HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2000/06/07
AGENDA
DIANA VARGAS
(complete packet)
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CAll TO ORDER
~w~p
ROll CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE ~. & ~ ~
/~
a...
,
PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE
APPRO~l OF MINUTES May 17, 2000 and May 24, 2000 Kr a......
"YY\Sc. (-r~S /~~ ) ~~ .
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS'" (j q . - ~ P
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~ ..p C2'
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on a~ <
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 00-33; Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 40-ft. high
Hmonopalm," at 740 Hilltop Drive.
Staff: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZA V 00-16M; Variance request to increase floor area ratio for six lots
from standard .55 to .65 within Sunbow II, Phase 1 B-Unit 3 (Planning
Area 14) within the PC (Planned Community) zone - Kaufman &
Broad Coastal, Inc.
Staff: Jeff Steichen, Associate Pla[1ner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS 00-09; Consideration of a mixed-use developmentthat includes
106 affordable housing units and 15,000 square feet of retail
commercial space, request for a twenty four percent density bonus, a
reduction in the required parking and open space for the residential
. units, an increase in the number of compact spaces allowed for the
residential units, and a reduction in the required front setback ilnd
accompilnying iandscaping to facilitate the development of this
project, known as Main PlaziI, located ilt the north east corner of
Main Street and BroildwilY. AVillon Communities.
Staff: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2 -
June 7, 2000
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 00-18; Consideration of an amendment to the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan-Planned Community District
Regulations to change the land Use Designation of 2.3 acres at the
northeast corner of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Street
from Residential Condominium (RQ to Village Center (VC); and
amend the Sunbow II Design Guidelines to change the adopted "Main
Street" Pedestrian Village commercial design concept to a more
contemporary neighborhood commercial center design - Kitchell
Development Company.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Staff: llJ. 1I.--",..fllIl~7 ...an.nr.....l:Jnnur _ 5TAN bOJJAJ)
R . . . I d Assoc.... "L Nil>
eVlew upcoming meeting ca en ar. r "- .
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
to a Planning Commission meeting on June 14, 2000.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-€ight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691.5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at
585.5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
~
I
~~~
~-
~
~
~
4r
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 1
Meeting Date: 6/7/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC 00-33, proposal to allow for a
40.ft. high "monopalm," at 740 Hilltop Drive.
NexTel Communications is requesting permission to install, operate, and maintain an unmanned
cellular communication facility at 740 Hilltop Drive (Hilltop Baptist Church). The monopole will
consist of a faux palm tree design, complete with a round trunk and "pineapple" core below the
plastic palm fronds mounted on the top of the pole. There will be 3 antenna arms with an array of
4 antennas each, for a total of 12 panel antennas mounted on the monopalm, with a 200-sq. ft.
equipment building located below. Two new real palm trees will surround the monopalm, and new
shrubbery will screen the equipment building.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3( c) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (c) m new construction of small
structures).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC 00-
33 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and the conditions and
findings contained therein for a monopalm.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/ A.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The site currently consists of a vacant area to the rear of the Hilltop Baptist Church. The area is level
with no elevation changes proposed. The entry to the site is the church driveway from Hilltop Drive
through a parking lot. The chapel and a pre-school building with a playground are in the front and
adjacent on the property. Hilltop Park and a tree house are beyond the rear property line where the
monopalm would be located, and residential properties are to the north and west.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
GENERAL PLAN
Low Medium
Low Medium
Low Medium
Low Medium
Low Medium
ZONING
R-I
R-I
R-I
R-I
R-I
CURRENT LAND USE
Hilltop Baptist Church
Single Family Home
Hilltop Park
Hilltop Middle School
Single Family Home/Hilltop Park
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/7/00
3. Proposal
NexTel Communications proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communication facility in the
northwesterly comer of the subject property. The facility would consist of a 40-ft. high monopalm
and a 200-sq. ft. enclosure including a radio equipment building. The mono palm will consist of 3
antenna arms with an array of 4 antennas each, for a total of 12 panel antennas. The aesthetic
treatment includes a faux palm tree design, complete with a round trunk and "pineapple" core below
plastic palm ITonds mounted on the top of the "trunk." Two new real palm trees will surround the
monopalm, and new shrubbery will screen the equipment building.
Wireless communication facilities, when not integrated into an existing building or facility, are
considered to be an "unclassified use" (Section 19.54.020N of the Chula Vista Municipal Code).
Such uses shall be considered by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission. The height limitation in the R-I zone is or 28-ft. or two and one-half stories; however,
the height limitation may be adjusted through the conditional use pennit process.
4. Analvsis
All telecommunication providers are encouraged to attach their facilities to existing structures.
However, because of the low-rise nature of development in Chula Vista, there are a limited number
oflocations in our City that reach the heights necessary to cover providers service area. Therefore,
the need for new facilities to meet the customer demand for telecommunication facilities continues
to arise. As a result, there are a number of monopole facilities currently in Chula Vista, many
consisting of monopoles of up to 65-ft. in height.
In addition, in confonnance with City policy, the applicant was also requested to investigate options
for co-location with other telecommunication facilities. The applicant investigated the nearest
competitor site approximately 1.2 miles south of the proposed site. The engineering staff for the
applicant disapproved the candidate site because it could only serve 30 percent of the service area
objective, and would duplicate some of the coverage currently being provided by one of their
existing facilities located 0.5 miles to the southwest.
The proposed facility is located in an R.l zone. Although such facilities are not encouraged near
residential uses, it is also near a public park, a public school and is located on the grounds of a
church. To soften the effect of a monopole at this location, the applicant proposes a monopalm
instead of the typical monopole.
Previously, the only other monopalm proposed in Chula Vista was for a location on Broadway. The
monopalm was ultimately rejected by the City Council for aesthetic reasons, and a monopole was
approved instead. Of note, commercial buildings surrounded the rejected site, with little or no
natural vegetation within the immediate installation location.
As seen in the exhibit photos, the area of this proposal is very green with lawns, shrubbery, and trees
surrounding the residential uses, the church, and Hilltop Park. In addition, it appears that the design
of this monopalm is superior to the previously presented monopalm options, as evidenced by the
round trunk, and "pineapple" core below the plastic palm fronds mounted on the top of the pole.
2.
