SF SF SF VERDE PARK APARTMENTS CLEANERS ALVA GARDENS APARTMENTS SFSF SF SF OFFICES SFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF GARDEN APARTMENTS OFFICES AM/PA, & MINI MAR 5733711200 APN 5733712300 BANK OF GREENAMERICAJACK TREEIN THE FOUNTAINBOX APARTMENTS CHULA VISTA OFFICE CENTER PINE VISTA APARTMENTS WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTH BAY GUIDANCE CENTER CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCATOR NORTH PROJECT Vista Del Mar APPLICANT: PROJECT NEC Third Av & K St ADDRESS: APN's 5733711200 & 5733712300 SCALE: FILE NUMBER: No Scale DR15-0015 j;\planning\public not ces\drdr150015 8xl 0.ai PROJECT DESCRIPTION:DESIGN REVIEW Project Summary: Proposal for a mixed use 3-5 story, 71 condo unitswith 616 sq ft of commercial space and 142 below grade parking stalls. Related cases: 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 610 ATTACHMENT 6 AUDIO RECORDING OF 6/22/2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE AUDIO RECORDING OF THE 6/22/2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE AT http://cvapps.chulavistaca.gov/audio/PC/PC-06- 22-2016.mp3?_ga=1.219794777.1781971708.1432660424 A CD OF THE AUDIO RECORDING IS ALSO AVAILABLE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS AT: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 276 FOURTH AVE (619) 691-5041 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 611 Sheree Kansas Subject: FW:Vista Del Mar aka 3rd and J St Project From: Alexandra Epstein [ Sent: Wednesday, ]uly 13, 2016 6:02 PM To: Mary Salas; ]ohn McCann; Patricia Aguilar; Pamela Bensoussan; Steve Miesen Subject: VisW Del Mar aka 3rdand ] St Project Mayor and Councilmemers, My name is Alexandra Epstein, I own a condominium unit at 3rd Avenue and I am the President of Amber Condominium HomeownerAssocation. I am writing because I want you to support and approve the Vista Del Mar project. I am a firm believer that the West Side needsthis shot in the arm economically andthe City, I am certain, canuse the tax dollars and fees that come with its construction. Plus, many of the office buildings on3rd Avenue are seedy and not well maintained but this project is a visually pleasing structure that will be well constructed by a top architectural firm. I am alsoaware that we need to increase the density ofthe areas around downtown in order to bring in morestores and restaurants. I am thrilled that we now havethe Alehouse and will soon have two breweries! All of this within walkingdistance to my home! I hope that in time, we can match La Mesa's downtown in terms of nightlife. This project also brings with it more available housing, whether it stays condominiums or turns into rentals. One woman at the Hilltop planning meeting for the project stood up and voiced her concern with the lack of housing options as she grew up here and wants to remain. A womanagainst the project yelled ather saying that shecould live in Eastlake! We need more than single family homes on the West Side. Starter homesnowcost in the mid 350s-low 400s, out of reach for most middle income people. I know that when I was looking for a homeback in 2009, these same homes were 5100K less and it would havebeen a stretch for me at those cheaper prices. We need to be a city for all, not those over 50 homeowners who do not believe in change. Whentheissue ofthis project comes before the Council, I would like you all to support it. I don't have the deep pockets of people like project opponents Earl and Kip Jenks, but I hope that you will still take my comments under advisement. I alsohope that theCouncil meeting is conducted with dignity. I found thePlanning Commission meeting disgusting as the opponentsroutinely booed. I still don't understand why the Commission chair did not boot them. And at the Hilltop meetingthisRudy guy hijacked the meeting and ran over all those who were there in favor ofthemeeting. I asked the planners tocall thecops and they refused. Donald Trump may be running forpresident but that does not make it ok for these meeting to becomeunruly here in ChulaVista. Thanks, Alexandra Epstein Chula Vista, CA 91910 i 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 612 Miguel Tapia From: Patricia Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:59 PM To: Kelly Broughton Cc:Miguel Tapia; Gary Halbert Subject: Vista del mar K - 'Je im itedyou to a meeting we held on Monday vith four residents who live near proposed