HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9 - Written CommunicationsD E LANO & D E LANO
August 12, 2016
VIA E -MAIL
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Appeal of Vista del Mar Project and Addendum, DR 15 -0015 and PCS 15 -0006,
approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2016
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Corridor Coalition, Glenda de Vaney, Martha
Coulson and Earl Jentz in connection with their appeal of the approval of the Vista del
Mar project ( "Project ") and Addendum. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning
Commission are unsupported by the evidence.
The Project is inconsistent with the surrounding area. And the staff report fails to
adequately address the substantial issues in the appeal.
Furthermore, staff has claimed the Project should double its Floor Area Ratio
( "FAR ") based on two distinct factors: (1) incentives and (2) exceptions. But the
evidence does not support the findings required for either.
I. The Project is Inconsistent with the Area
The Project violates Urban Core Specific Plan ( "UCSP ") Key Principle #7, which
requires the City to "[t]ransition new development to minimize impacts on existing
residential neighborhoods." The Project is not "consistent with the policies outlined in
the [General Plan] which identify low and mid rise building forms for this area." UCSP
EIR at 5 -41. In fact, as the attached representations demonstrate, the Project towers over
and is inconsistent with the adjacent low -scale residential area.
II. The Staff Report Fails to Adequately Address the Issues in the Appeal
The staff report adopts the approach that the appeal should be denied because
staff says so. Little relevant information is provided, other than blanket assertions that
"staff reviewed the Appeal and determined" it was insufficient. And in those instances
a�
n c--•
�d
Orri
r
z
�o
g --
0
0
rM
A
0
' O
A
0
k
N
cn N
n O
o
0
a
o
n a
ay
N �
O �
N �p
Vi
00
0 0
o� o�
C1� N
X �+
n
CD
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 12, 2016
Page 2 of 6
where the staff report actually does provide substantive discussion, its "findings" are
contrary to the evidence.
For example, the staff report asserts the Project is "well- rounded" and
incorporates "the principals (sic) of Smart Growth (mix of uses, compact building design,
range of housing opportunities, walkable neighborhoods, etc.)." Staff Report at 6. The
Project Site is 45,738 square feet. The Project would develop a total of 91,345 square
feet. Only 616 square feet of that development would be commercial space — well less
than one percent of the total Project square footage — while the remainder would be
devoted to residential uses. It is disingenuous to assert that this constitutes a "mix of
uses" or is somehow "well- rounded." Even Planning Commissioners who voted in favor
of the Project lamented its lack of adequate balance between commercial and residential
uses.
Nor does the Project in any way represent a "compact building design." To the
contrary, reaching the maximum height allowed, the Project will tower over and
completely dominate its surroundings. The staff report refers to single - family homes
"across Church Avenue." Staff Report at 4. This is misleading, since there are homes
directly adjacent to the Project Site on the same side of the street. The staff report
entirely ignores the Project's incompatibility with the residential uses in the area.
Likewise the staff report asserts that the analysis of environmental impacts
associated with the Project was sufficient because staff says so. For example, it claims
that light and glare will be sufficiently addressed because the approval "requires the
submittal of a lighting plan." Staff Report at 8. But as my June 22nd letter noted,
"reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process
significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking."
Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.41h 70,
92. UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.2.5 -2 requires the City to "identify the specific
provisions of the UCSP which shall be included in the conditions of approval in order to
reduce potential light and glare impacts to below significance." The Resolutions fail to
do so.
Mitigation Measure 5.3.5 -4 requires a determination of historical significance
"[flor those structures 45 years or older." And if a structure is found to be historically
significant, additional mitigation measures must be implemented. The staff report claims
an analysis was conducted. Staff Report at 8. However, no such analysis can be found
anywhere in the Project file.
UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.8.5 -4 requires "the traffic assessment prepared to
quantify the projects' potential traffic impacts will also identify how alternative modes of
transportation will be accomplished." The staff report asserts "a traffic study was not
required." Staff Report at 8. This is obviously incorrect, as the UCSP mitigation
measure clearly requires one. The staff report also claims the Project is in proximity to a
bus stop and "incorporates smart growth features ...." Id. But Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 12, 2016
Page 3 of 6
4 requires the traffic assessment address "alternative modes of transportation," and the
traffic report failed to do so.
UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.9 -4 requires projects with commercial uses to
"demonstrate compliance with the existing performance standards in the City's Noise
Ordinance" and requires "compliance with the mixed -use provisions of Chapter VI of the
UCSP." The staff report insists a noise analysis was conducted, but fails to acknowledge
the analysis admitted that "adjacent residential population to the east and commercial
properties to the north and south may be exposed to excessive construction noise." The
staff report merely refers to these impacts as "not [] unusual in terms for construction
noise generation." Staff Report at 9. This is despite the fact that the Project will exceed
the applicable noise standards, as noted in my June 22nd letter.
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 ...." The staff report claims that the appeal "is inaccurate in
concluding that the [ "Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Update "] fails to meet the
requirements of this mitigation measure. Staff Report at 11. However, the July 29,
2016 letter from Group Delta (Attachment 4 to the Staff Report) acknowledges that no
such analysis has been prepared to date. Accordingly, the appeal was correct in noting a
lack of compliance with this requirement.
III. There is Inadequate Evidence to Support Findings for Incentives
The Planning Commission approved a 30 percent increase in FAR because the
Project has indicated an intention to seek LEED Gold Certification. But some of the
factors associated with LEED certification, such as location and the availability of
transportation, were already considered for the site in the adoption of the UCSP. And as
the discussion before the Planning Commission noted, ensuring the Project actually
achieves LEED Gold Certification is far from guaranteed.
The Planning Commission approved a 10 percent increase in FAR because it
claimed the Project added a public benefit of an outdoor plaza. But the plaza is only
approximately 1,700 square feet and adjacent to the commercial suite. It is most likely
going to be utilized by those patrons of the small commercial space. It certainly does not
justify more than twice in space in additional FAR.
The Planning Commission approved a 10 percent increase in FAR because it
claimed the Project provided 14 parking spaces beyond what is required. For residential
parking, the UCSP requires compliance with Municipal Code Section 19.62.050, which
requires two parking spaces per each dwelling unit, since the Project includes
condominiums (subsection 12 requires two parking spaces per unit for townhouses, and
other subsections make it clear that all owner- occupied dwellings require at least two
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 12, 2016
Page 4 of 6
parking spaces per unit). Section 19.62.50 also requires one space for every 200 square
feet of floor space for retail stores or shops. This would total at least 145 parking spaces,
and that does not account for the parking needs associated with other uses, such as the
fitness center, lounge areas and open space. The Project only provides 142 spaces, short
of the required minimum and certainly not enough to justify an incentive of 10 percent
FAR.
IV. There is Inadequate Evidence to Support Findings for Exceptions
The findings in the Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission are not
supported.
A. The Evidence Shows the Project Will Adversely Affect the General
Plan and Specific Plan
Land Use and Transportation ( "LUT ") Objective LUT -60 calls for the City to
"[r]einforce the existing land use pattern of ... office uses on the east side of Third
Avenue between J Street and L Street," yet the Project provides no office uses and
virtually no commercial uses, while removing substantial existing commercial usage.
Additionally, the Project is inconsistent with LUT -2, which limits "locations for the
highest development intensities and densities and the tallest building forms, to key urban
activity centers that are well served by transit." UCSP at II -11. Likewise, it is
inconsistent with LUT -5, which calls for "mixed use areas with higher density housing
that is near shopping, jobs, and transit ...." Id. at II -12. Contrary to LUT -11, the Project
does not "[e]nsure that buildings and related site improvements ... are well designed and
compatible with surrounding properties." And contrary to LUT -7, the Project does not
provide appropriate transitions between land uses.