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/7/00
If approved, conditions of approval would include requirements that the applicant inspect, repair and
otherwise maintain the monopalm. In addition, the landscaping and irrigation for the real palm trees
and the shrubbery would require periodic inspection, repair and maintenance ensuring that the entire
facility would be well kept.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the location and its context, as well as the surrounding land uses, the monopalm would
have less visual impact than a monopole, therefore staff is recommending approval of the monopalm
instead ofthe monopole design.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Coverage Map from NexTel Communications
3. Application documents with Disclosure Statement
4. Photo-simulations, and photo of actual Monopalm
5. Site Plan
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. PCC 00-33
7. Draft City Council Resolution (with Findings and Conditions of Approval)
(h: \home\planning\harold\pccOO-33 .doc)
3
~
PH CT
lOCI O~
\-.-/
CH U LA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 740 Hilltop Drive
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed unmanned telecommunications facility
consisting of a 40 foot "monopalm" with (12) panel
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: antennas measuring 1 foot wide by 4 feet In length
NORTH No Scale pee - 00-33 and a 10'x20' modular eauioment buildina.
h:\home\planning\hectorllocators\pcc0033.cdr 02/09/00 'I
<.n
-
llif" \
I..
I..
I..
,
, ,
1-'" --....-
....
I..
I
. I..
....
---
m
><
=
-<
:z: :
G.> '
:z:
m
><
-<
m
r-
C":>
C>
<:
m
::c
>-
G.>
m
C>
:z:
.
.
.
.
.
-
=
=
",
,
,
.
5
---~_. ,-----..-----..----------
Nextel Communications
5761 Copley Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92111
619650.4200 FAX 619 650-4202
NEXiEL
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
CA6-948/Rancho Vista
APPLICATION FOR ZONINGiUSE PERMIT
I, Df(E N K. IT: c L ,on behalf of Hilltop Baptist Church of Chula Vista, a corporation
and owner ofthc below-described property, do hereby appoint NEXTEL OF CALIFORNJA,
INC" a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Nextel Communications, my agent for the purpose of
consummating any building or use pennit applications necessary to insure Nextel' s ability to
use the property for the purpose of constructing and operating a communications facility. I
understand that this application may be denied, modified or approved with conditions and that
such conditions or modifications must be complied with prior to issuance of building permits.
Property Address: 740 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Assessor's Parcel Number: 574-281-41-00
Signature of Property Representative:
LCL-,;,?JL
Date: /~ -/6 -9q
Authorized Agent: Young & Associates, Inc. consultants to Nextel Communications, Inc.
&,
Appendix A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: (RANCHO VISTA I CA6948) Wireless Telecom Facility
APPLICANT NAME:
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
By Rena EIWardani
Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be
accomplished as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself,
the property, the neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details
necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project.
You may include any background information and supporting statements regarding the
reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if
necessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as
listed in listed in the Application Procedural Guide.
Description & Justification.
Nextel Comnmunications, Inc. has been authorized by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to construct and operate the first multi-
purpose enhanced specialized mobile radio system (ESMR) in the United
States. This system provides fully digital radio, wireless data trans-
mission, dispatch and paging services, all from one hand-held unit.
Nextel proposes to construct, operate and maintain an unmanned,
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) communications facility at
740 Hilltop Drive. Thi.s facility will consist of a 40 foot tall monopalm
containing twelve panel antennas among fiberglass fronds, and a radio
equipment shelter that will be located on the ground and next to the
monopalm. The shelter will be painted to match the existing buildings.
The shelter will measure 10 feet wide by 20 feet long by 10 feet high,
and will be placed in the northeast corner of the parcel. This proposed
facility will be unmanned, operating 24 hours a day_ The only visits
to the side will consist of any emergency calls as well as regular main-
tenance visits once every four to six weeks.
This specific site was chosen based on its ability to provide needed
coverage for residents and community members in the area of Hilltop Park.
This particular location is necessary because there is a currently in-
adequate radio_ signal in the area. The existing signal is inadequate
due to the number of residents, customers, employees and passersby that
are using the Nextel radio communications network in this neighborhood.
The proposed site location is in the R1 zone of the City of Chula
Vista. Application is made pursuant to the City's General Plan and con-
sistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. This project will not
adversely impact the community, and it will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
area. It will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
7
Appendix B
THE C,. , OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE Sl" I EMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
HILLTOP BAPTIST CHURCH
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No...L-
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
RENA ELWARDANI (YOUNG & ASSOCIATES)
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -L- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date:
v ~ /t'0
I
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES A
R~ / .
tiA.J:.u./w..
Signature of contractor/applicant
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS by Rena EIWardani
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaterna/ organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit. "
8
NEXTEL
To: Renata Elwardani, Leasing Manager
From: Lalaine Berba, RF Engineer
cc: Forrest Farmer, Engineering Manager
Date: 12/28/99
Re: ATT Co. locate . Candidate for Sites 6948.RanchoVista and/or 6967-Quintard
Candidate AT&T Co-locate tower is located along Naples SI. and Tobias Dr. in the City of Chula Vista.
It is approximately 1.2 mile south of the proposed RanchoVista site and a mile northwest of the
proposed Quintard site. This will provide In-building portable coverage 1 mile of Hilltop Dr., Naples SI.
and half a mile on L SI. and Palomar Sts.
RF Engineering disapproves this candidate for the following reasons:
1. It will only satisfy 30% of the design objective for site 6948-RanchoVista, which is to provide In-
Building Portable coverage along North Hilltop Dr., H, J, Telegraph Cyn., and L Sts. in the city of
Chula Vista west of 1-805.
2. It will only satisfy 40% of the design objective for site 6967-Quintard, which is to provide In-Building
Portable coverage in the southwest Chula Vista, south Hilltop Dr., Orange Ave., and E. Palomar
SI.
3. This candidate will duplicate the coverage provided by the existing site 5883-CastlePark, which is
located half mile west of the San Diego Country Club.
q
:,~
.~
'-QO
1~ it
!~S
,0
i:S
!~t-::
1-
'm
~Z
'r
')>
:D
G)
m
o
(J)
-f
m
()
~
o
m
'tI
-f
C
)>
r
r
)>
Z
o
(J)
o
)>
'tI
m
'tI
r
)>
z
<
:to,'
'" ~
,
, "~~ ~ ~
"!. :::;;;". nL
i),.
,
~
~
i')
!,
;~ :;
a.
i6F
. ~[
~i"
"
!
q~!
.' ,1~!
t~~!
"'I
"U
:~
I;
,.;
n
"
"
I
,II
._-=---~
(:""
I -I'
. ,)
L
~""='
I
,0
.
.
j
1 FROPOSED .....,. MODUl..AR :
/ EaiJlPMENT SUIU'ING (SHO~ ;;HADEL.
/
~- ..
"51
o
FROPOSED ..,.
ANTE>.NA5 ATTAGHED TO
40'-0.' HI~ MONOPA1..M
(iYPIc,AL OF 12)
I
~--'--
II
II
\
\
\
\
#t1#ftij"
l' " C',. "..'