vista Del mac Sorry you diddt make it. The major concern raised by everyone present was the overall bulk of the project.....all present said they would be ok with a project limited to 3 stories, especially if it had ground floor retail. Important secondary concerns of course were increased traffic and loss of neighborhood parking, especially along KSt., which is a residential street. Also, they showed me a sentence in a July 14 UT aRicle that reads: "Project supporters say vista del mar would benefit the communityby creating ne i housing in a part of the city where existing housing is dilapidated....." Theystrongly disagree vith and are insulted by the characterization of theirneighborhood as dilapidated", and two of them told me they had undeRaken major homeremodels tothe tune of$]00,000+. Also, I vanted to refer several questions to you that were asked by attendees, with the hope that you or Miguel will provide answers in vriting inadvance of the appeal hearing. (Had [ read the PC staffreport and environmental doc I might have been able to answer some myself, but I haven't.). Thequestions are: Have you done an analysis on the anticipated revenue generated by the project vs. the cost to provide the project with municipal sen ices? (Like«e'vedone for east side projects) Please confirm that the project is market rate housing; not subsidized low income housing (except for required 10%). Will the project receive any city subsidies, including indirect ones like fee credits or deferrals? The general plan calls for this area to be 'bffice/professional" - is a general plan change required? - if not, how is this project consistent with that designation? were sight line/visual impact studies done from the neighborhood high point, which is around the intersection of 1 st, K, and country club drive.....VVill westerlyviews thatresidents of this area have be affected by the project? exactly ho v will the proposed public space/plaza on the comer benefit neighborhood residents? Are the balconies included in the calculation of required open space? How will the project prohibit people from using the balconies for storage? how will the project affect the property values of thehvoSFR properties behind the project on the westside of Church? REthe promised LEEDGold certification, how can the city be assured that the project will actually be built to that standard before a building permit isissued? i 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 613 Shouldn't the projectinclude some play area for children (tot lotor something)? Did the city takc into account the fact that the project will blockprevailing westerly breezes ro properties to the east? Is visitor parking for residents separate from parking for customers of the commercial space? 1 think those ere the main questions raised.....let me know if you have anyquestions for me. Best, Pat Aguilar, Councilmember City of Chula Vista via iPad z 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 614 Sheree Kansas Subjed: N: Vistz D=l Mzr akz 3rd anc J S Projec From: Alexandra Epstein Sent: Wedn ay, Jufy 13, 2016 5:02 PM To: Mary Salas; JohnMcCann; Patricia Aguilar; Pamela 3ensoussa; 5'teve Miese Subject: Visa DzlMar aka 3rd and J St Project Mayor and Councilmemers, My name is Alexandra Eostein, I own a condominium unii at 3rd Avenue and I am the Presidert ofAmb2rCondominium HomeownerAssocation. I am writing becaus2 I wanf you fo support and approve the Vista Del Mar project. I am a firm beli2verthat the West Side needsthis shot in the arm economicafly and the City, I am certain, canuse the tax dollars and fees that come with its consfruc ion. Plus, many of theof ice buildings on 3rd Avenue are seedy and not wel maint2ined but tnis project is a visualiy pleasing strucfure that will be well constructed by a top architecfural firm. I am also aware ihat we need to increase th2 density of the areas around downtown in order to bring in morestores and restaurants. 