B. The Evidence Shows the Project Will Not Comply with the
Regulations of the Specific Plan
The Project will not comply with the regulations of the Specific Plan, as noted by
the appeal. Among other things, the Project violates the requirement to "be cognizant of
adjacent low density uses (i.e., avoid balconies overlooking rear yards)." UCSP at VI -38.
The Resolutions approved by the Planning Commission do nothing to address this.
Condition 4 of Resolution No. DR15 -0015 illegally defers discretion to City staff. See
De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 776. Furthermore, Condition 4
constitutes an illegal deferral of mitigation of impacts to neighboring residents and
properties. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 645, 671.
The Project does not "[m]inimize the effects of any exterior noise, odors, glare,
vehicular 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 identify
low and mid rise building forms for this area." UCSP EIR at 5 -41. It does not provide
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 12, 2016
Page 5 of 6
"paseos to provide walkable access to neighborhoods ... [or link] bikeways, sidewalks
and urban plazas ...." Id. at 5 -42. It does not "enhance public views, minimize
obstruction of views from adjoining structures, and provide adjacent sites with maximum
sun and ventilation ...." Id. at 5 -69. And it does not "avoid or minimize solar access
impacts." Id. at 5 -44.
Additionally, the Project failed to "conduct studies to assess the effects of light,
solar access, and shadowing, on adjacent buildings and areas ...." UCSP at VI -38.
UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.10.5 -2 requires each project to "demonstrate ...
conformance with the relevant land use and development regulations ... which support
smart growth principles such as providing a mix of compatible land uses; locating highest
density near transit; utilizing compact building design and creating walkable
communities; providing a range of infill housing opportunities; and increasing
transportation choices." Similarly, UCSP Mitigation Measure 5.10.5 -3 requires each
project "to demonstrate compliance ... to minimize air pollutant emissions," including
promoting pedestrian activity, bicycle activity, public transit facilities, "and
reintroduction of the traditional street grid." The Project has failed to demonstrate such
compliance.
C. The Evidence Shows the Project Will Not Incorporate Amenities and
Incentives as Required
As noted above, the Project will not incorporate amenities in a manner that
justifies incentives.
D. The Evidence Shows the Exceptions are Not Appropriate
The adopted Resolutions claim the area needs more residential uses. But the
UCSP determined what uses were needed in particular subareas of the Urban Core Sub -
districts area, and this location — the east side of Third Avenue in the C -1 District — was
specifically slated for office development. The Project therefore increases residential
usage substantially while reducing office and commercial usage, yet there is no
consequent shift in some other part of the UCSP area to offset the changes the Project
presents. And this occurs despite the requirement in the UCSP to "take into account the
amount of build -out that would occur if all of the bonus provisions allowable under the
program were actually awarded." UCSP at VI45. Additionally, the environmental
impacts associated with such changes have not been analyzed and appropriately avoided.
V. Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed herein and in the documents submitted in the
appeal, Corridor Coalition, Glenda de Vaney, Martha Coulson and Earl Jentz request that
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 12, 2016
Page 6 of 6
you approve the appeal, rejecting the Project and the Addendum. Thank you for your
consideration of these concerns.