, . 'd
. " .' '.
. ,
r-
I . I
.cj
rr~
II
~~~.~ ..~~ c
-~
1,0
, ,
, " ,~ '.
:~,
.... '"'
"
.' .
--
SITE PlAN ~
PREPARED BY:
NAME: BOOTH .t SUAREZ
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4651
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
(760) 434-8474
(760) 434-8596 FAX
~[E~[E~\YJ[E
u'l JAN 3 I 2000
PLANNING
ON 14:
ON 13:
ION 12:
I ION 11:
REVI ION 10:
REVI ION 9:
ION 8:
REVISION 7:
REVISION 6:
REVISION .5:
REVISION 4:
REVISION 3:
REVISION 2:
REVISION 1 :
PROJECT ADDRESS:
740 HilLTOP DRIVE
CHUlA VISTA, CA 91910
PROJECT NA~E:
RANCHO VISTA
SHEET NO:
T-1
SHEET DESCRIPTION:
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
ORIGINAL DATE: 1/5/00 RAL
DEP. ,
:)
w
>
~
o
~
o
~
...J
,J:
..
...
1/13/00 TW
-
BOOTH 8-
bUAm
NIHIl
RANCHO VISTA
CHULA VISTA, CA 81910
ARCHITECTURE II HAnninG
~,O tOIl "11. eMLII,. ell nOli (7.0). u-uu
II
PROJeCT LOCATION:
~
.-
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 00-33
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC 00-33, TO NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 740 HILLTOP DRIVE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on January 31, 2000 by NexTel Communications; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications
facility, including a monopalm and equipment building, at 740 Hilltop Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 3 {c}
categorical exemption from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit
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 300-ft. 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 advertised, namely June 7, 2000 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter
closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the
public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit PCC 00-33 in accordance with the findings
and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 7'h day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
John Willet, Chair
A TrEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
(2-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC 00-33, TO NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS TO
CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 740 HILL TOP DRIVE
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose
of general description is located at 740 Hilltop Drive ("Project Site"); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2000 a duly verified application for a conditional use permit
(PCC 00-33) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by NexTel
Communications ("Applicant"); and
3. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit
WHEREAS, applicant requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility consisting of a 40-ft. high monopalm. The facility will consist
of twelve (12) panel antennas, in three sets of four panel array arms, with a 200-sq. ft.
radio equipment building on the project site; and
4. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project
on June 7, 2000 and voted recommending that the City Council approve the
project in accordance with Resolution PCC 00-33; and
5. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on ; to receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard
to the same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine, and resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
/3
Resolution No.
Page 2
The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on June 7, 2000 and the minutes
and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 3 {c}
categorical exemption from environmental review pursuant to 15303 and 15311 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as
hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the
stated finding to be made.
I. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed antenna location is necessary to provide and maintain a quality wireless
phone system in the Chula Vista area, particularly to the surrounding residential areas.
The proposed monopalm antenna site will provide coverage and capacity for this system
that wi II ensure availability to business users, personal users, and emergency service
providers including sheriff, police, fire, and paramedics, thus enhancing emergency
service and response. The requirement for mandatory sharing will eliminate or reduce
substantially the need for future sites elsewhere in the immediate vicinity.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Personal Communication System communications operate on low power radio waves.
Radio frequency radiation from this system of antennas has been shown to be below any
levels that would cause hazardous biological effects. In addition, this radio frequency
radiation is so far below recognized safety standards that they constitute no hazard to
public health or safety.
N
Resolution No.
Page 3
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
This Conditional Use Permit is conditioned to require the permittee and property owner
to fulfill conditions and to comply with all applicable regulations and standards specified
in the Municipal Code for such use. The conditions of this permit are approximately in
proportion to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed development in
that the conditions imposed area directly related to and area of a nature and scope related
to the size and impact of the project.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this permit will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that
said project is proposed to be built on a site surrounded primarily by public uses along
with residential uses, and the land use impact will be minimal and the visual impact is
being addressed.
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC 00-33 subject to the
following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owners shall:
I. Construct the project as shown in conceptual plans, elevations, photo-simulations and
other exhibits submitted for review at the Planning Commission public hearing
6/7/00.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit said plans for review and approval to
ensure that all proposed colors, materials, screening and planting material will
architecturally integrate with the surrounding environment and the Hilltop Baptist
Church to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Landscape Planner.
3. Upon completion of the monopalm, and the associated equipment building, and the
installation of the palm trees and the associated screening vegetation, the applicant
shall ensure and be responsible for all maintenance repair, replacement or upgrade of
said improvements for the life of the project.
4. In the event that any damage occurs to the monopalm, equipment building, or
landscape elements, or the design of the Hilltop Baptist Church be altered, the
applicant will appropriately upgrade, repair or replace the said improvements.
5. The applicant shall remove all said improvements and restore the site to its original
condition in the event that new technologies provide service that would cause the
existing facility to become obsolete.
6. This permit shall be limited to providing NexTel Communications, a wireless tele-
communication provider, the entitlement to locate a facility at this location, and
15'
Resolution No.
Page 4
cannot be sold or leased to another provider without written approval of the City.
7. Upon cessation of the business operations and use of the monopalm by the applicant,
the applicant has 90 days to submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Director
of Planning and Building Department and/or remove the monopalm and accessory
structure and return the site to its original condition within 90 days.
8. Cooperate with other tele-communication companies in co-locating additional
antennas on subject property provided said co-Iocatees have received a conditional
use permit for such use at said site from the City. Permittee shall exercise good faith
in co-locating with other communications companies and sharing the subject
property, provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level
or quality of service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive
conflict or financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether Permittee has
exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party
technical study at the expense of either or both the Permittee and complaining user.
9. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. If on review, the City finds that
the project does not comply with ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this
conditional use permit.
10. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area
television or radio broadcasts, including local frequencies used by the Chula Vista
Elementary, Sweetwater Union High School, and Sweetwater Authority or Otay
Water Districts. If on review the City finds that the project interferes with such
reception, the City may revoke or modify the conditional use permit.
II. Access to the equipment cabinet, antennas, and satellite dish shall be restricted and
limited to service personnel.
12. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months of
the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a report to the
Director of Planning and Building which provides cumulative field measurements of
facility noise. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the results with
current standards specified in the Municipal Code for residential uses. Said report
shall be subject to review and approval by the Director for consistency with the
project proposal report and Municipal Code noise standards. If on review the City
finds that the project does not meet the Municipal Code noise standards, the City may
revoke or modify the permit.
13. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans
on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19
(Zoning).
/'0
Resolution No.
Page 5
14. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building.
15. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19
(Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
16. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces.
This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits.
Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the
municipal Code regarding graffiti control.
17. Comply with all requirements and obtain all necessary permits from the Chula Vista
Building Division. A building permit will be required for the monopalm and
equipment building, with the provision of structural calculations for the proposed
monopalm. Compliance with 1998 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1996 National Electrical Code is required.
18. The project must have adequate access control to the antennas and equipment areas to
help prevent theft, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism. Please contact the Crime
Prevention Unit of the Police Department at 691-5127.
19. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department. Additional review
will be required at the time of building permit approval.
20. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Engineering Department. Additional
review will be required at the time of building permit approval.
21. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within
one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
22. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest
related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be
heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a
substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the
use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
23. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
/7
Resolution No.
Page 6
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the
City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this
conditional use pennit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated
herein, and (c) applicant's installation and operation of the facility pennitted hereby,
including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing
a copy of this conditional use pennit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's
compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use pennit
and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors
and assigns.
G. 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 Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this
recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owners/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 Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative of
NexTel Communications
Date
H. ADDITIONAL TERM OF GRANT
This permit shall expire ten (10) years after the date of its approval by the City Council.
After the first five-(5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall review this Conditional Use
Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine, in
consultation with the applicant, whether or not the tower can be lowered.
1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
/8
Resolution No.
Page 7
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
J. 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 tenn, provision, and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more tenns, provisions, or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this
resolution and the pennit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio.
Presented by:
Approved as to fonn by:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
(h: IhomelplanninglharoldlRESOCCpccOO- 3 3. doc)
tCj
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ..2.
Meeting Date 6/7/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Variance, ZA V 00-16M; request to increase
floor area ratio for six lots from standard .55 to .65 within
Sunbow II, Phase1B-Unit 3 (Planning Area 14) within the PC
(Planned Community) zone- Kaufman & Broad Coastal, Inc.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for an increase in the maximum floor
area ratio (Floor area ratio) from .55 to .65 for six lots within Sunbow II, Phase
IB(Unit 3) located on Skyridge Drive (see locator).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Section 15305, Class 5-Minor Alteration in land use limitation.
RECOMMENDATION:
I. That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution ZA V DO-16M
denying the request to increase the floor area ratio.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The six lots for which the variance request is being made to increase FAR are part of
Sunbow II Phase IB, Unit 3 which consists of 110 residential lots. These lots within
Phase IB, Unit 3 range in size from 5,050 s.f. to 8,991 s.f. At the same time, the lot
sizes of the six lots for which the variance is being requested (lots 28, 20, 23, 25, 36 &
38) are located at the western edge of this development phase (Skyridge Drive) are
approximately 5,000 s.f. in size. They contain lot dimensions of approximately 50 by 100
and contain relatively flat pad areas. The back of each of these lots is adjacent to a large
26-acre open space area, approximately 300 feet from Brandywine Avenue to the west.
."'.---..'-.. -'.....-----.-...-....-., .._-, ,--
Kaufman & Broad (Sunbow)
Page 2
2. Background
On January 19, 1999 the City Council approved a final map which includes Phase IB,
Unit 3 for 110 residential lots. The land use designation for this area of Sunbow 11 is
RS (Residential Single Family) which allows for a maximum FAR ratio of .55. In order
to accommodate unique design features of the project, the applicant received
administrative Design Review approval on January 10, 2000, which allowed the
maximum FAR (for all llO lots) to be increased from .55 to .60. Given this increase in
FAR, the layout of all homes proposed by the applicant could be accommodated with
the exception of the six lots for which this variance is being requested.
The applicant has requested that the FAR for these 6 lots be increased to .65 in order to
accommodate a 3,286 s.f home (including garage). During the processing of the
administrative variance request, staff informed the applicant that they would not be able
to make the required findings to grant the variance administratively. As a result, on
April 26, 2000, the applicant resubmitted the variance request for a public hearing
before the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
Variance Findings
Staff has reviewed the variance findings submitted by the applicant (see attachment 2),
Based upon staffs analysis, the information submitted does not justify the required
findings outlined in the Municipal Code (Section 19.14.190). What follows are the
required findings with staffs response as to whether or not said finding can be made.
A. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists. Such hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the
property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone;
but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective
profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must
be considered only on its individual merits.
The applicant believes this first required Variance finding of hardship can be met. They
indicate that the existing lot sizes for these (six) lots were established by the
Subdivision Map, which was recorded prior to Kaufman and Broad's purchase of the
property, and therefore, Kaufman and Broad was not able to modify the site design to
create larger lots to accommodate these 6 homes.
This required finding for the granting of a variance states that there must be a hardship
to the property which is not created by any action of the owner. This typically refers
2-
Kaufman & Broad (Sunbow)
Page 3
to specific physical site constraints on the property which impede its normal
development.
The 110 residential lots constituting Phase lB, Unit 3 were approved with lots ranging
in size from 5,050 s.f. to 8,991 s.f. This range of lot sizes can accommodate a number
of sizes and shapes of residential models to be constructed. The applicant/builder had
notice of the lot sizes along the western edge prior to purchase of the project since the
final map had already been approved by the City Council. The fact that they did not
purchase the property until after the subdivision lot sizes were already approved does
not constitute a hardship based upon this required variance finding.
The applicant/builder is actually choosing to create a self-imposed hardship by their
request to construct the largest size model of home on six of the smallest size lots
within the entire 110 lot project. The applicant/builder could easily substitute one of
the other four models in order to create a situation where the FAR does not exceed .60
In addition, there are a substantial number of lots within the subdivision which contain
lots sizes large enough to accommodate their largest model size (see Attachment 3).
Although there may be reasons why the applicant desires to build the largest model on
these particular six lots (i.e. adjacent to open space, homes visible from surrounding
areas etc) these reasons cannot substantiate the required hardship finding.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors;
The applicant indicates that these six lots do not have the benefit of size that other lots
within this project and those of the surrounding projects have, due to the fact that the
abutting 26 acres were dedicated to the City as environmental mitigation property
within the Sunbow Master Planned Community. The presence of the La Nacion fault
line as well as a mitigation site for biological habitat (necessitated by the development
of much of the Sunbow Master Planned Community) has limited the ability of the
Master Developer to increase the depth of these six lots in order to increase their lot
sizes to be more in character with other lot sizes within the community (the average lot
size for these 110 lots is 6,400) thereby, not enabling them to construct larger homes as
well as a more balanced mix of housing types. The applicant/builder has proposed five
different residential models for this phase of the Sunbow II subdivision. The square
footage of these models (including garage) range in size from 2,218 s.f. to 3,286 s.f.