1 am thrilledthat we now havethe Alehouse and will soon have two breweries! All o this witni walking dis ance tomy home! I hope that in time, we can match La Mesa's downtown in terms of niahtiife. This projecf also brings with it more availabl2 housing, whether it siayscondominiums or turns into rentals. One woman at the Hilitopplanningmeeting ior the project sfood up and voiced her concern withthe lack of housing ootions as shegrew up here and wants to remain. A woman against the projectyeiled at her saying that shecould liv2 in Eastlake! We need mor2 than single family homes on tne West Side. Starterhomes now cost in the midS350s-low 5400s, out ofreach for mostmiddle income people. I know tnat when I was looking for a home back in 2009, these_sam2 homes were 51QOK less and it wouldhavebeen a s retcn for me at ihose cheaoer prices. We needto be a city ior all: not thoseover 50 homeownerswno do not believe in change. When th2 issue of this project comesbefore ine Council, I would like you all to suppor` it. I don't have thedeep pocketsofpeople like project opponents Eari and Kip Jenks, but I hope that you will s ili take my comments under advisement. I also hope fha! the Council meeting is conducted withdigni y. I found the Planning Commission meeting disgusfing as the opponen s routinely booed. I still don'i understand why the Commission chair did not boot tnem. Hna ai ine Hiiitop meEiing this Rudy guy nijack2d ths mezting and ran over all those who wer2 there in favorof tne meeting. I asked th2olannerstocaflth2copsandtheyrefused. Donald i rump may be running ior president but that does no: make it ok tor ti-nese m2eting to becom= unruly her= in Chula Vista. Thanks, Alexandra Eostein Chuta Vista, CA 91910 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 615 Caroi ?Sendra Chulz \'ista. CA 919 i ! Cow c'ne:nber Pamela Senso ss3 uly 26,2016 276Fot rth Avenue Ctula Vista, CA 9i4i0 Dez Cou ciUnember Bensoussen: ihe propos^d condominiu project;or the corocr of Th.ird Avc ue and K Srscet, Vis'a el Maz, will p:ace 71 condos on ovahly one zcre. ?-nis Hill e5 h i creas:d [zPfic, ow•ered property values for nearuyhom:s, loss of privacy ior tomes on Chu_ch A enue due to baiconiesove:looking their yards, end existing businc;ses beinedisplaced. Constnetion acti'ity on thisproject will disrupt access to residene°s andbusiaesses. I neard someone say at e oublic w•or!cshop held Decembar 16 that beildio¢Visia Qel Mar H•ouldtake over a year! There will onl}• be 8 parking spaces ai the croject for isito:s. rr at imp2cts kine ior by residents a:1d busioesscs. Forexa;nple, ii w'iii cause co stemztio toihe Batl:of nerica waencustomer par':ing is taken oy propie siiing ccsxio reside u. 4oro significant to Chu1a V;sta thw stra}' s n the ban'.t p2r}:ing !oc is the cooversioa of 2Q;000 saLare ieet ofcor:irnercial space into z foolish project oLCring orily 6!6 squazc feet of rctail space! Ibere is a nne editorial in trte July 1 S ar NeKS oy Mr. William Richt:. He s!ated that Chulz Vista is low on infrastnictiue fimds. Bcsinessa a d iobs eeaerate:ax reven e. Therefore, ins[ead of a r.dicu!oes cer.do project w ih a dumb name o.v maay people toere w ll reaii}' see tae occan?) th land 2t the comer of Third and hsFrulc *ema'in for business. A1so, Chula Visia is not meant to oe a:i imitation big csty. Please vote noon V ista Det tiiar. p.g. ?'han}; you For :he job you do. Sincerely, . .-: . . i . :r Ca:ol ytanera 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 616 Sheree Kansas Subject: Fw: City o Chula ViSia City Clerk Coniaci U5 - Web Noiificaiion Survey Details Page 1 i Please feel free tocontact us wiih any commenu or questions by filling outthe form below. First Name Loraine Last Name Bales Email Address i Comments lust rxently I became aware ot the VistaDel Mar project near us at Third & K. If I May,I wish to eztend my out p t [owards ihisproject. On any given evening a traveler would notice the iremendous amovnt ot apartment residents on the 300 blxk of K St[hat have to park blocks away from their home.We have people park near us on the 400 block oi K.If the new and iupcoming building projered doen't have at least 2 off streei parking it will be an increased mess around here.Please pass ovr family and Friends opinion on to the planning department.Thanks, Loraine Bales AndResidents of Garden Place Chula Vista,CA.91911 Thank you, City of Chula Vista This is an automated message generated by the Vsion Content Management System^'. Please do not reply directly to[his email. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 617 To whom it Should Concern; Case # DR15-0015 and PCS15-0006 I have one question; WHY? our city leaders are allowing this monstrosity called Vista del Mar to move forward. You need findings to object to this type of building, well, here are just a few. It changes the atmosphere of down town from the small welcoming town feel to a cold big city want to be. We are told our infrastructure is in need of drasticrepairs. This projectwill only increase the stress on aged pipes. The developer didcut back the FAR from 2.3 to 2.0 but Urban Core Corridor District (C-1) only allows for 1.0. This is double the size of what is allowed in the Urban Core Corridor District 1)-- It will drastically invades the privacy oflongtime residents. Creates traffic problemsnot justthe parking. Trash pickup, trash bins have to be moved out to thestreet and block vehicles coming and going. Does NOT follow the Urban Core Corridor Distrid (C-1) plan that states balconiesshould be avoided. This plan also says developer should plant trees and shrubs to reduce the invasion of privacy for the single family homes. Logical question, how tall and how will they actually block a 5 story building? TFiis structurewill also block the evening sun and the onshore breeze these residents have enjoyed for all these years. This is beingcalled Condos but let's be real, theywill become apartments. Where will children play? This is being laughingly called a mixed use projed. The commercialpart is only 616 sq. feet which we feel will be for the projeds rental/sales office and not an actual outside business. Plus a multitude ofyour constituents strongly object. Let's talk parking, 1 & 2 bedroom apartments how many parking spaces will each resident use? Mom & Dad eachhave a car and say a teenagers or college students have a car each. Simple math, that's 3 cars that need some place to park. Projectallows for only less than 2. Where do the others park ON THE STREET (Churchand K Streets are already lined with cars) creating moreproblems for residents? They are not going to park on 3rd Av. or pay meters thus creating anothersituation the same as Southwestern College. 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 618 Ifthis project moves forward our city is setting a dangerous precedent that will march all the way down to H Street and ourbeautiful 3rd Av. will look likeany street in LA. Not our Chula Vista. Please don't miss understand we are strongly in favorof upgrading Chula Vista but do it in accordance with the Urban Core Corridor District (C-1). We would be agreeable with 3 stories, no east facing balconies and increased commercial. This has been proven towork on south Broadway with store fronts on lower level and housing above. Respedfully, Penny D. Vaughn, President On Behalf of Crossroads II 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 619 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0403, Item#: 10. RATIFICATIONOFAPPOINTMENTOFJAMESMERINOTOTHEHOUSINGADVISORY COMMISSION AND JASON PRATER TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION City of Chula Vista Printed on 8/11/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 620 ErinRivero From:TysharTurneronbehalfofCityClerk Sent:Thursday, May 14, 20158:12AM To:KerryBigelow; JudyWalsh-Jackson Cc:Erin Rivero Subject:FW: City ofChula Vista Boards & Commissions Application - Webform Tyshar From: Webmaster Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:19 PM To: CityClerk Subject: City of Chula Vista Boards & Commissions Application - Web form Anewentrytoaform/survey hasbeensubmitted. FormName: Boards & CommissionsApplication Date & Time: 05/12/20155:18PM Response #: 31 Submitter ID: 1906 IPaddress: 68.7.151.116 Timetocomplete: 35min. , 38sec. Survey Details S\]: Thisquestionismarked as sensitive, answers tosensitivequestionsarenotsentbyemail. Loginto theCMS toviewtheanswer tothisquestion. Page1 1. Prefix Mr. 2. Firstand LastName JamesMerino 3. E-mail 4. HomeAddress 1 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 621 5. City ChulaVista 6. ZIPcode 91910 7. PrimaryPhone 8. Secondary Phone Notanswered 9. Pleaseindicateyourareasofinterestbycheckingtheboxesbelow. HousingAdvisoryCommission Ifyou checkedmore thanonebox, whichwould beyour: 10. Firstchoice? Notanswered 11. Second choice? Notanswered 12. Thirdchoice? Notanswered 13. \[S\] Forthe followingboard/commissions, please submityourresume: BoardofEthics, BoardofLibraryTrustees, Civil ServiceCommission, GrowthManagement Oversight Commission, Parks & RecreationCommission 14. Areyouregistered tovotein ChulaVista? Yes 15. DoyoulivewithintheCitylimitsofChula Vista? Yes 16. HowLong? 44Years 17. Present employer SanDiego DreamCenter 18. Occupation ExecutiveDirector 19. AreyoucurrentlyservingonaChulaVista Board/Commission? No 20. Whichone(s)? 