Sinc ely,
Everett DeLano
Encs.: 1. Bulk and Scale Analysis
2. Chula Vista Analysis — Cross Section
3. Chula Vista Analysis — Not Cog
4. Vista Del Mar Visual Analysis
L
Chula Vista- Vista Del Mar- Visual Analysis
Download Sign In
Name Size Modified
BULK AND SCALE Analysis 8- 11- 16.pdf 1.64 MB 22 hrs ago
Chula Vista Visual Analysis -CROSS SECTION 8- 11- 16.pdf 235.89 KB 22 hrs ago
Chula Vista Visual Analysis -NOT COG 8- 11- 16.pdf 197.01 KB 22 hrs ago
Vista Del Mar Visual Analysis 8- 11- 16.ppt 4.25 MB 22 hrs ago
WILL ROGER5 & A550CIATE5
CHURCH AVE N
BULK &SCALE STUDY date8,,,,,6
CHURCH AVE & 3RD STREET
C H U LA VISTA, CA 92082
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING & DE5IGN
drawn: WK 27515 VALLEY CENTER ROAD
5 U ITE "A"
VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082
760 - 703 -9946
"CELEE3KATING 55YKS OF EXCELLENCES"
w
w
DZ
I'
I•
w
zz
0
PR0F05ED V15TA DEL MAR P>UILDING
z
J
15'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�I
I
I
I
I
I
wl
I
ow
L/Iz
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
�1
1
1
1
1
1
I
w;
o�w
1
�Iz
I
1
1
I
13' -1" 5ET PACK LINE P
05ED WITH
r-/�-rink i limn
OF THE CHULA V15TA URPAN CORE C -1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
r
I
I
6
I
1
I
f
I
I
6
I
�I
I
I
I
I
I
w
ol w
I
MIz
I
I
i
i
CHURCH AVE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHURCH AVE & 3RD STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 92082
0 <45'
1 1
GRO55 SECTION
WILL ROGER5 & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
date: 7/1116 PLANNING & DESIGN
drawn: WR
approximate Scale:
0 18 24'
27315 VALLEY CENTER ROAD
SUITE "A"
VALLEY CENTER, CA 92052
760- 703 -9946
"CELE3RATING 33YR5 OF EXCELLENCES"
CHURCH AVE NEIGHBORHOOD,:;,,,.,,,:,
CHUKCH AVE & 3RD 5TKEET
CHULA V15TA, CA 92082
PROPOSED BULK &SCALE
NOT COGNIZANT OF SCALE
WILL ROGER5 & A550CIATE5
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
date: 7/1/16 PLANNING & DESIGN
drawn: WK 27515 VALLEY CENTER ROAD
SUITE "A"
VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082
760 -703 -9946
"CELEBRATING 55YR5 OF EXCELLENCES"
BE GOOD NIEGHBORS
APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR PROJECT 15-006
VISTA DEL MAR HIGHRISE PROJECT
BY CORRIDOR COALITION
PROJECT LOCATION
COMMERCIAL ZONE
SINGLE FAMILY ZONE
BULK & SCALE STUDY
AREA OF STUDY
Entry into Church Street
Church Street neighborhood is
low scale well kept single family
homes
The addition of a 5 ½ story
building will create many issues.
1
Existing Image Proposed Image
Within Church Street
Church Street neighborhood
is a quite and safe area.
The scale of the
neighborhood is single story
homes
2
Existing Image Proposed Image
Skyline
The skyline of the neighborhood
will be effected.
The transition is poor from single
story to 5 1/2 story buildings
3
Existing Image Proposed Image
Property Line Transitions
The bulk & scale of the proposed building looms over the adjacent property.
Shadows created by the new building will create solar power issues for some of the existing homes.
4
Proposed Image Existing Image
Views into rear yards
Across the Church street the
views and bulk / scale will
change.
Property values may change
5
Proposed Image Existing Image
Views into rear yards
Views from the new building
in to the existing rear yards
will create privacy issues.
Higher density creates more
ambient noise.
6
Proposed Image Existing Image
Examples of Good Transitions
The existing development
on Church & Kearney Street
provides a good example of
bulk & scale transition from
C-1 to R-1
7
Existing Parking Garage Existing Residential to Commercial
Buffering Development
Buffering the impact of the out
of scale building with
landscaping does not always
help the bulk & scale. Distance
provide a solution to lessen the
bulk & scale.
8
Existing Big Box Store Existing Buffer Residential to Commercial
Bulk & Scale
Good transition from single
story building to two story
buildings.
9
Existing Impact on Neighborhood Existing Residential Neighborhood
Bulk & Scale
The transition from single
story to multi story should
be of concern.
10
Proposed Impact on Neighborhood Existing Office to Residential Transition
Bulk & Scale
The transition from single
story building should be two
story buildings. 11
Existing Impact on Neighborhood Existing Residential Neighborhood
Bulk & Scale
The transition from
residential to large
commercial is concerning. 12
Existing Impact on Neighborhood Existing Residential Neighborhood