The applicant is requesting an increase in the FAR for the six lots in question in order
to accommodate the construction of model home Plan 3 (3,286 s.f.), which is the
largest of all five plans being developed within the project.
3
Kaufman & Broad (Sunbow)
Page 4
The applicant wishes to build these larger homes on six existing lots, which are
approximately 5,000 s.f in size (see Attachment 3). In order to maintain an FAR
which does not exceed the new maximum of .60 approved through the administrative
design review process, it is necessary to have a minimum lot size of approximately
5,477 s.f. An analysis of the 110 lots within this residential phase of the Sunbow II
subdivision indicates there are a substantial number of lots (other than the 6 lots at
issue) with pad sizes exceeding this amount. In addition, the developer has the option
of reducing the size of the model or substituting one of the other four models in its
place. The applicant was already granted an increase in FAR from .55 to .60 through
the administrative Design Review process. This increase to .60 has allowed all of the
other 104 lots within this phase to be developed with homes which maintain this FAR
of .60.
C. That the authorizing of this variance would not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not materially impair the public interest.
The rear of all six lots being considered for an additional FAR increase abut a 26 acre
open space lot. The visual impact of the structural mass is reduced due to the vertical
and spatial separation created by the presence of this large open space area. Thus, the
additional square footage which would be allowed by such FAR increase would not
affect the visual bulk of the buildings from either Skyridge Drive or from nearby
residential areas to the west.
D. That the granting of this variance would not adversely affect the general plan of
the city or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The General Plan does not specifically address lot/building ratios. Thus, a change in
the FAR will not affect the General Plan and adopted city policies.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons discussed above, staff cannot recommend approval of the requested
variance since all four of the required findings for the granting of a variance cannot be
made. Specifically, staff does not believe a legitimate hardship exists which would
preclude the residential development of any of the six lots for which the variance has
been requested and the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
property rights possessed by other properties.
Attachments:
I. Locator
2. Applicants justification for variance findings.
3. Applicants proposed FAR table for Sunbow IB, Unit 3
4. Ownership Disclosure Statement
'1
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V 00-16M
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE
THE FLOOR ARE RATIO FROM .55 TO .65 FOR LOTS 18,20,23,25,36 AND
38 WITHIN SUNBOW II, PHASE 1B UNIT 3
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with the Planning
and Building Department on March 8, 2000 by Kaufman & Broad Coastal, Inc.
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a variance to increase the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .55 to .65 for six lots within Phase
IB, Unit 3 of the Sunbow II subdivision ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the Project is located on the west side of Skyridge Drive, east of
Brandywine A venue, south of East Palomar A venue and north of East Orange Avenue
within the Sunbow Planned Community and P-C, Planned Community Zone District
("Project Site"); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the
project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305, Class 5-minor alteration in land
use; and
WHEREAS, the applicant had notice of the lot sizes along the western edge prior
to purchase of the project since the final map had already been approved by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting an increase in the FAR for the six lots in
question in order to accommodate the construction of model home Plan 3 (3,286 s.f.),
which is the largest of all five plans being developed within the project; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct its largest
size model home on six of the smallest size lots within the entire 110 lot residential
project; and
WHEREAS, the additional square footage which would be allowed by such
FAR increase would not affect the visual bulk of the buildings from either Skyridge
Drive or from nearby residential areas; and
WHEREAS, a change in the FAR will not affect the General Plan and adopted
city policies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a
hearing on the Variance 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
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ZA V 00- I 6M
PAGE 2
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 advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., June 7, 2000 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt this Resolution denying
the Variance request based upon the following findings and detenninations:
DETERMINA nONS.
I. The Planning Commission is unable to find that a hardship peculiar to the property
exists and was not created by any action of the owner.
2. The Planning Commission is unable to find that such variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if
granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient and not enjoyed by
his neighbors.
FIINDINGS:
1. The Planning Commission did find that the authorizing of this variance would
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, nor would materially impair
the public interest.
2. The Planning Commission did find that the granting of this variance would not
adversely affect the General Plan of the city or the adopted plan of any
governmental agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 7th day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
Co
--.---...-- -_.~,,_._._-,.. ...--.. -".,-...,---
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V 00-16M
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
INCREASE THE FLOOR ARE RATIO FROM .55 TO .65 FOR LOTS
18,20,23,25,36 AND 38 WITHIN SUNBOW II PHASE IB UNIT 3
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with the Planning
and Building Department on March 8, 2000 by Kaufman & Broad Coastal, Inc.
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a variance to increase the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .55 to .65 for six lots within Phase
IB, Unit 3 of the Sunbow II subdivision ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the "Project" is located on the west side of Skyridge Drive, east of
Brandywine Avenue, south of East Palomar Avenue and north of East Orange Avenue
within the Sunbow Planned Community and P-C, Planned Community Zone District
("Project Site"); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305, Class 5-minor alteration in land
use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a
hearing on the Variance 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 advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., June 7, 2000 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt this Resolution
approving the Variance request based upon the following findings:
FINDINGS.
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any action ofthe
owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing
the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the
zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of
prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a
variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for
each case must be considered only on its individual merits.
I
~..__.-.~-.,,~~.,-,--- .,---_. ->......_" ....----., .---
PLANNING COMMISSIO" KESOLUTION ZA V 00- 1 6M
PAGE 2
The existing lot sizes for these (six) lots were established by the recordation of the
Subdivision Map, which was recorded prior to Kaufinan and Broad's purchase of
the property, and therefore, Kaufinan and Broad was not able to modifY the site
design to create larger lots to accommodate these 6 homes.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient and not enjoyed by his
neighbors;
These six lots do not have the benefit of size that other lots within this project and
those of surrounding projects have, due to the fact that the abutting 26 acres were
dedicated to the City as mitigation property within the Sunbow Master Planned
Community.
3. That the authorizing of this variance would not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property, and would not materially impair the public interest.
The rear of all six lots being considered for an additional FAR increase abut a
26 acre open space lot. The visual impact of the structural mass is reduced due
to the vertical and spatial separation created by the presence of this large open
space area. In addition, the additional square footage which would be allowed
by such FAR increase would not affect the visual bulk of the buildings from
either Skyridge Drive or from nearby residential areas.