2 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 622 Notanswered 21. HaveyoupreviouslyservedonaChulaVistaBoard/Commission? No 22. Whichones? Notanswered 23. Areyouorhaveyoubeeninvolvedinanylocal, civicorcommunitygroups? Yes 24. Whichones? ChulaVistaCommunityCollaborative, ChulaVistaHomelessSteeringCommity, 25CitiesDesignTeam, DowntownFellowship 25. WhatareyourprincipalareasofinterestinourCitygovernment, andwhatexperience orspecialknowledgecanyoubring tothoseareas? AsaRealtorandExecutive DirectoroftheSanDiegoDreamCenterIhavenoticedmanyareasinneedofcivilservantstohelp inthegrowthanddevelopmentofspecialservicesandfindingaffordable housing. Ihavebeenworkinginourcitytofindthe needs andfillthemthough partnershipssuchas non-profits, businessesandgovenmentment agencies. 26. Whatwould youhopetoaccomplish byyourparticipation? Toseeourcitymoveintherightdirection byprovidingguildanceandassistance. Iamfamiliarwiththeresponsibilities of theBoardsandCommissionsforwhichIamapplying. Bysubmitting this application, Ihereby attest thattheabove information isaccurateandtrue. Thankyou, CityofChulaVista This isanautomated messagegenerated bytheVisionContentManagement System™. Please donotreplydirectlytothisemail. 3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 623 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 624 LeahLarrarte From:Webmaster Sent:Thursday, November 19, 20152:40PM To:CityClerk Subject:CityofChula Vista Boards & CommissionsApplication - Webform Follow UpFlag:Follow up FlagStatus:Completed Anewentrytoaform/survey hasbeensubmitted. FormName: Boards & CommissionsApplication Date & Time: 11/19/20152:39PM Response #: 81 Submitter ID: 6265 IPaddress: 70.183.109.240 Timetocomplete: 15min. , 29sec. Survey Details Page1 1. Prefix Mr. 2. Firstand LastName Jason Prater 3. E-mail 4. HomeAddress 5. City Chula Vista 6. ZIPcode 91915 7. PrimaryPhone 8. Secondary Phone 1 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 625 Pleaseindicate, inorderofpreference, which ofthefollowingboard(s) and/orcommission(s) youwouldbeinterestedin servingon. Youmayselect uptothree. 9. FirstChoice: CulturalArtsCommission 10. SecondChoice: (ifapplicable) Notanswered 11. ThirdChoice: (ifapplicable) Notanswered 12. Forthefollowingboard/commissions, pleasesubmityourresume: BoardofEthics, BoardofLibraryTrustees, CivilService Commission, GrowthManagementOversight Commission, Parks & RecreationCommission 13. Areyouregistered tovote inChulaVista? Yes 14. DoyoulivewithintheCitylimitsofChula Vista? Yes 15. HowLong? 9months 16. Present employer NewHopeCommunityChurch 17. Occupation Worship Pastor 18. AreyoucurrentlyservingonaChulaVista Board/Commission? No 19. Whichone(s)? Notanswered 20. Haveyoupreviouslyserved onaChulaVistaBoard/Commission? No 21. Whichones? Notanswered 22. Areyouorhaveyou beeninvolvedin anylocal, civicorcommunity groups? Yes 23. Whichones? 2 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 626 SouthBayCommunityServices - volunteer 24. WhatareyourprincipalareasofinterestinourCitygovernment, andwhatexperience orspecialknowledgecanyoubring tothoseareas? Myprincipalareaofinterestlieswithinthearts. Iwouldbringover20yearsexperienceintheartstotheCulturalArts Commission. Mostrecently, IledtheYouthChoirofSanDiegoProject - acommunity choircomprisedofstudentsfrom7 different SanDiegoCountyhighschools. Ibelievemusicandtheartsisadynamicwayforyouthandadultstoexpress themselves. Mostimportantly, musicandartisarekeycomponents thatcanhelpbringunitytoacommunity asdiverseas ChulaVista. IcanwritethisbecauseIhaveseenthishappenthroughactualexperience. 25. Whatwould youhopetoaccomplish byyourparticipation? Iwouldhopeto (1) continue toraiseawarenessabouttheartsintheChulaVistaandSouthBayCommunity, (2) workdirectly withlocalhighschoolandmiddlemusic/band/artteacherstoseehowourcitycanbestsupportthemand (3) worktobring moreunitytoourcommunitythroughthearts. Thiscouldbedonethroughexhibitsandperformances. Mostimportantly, I wouldhopetoworkinconcert withtheotherCulturalArtsCommissionerstohelpthemimplementtheirplansandachieve theirgoals. 26. Iamfamiliarwiththeresponsibilities oftheBoardsandCommissionsforwhichIamapplying. Iattestthattheinformation I haveprovidedisaccurateandtrue. Thankyou, CityofChulaVista Thisisanautomatedmessagegenerated bytheVisionContentManagement System™. Pleasedonotreplydirectlytothisemail. 3 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 627 2016-08-16 Agenda Packet Page 628