4. That the granting of this variance would not adversely affect the general
plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan does not specifically address lot/building ratios. Thus, a
change in the FAR will not affect the General Plan and adopted city policies.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 7th day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
8
AI"l'ACliMFN'l' 1
\1' III GREG '\1 ~@ I'
~ '. 1 ~ \ -::{VA 0.' <u'\7'i
~ A r^,I\ID.~
-:A- :k- ~ ~ ~ ,\..4it\
~~;>- \-"\-' ____\\,~ -Y\.\W~\
\,\-\1 ~ ,,,~ ;::::~) SHARPCHULAVlSTA
~ ~ X :;"1'''\\\';)>-"" ~ ;-i;' ~ .r> MEDICAlCENTER
:\ 'M ill' I'~ ~ ?:
~~ '::J:"y"fJ./);:; ~ :\\\
'?J. -:-< (Y H Rg~~ r;;<; .\ \ \. C' T/~
\::\ 'Y' -1'2;:W .. PARK H IT /..WJI '" VISTA
~~ Y v7 ffi ~~\C ,. ~.
II \=-~t:5< ~ j ~ ~ ~~ CE ~
'fT ~ I I:: u, 77T ):: \
:: !..i11111L.~" PAlO~ A~~'/l/lrf- ~
?\~ 1~n:uv~~ ""lliifj"n'Gi ~~
1AL ?r- "'=~ ;:::J;.+:! g::. f-' .J ~~:.. r:rr?
P I-- ;\// "" nltB lJ/::3:::.,t::::,
I~}.,\I\-"\~ ''2'~ \>1\ {11 ti}- ~~ j[~ ~ r;ac-N~:"'''' r;j r \
....., q \/ y.w..t=lr (.)'>::. :~ :J;::::'>\"':I\\"'; a ~:;.
:jg ~ ~ u ~ ~ )> g7f ~ig ______
~ rl "I.1Y'1' 11 \- ::If: ," _______
e- H i--H g
~ \=~ ~~~~ ~
~t~\ ~'~~
~''''''V~J 'm:=~TE ...- ~ ~~ ~ ~ -
\'i(fV - ~8 I~ ~ iw., ,# r"aH!
<'\.Y ., /\'i rTl SCH~ If r\\\.. . ",..,
I
"-
,
\
I
\
,
\
.,
\~
'r
"-
'- PROJECT
LOCATIONS
LOCATOR :~arr: KAUFMAN & BROAD COASTAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) ZONE VARIANCE
PROJECT Sunbow, 1 B - Unit 3
ADDRESS: Request Proposed floor area ratio increase (lots 18, 20, 23,
.. 25, 36, and 38) from standard 55% to 65%.
SCAlE: ALE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale ZAV 00-16M
h:\homelplanning\hectorllocatorsIZAV0016M.cdr 05/15/00 q
, .... ^-,.--.-. ..
ATTACHMENT T
EXHIBIT "A"
SUNBOW 1B-UNIT 3
DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR 6 LOTS
(LOTS 18, 20, 23, 25, 36 AND 38)
TO EXCEED 55 PERCENT UP TO 65 PERCENT
Kaufman and Broad Coastal, Inc. is requesting that a Floor Area Ratio Variance be approved to
permit the construction of six (6) of its Plan 3 model types along the westerly edge of its 110 lot
subdivision 'known as Sunbow 1 B-Unit 3. Kaufman and Broad purchased Sunbow Unit 3 in May
1999. The final engineering for the site had been completed and the final map had been
recorded.
Within the 110 lots at Sunbow Unit 3 are 22 lots (lots 18-39) which are located along the westerly
edge of the subdivision arranged in a linear street pattern. These lots range in size from 5,004 to
5,352 square feet in size. These lots back up to a 26.3 acre open space lot dedicated to the City
by the Master Developer at Final Map recordation, which separates the lots from Brandywine
Avenue. This open space lot ranges from 280 to 400 feet in width, separating these future homes
from Brandywine Avenue, which will have a reducing effect on the size and mass of the stuctures
from Brandywine Avenue and the surrounding communities. Located within this open space lot is
the La Nacion Fault, a non-active fault-line. The presence of the fault line limited the ability of the
Master Developer to extend the depth of these lots so that their lot sizes would be more in
character with other lot sizes within the community (the average lot size for these 110 lots is
6,400). Additionally, Unit 3 was identified (due to the presence of the fault line), as the
appropriate site to create the required biological habitat to offset the taking of Coastal Sage Scrub
that was necessitated by the development of much of the Sunbow Master Plan area. Through
the use of the Unit 3 parcel as a site for mitigation, other developers have been able to more
efficiently use the land within their parcel and establish larger lots which enable them to construct
homes in which range up to 2,872 square feet without Floor Area Ratio restrictions impacting their
development.
Kaufman and Broad has identified 3 floor plans, each with 3 separate elevations to be
constructed within Unit 3. Listed below is the information relating to the floor plans:
1 PLAN 1 I PLAN 2 1 PLAN 3 1 PLAN4* PLAN 5- 1
1" Floor Living 11,154 I 1.150 11,460 1931 702 I
200 Floor Livino 959 11,317 1,403 .1,068 1,094
Total Livina 2,113 2,467 2,863 1,999 1,796
Garage 430 447 423 459 422
Porch 39 0 59 65 56
MIX 35 131.8~.\ 37 (33.6~.\ 34 130.9%) 3 13.6%\ 1 10.9%\
. Plan 4 is only being used on selected lots that do not have adequate width to
accommodate a plan 2 or a plan 3
- Plan 5 is being used on a single lot that is impacted by the presence of the La Nacion
Fault.
Plans 1 and 2 are traditional 2-story homes with 2-car straight-in garages (the Plan 4 and 5 are
also traditional 2-story homes with a 2-car straight-in garage). Plan 3 is a two-story side loaded
garage which sets back the second story living space placed 20'-4" behind the 1-story garage
which creates a strong 1-story element from the street which offers a different vertical element to
the street scene. This floor plan was selected because of its different and unique appearance
which adds variety to the street scene and provides buyers with a different option when
purchasing a home. However, do to the combined square footage of the house and garage
(3286 sq. ft.), the house exceeds the Floor Area Ratio restriction of 55 percent for these lots and
therefore cannot be plotted on any of the 22 lots along the westerly edge. Through this Variance
request Kaufman and Broad is attempting to utilize all of these floor plans along the western edge
10
of the community as well as throughout the community to create a diverse and visually stimulating
street scene. If a Variance is not approved for the six (6) lots requested, Kaufman and Broad will
~e required to exclude the Plan 3 from the westerly edge of the community, and a redundant
street scene will be created consisting of only Plan 1, 2 & 4 (all floor plans along edge will have
the traditional 2-story, straight-in 2-car garage), a limitation that other developers have not been
subjected to in the Sunbow Master Plan area. It should be noted that in a effort to further reduce
mass (which is typically the concem that FAR attempts to address), Kaufman and Broad has
elected to plot the majority of the lots on the westerly boundary with elevations which utilize a
hipped roof design which reduces the visible portion of the roof, thereby providing a more visually
appealing look to the community. This commijment reduces the number of homes that Kaufman
and Broad can sell with volume in the Master Bedrooms, but it is one Kaufman and Broad is
willing to sacrifice to create a stronger looking community for the City of Chula Vista.
It should be noted that the six (6) lots identified to receive the Plan 3 along the westerly edge
accommodate the Plan 3 floor plan well, with the average rear yard for these homes being
approximately 25 feet (the minimum rear yard setback standard is 15 feet), with a front yard
setback of 16.5 feet (15 foot required plus 1.5 foot for the ADA sidewalk requirement), and the
required 5' side yard setbacks.
Our request for this Varlance on six lots totals 5.45 percent of the lots within Sunbow 1 B- Unit 3.
It should also be noted that the average Floor Area Ratio (including the 6 Variance lots) for
Sunbow 1 B-Unit 3 is 47 percent, well below the permitted limit. Similar exceptions have been
granted in the past via the Design Review process in which City Staff granted approval for Floor
Area Ratio exceptions up to 61 percent for the Fieldstone Companies project located in Sunbow.
Listed below are Kaufman and Broad's suggested findings for supporting the requested Variance
as required by City Ordinance:
REQUIRED FINDING #1. THAT A HARDSHIP PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND NOT
CREATED BY ANY ACT OF THE OWNER EXISTS. SAID HARDSHIP MAY INCLUDE
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE
OWNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONE; BUT IN THIS CONTEXT,
PERSONAL, FAMILY OR FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, LOSS OF PROSPECTIVE PROFITS,
AND NEIGHBORING VIOLATIONS ARE NOT HARDSHIPS JUSTIFYING A VARIANCE.
FURTHER, A PREVIOUS VARIANCE CAN NEVER HAVE SET A PRECEDENT, FOR EACH
CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED ONLY ON ITS INDIVIDUAL MERITS.
. The existing lot sizes for these six (6) lots were estabiished by the recordation of the
Subdivision Map, which was recorded prior to Kaufman and Broad's purchase of the
property, and therefore, Kaufman and Broad was not able to modify the site design to create
larger lots to accommodate these 6 homes. Based upon the recorded final map lot sizes
along the ridgeline, the FAR standard would prohibit the plotting of one of the three plan
types along the entire westerly edge. This westerly edge is the most visible portion of the
community, and therefore, the existing FAR standard would create a repetitive and visually
unappealing street scene (ie. 1,2, 1, 2, 1 etc.) at a highly visible locale, which is devoid of the
Plan 3 which offers a one-story element with side-loaded garage which would add variety to
the street scene design.
. The lots which are in need of this exception abut open space Lot "A", an open space area
which totals 26.347 acres. This property has been deeded to the City and is being used to
establish coastal sage scrub habitat, as opposed to creating larger lots along the ridgeline,
which could accommodate the larger plan sizes.
. The lots along the ridge line abut the La Nacion Fault, which restricted the ability of the
master developer to provide larger lots along the ridge line.
REQUIRED FINDING #2- THAT SUCH A VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE
PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS POSSESSED
BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND IN THE SAME VICINITY,
1/
AND THAT A VARIANCE IF GRANTED WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE
OF THE RECIPIENT NOT ENJOYED BY HIS NEIGHBORS.
. These 6 lots do not have the benefit of size that other lots within this project and those of
surrounding projects have, due to the fact that the abutting 26.347 acres were dedicated to
the City as mitigation property to the benefit of other developers within the Sunbow Master
Planned Community. Because other projects were able to push off the requirement to
provide Biological Habitat to the Unit 3 site, other Developers within the Master Plan are able
to offer homes ranging up to 2,872 square feet in size plus a two-car garage, and due to the
FAR restriction, this privilege is being denied to these 6 lots in Unit3. This Variance is
needed so that a balanced mix can be established along the westerly boundary, just as other
developers are able to accomplish.
. Similar Variances/Exceptions have been granted to other developers via the Design Review
Committee process (ie Fieldstone through the Design Review Process obtained FAR
exceptions up to 61 %) with lesser hardships/justifications being present.
REQUIRED FINDING #3- THAT THE AUTHORIZING OF SUCH AN VARIANCE WILL NOT BE
OF SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY AND WILL NOT MATERIALLY
IMPAIR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
. As the homes abut the 26.347 acre open space lot and do not back onto other residential
lots, the visual impact of the structural mass is reduced due to the vertical and spatial
separation created by the presence of this large open space area. Concem of structural
mass and density typically identified by higher FAR ratios is thereby diminished. For
example, if the back yards were 15 feet deeper ( approximate size needed to achieve 55 %
FAR, the visual mass of the structures would not change as viewed from Brandywine Drive.
. The overall project average FAR including the 6 lots requesting the Variance is 47%, which is
lower than that of the Fieldstone project located across the street, which came in at 50%.
. Kaufman and Broad is requesting an exception to exceed the 60% FAR for only 6 of the 110
lots for a percent of 5.45%, while eleven (11) of the lots in the project have FAR ratios
between 55 and 60 percent
. The lots in the community are exceeding the SPA front yard standard of 15 feet by adopting a
standard of 16.5 feet in order to accommodate the City of Chula Vista ADA standard
sidewalk. Additionally, a 10ft front yard standard could be used for these side loaded units,
however Kaufman and Broad is exceeding this standard with the 16.5 foot setback. Rear
yard setbacks are averaging approximately 25 feet for these 6 lots, while the standard calls
for 15 feet.
. The majority of the roof styles along the ridgeline where these variances are being requested
utilize a hipped roof style which reduces visual mass.
. The Plan 3 side loaded garage with a 20'-4" deep one-story element provides variation for the
street scene.
. The lots along the ridgeline will have some of the best westerly facing views (ocean views)
within the Sunbow Master plan, which traditionally receive the largest homes.
. Larger homes are often desirable to larger families, a segment of the market which is often
forced into smaller homes when homes large enough become to expensive due to the fact
that land prices on larger lots often drive housing prices beyond their means. By permitting
this additional square footage on this size lot, the City would be providing housing
opportunities which can meet the needs of a broader cross-section of society without forcing
large families in need of a large home into estates size lots which may be beyond their
means.
REQUIRED FINDINGS #4. THAT THE AUTHORIZING OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OR THE ADOPTED PlAN OF ANY
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
. The granting of this Variance will not negatively impact the surrounding community, as the
homes fit on the lots well within the required setbacks, are consistent in size with similar
homes being sold in the area and throughout the community.
/'2-
. The Granting of this Variance will not negatively impact the General Plan or the Sun bow
SPA, In that specific findings have been made which are site specific, that justify the granting
of the Variance. The Criteria for the SPA will remain intact, and any other developer facing
FAR restrictions would have te make site specific findings that could be supported by the City
in order to approve the Variance.
SUMMARY
In Summary, we believe the granting of this Variance will permij an even distribution of the
product selected for Sunbow 1 B-Unit 3, which will create a visually improved street scene. We
believe that the granting of this variance will have no impact on the adjacent homes or en the
homes within the surrounding communities. We respectfully request your support of this
Variance request.
/3
ATTACIiMENT 3'.:
2'25/0C
SUNBOW 1 B L. . 3, 16.000'5)
TRACT !IO.7
FLOOR AREA RATIO TABLE
,7RJt,('j: "1.001( i 'A.lJOI1'IONA:.. :.0, ~ 1~~'S:1l~'~,~'Jtf..', 'c......
!Q(I.; i , ! ~'OCIIL, LOT CO~ ",OOC-~1'
I..OT'I"-'" ,..... I ro<.-.:. ANCU.I..oU-Y lo."fRYIRoor Ml,J:OWY I
11..-01.1 AJU...: ~ "'" '" '...a.u....vA..!:. CO~ !VITlO m!JC':1Jl.E.:5 SCr. . S(jl'j . ~
I 1 ~i 1 2563 48% 393 '5" 29% 300 39. 72 = ~ ~,
I 2 1 669-41 2 2914 44% 76B 15S7 24% 300 o. ... ..
, I 40% 23%
I 3 8233 3 3286 1,242 1883 300 57. ... ,.,
4 ~ 3 3286 43% BBO 1883 250"" 300 57. ... ,.,
5 5970 , 2563 43% 721 15.. 27% 300 39. 72 = 111
6 5882 2 2914 50% 32' 1597 27% 300 O. .... ...
7 ~ 3 3286 57% ('2) 1883 32% 300 57. .... '4'
B 5637 2 2914 52% '86 1597 26% 300 O. ... ..
. 5802 , 2563 44% 62B 15" 27% 300 3' . 72 . '"
'0 I 67B5 3 3286 48% 4<46 1683 28% 300 57. .... '41
11 69-4B 3 3286 50% 3'5 1883 29% 300 57. ... '4'
12 5833 , 2563 44% 9-45 'S" 27% 300 3. . 72 = 11'
13 I 6643 2 29'''' 44% 740 1597 24% 300 O. ... 54
'4 8082 3 3286 41% 1,159 ,B53 23% 300 57. ... '4'
'5 8388 2 2914 35% 1,699 1597 19% 300 O. ... ..
'6 ~ 3 3286 38% 1,524 1883 22% 300 S7. ... '4'
17 5814 2 2914 50% 2... 1597 27% 300 O. .... ...
1B 5167 3 3286 64% 1-) 1883 36% 300 S7. ... '4'
,. ~ 2 2914 57% (106) 1597 31% 300 O. ..= 54
20 5246 3 3286 63% (401) 1883 36% 300 57. ..= '4'
2' 5121 1 2563 50% 29-4 ,S" 31% 300 3. . 72 = 111
22 I 5270 2 2914 55% (lS) 1597 30% 300 O. ...= ..
23 5212 3 3286 63% (41t) 1883 36% 300 S7. ..= '41
24 5135 2 291. 57% ('0) 1597 3'% 300 O. ..= ..
25 ~ 3 3286 64'" (411) 1883 37% 300 57. 54= '41
26 I 5037i 1 2563 51% 207 1554 31% 300 39 + 72 = 111
27 I 5004 1 2563 5'% 'B' '5'" 32% 300 3. . 72 = 111
2B ~ 4 2458 49% 3'4 1390 28% 300 o. 92 = .2
29 5077 1 2563 50% 22. '5" 31% 300 3. . 72 = 111
30 S060 , 2563 50% 231 15... 31% 300 39. 72 = '"
3' ~ 4 2458 49% 320 1390 28% 300 o. 92 = .2
32 5051 , 2563 51% 2,S 15... 31% 300 3. . 72 = 111
33 5080 4 2458 4B% 336 1390 27% 300 O. 92 '" .2
34 ~ 1 2563 51% 2'4 15.. 31% 300 3. . 72 '" 111
35 509-4 1 2563 50% 23. 15... 31% 300 3. . 72 = 11'
36 5100 3 3286 64.43." (411) 1883 37% 300 57. ..= '4'
37 ~ 2 2914 57% (110) 1597 31% 300 O. 54. 54
36 I 5352 3 3286. 61.40." (342) 1883 35% 300 5i ..- 54' 14'
3. 1 S,34 4 2458 4B% 366 1390 27% 300 o. 92 = .2
40~ 3 3286 36% 1,805 1883 20% 300 S7. 54= '4'
41 7608 1 2563 34% 1,621 1554 21% 300 3. . 72= 111
42 I 9749 3 3286 34% 2.076 1883 19% 300 57. ... 14'
43 ~ 2 2914 25% 3,436 1597 14% 300 o. ..= ..
4<4 8222 3 3286 40% 1,236 '883 23% 300 57. 54= '41
45 6222 , 2563 41% BS' 1554 25% 300 3. . 72 = ",
46 ~ 2 29'4 46% 556 1597 25% 300 O. 84= 84
47 6397 3 3286 51% 232 '.53 29% 300 57. ... '41
.. 6193 1 2563 41% ...3 15... 26% 300 3. . 72 = 111
4' ~ 2 29'4 49% 346 1597 27% 300 O. ..= 54
50 5907 3 3286 56% (37) 1883 32% 300 57. .... '4'
5' 77'6 , 2563 33% 1,681 15.. 21% 300 3. . 72 = 111
52 ~ 3 3286 52% ,BO 1883 30% 300 57. ..= '41
53 7263 1 2563 35% 1,432 I. 1584 22% 300 3. . 72 '" 111
9-4 907' 3 3286 36% 1,703 1883 21% 300 57. ..= '"
S5 I 659-4 2 2914 44% 6" 1597 24% 300 O. ...= ...
56 7256 1 2563 35% 1,428 lS54 22% 300 3. . 72 = 111
57 7963 3 3286 41% 1.093 1883 24% 300 57. .... '"
SB ~ 2 2914 36% 1,594 1597 19% 300 O. ..= ...
5. ..., 3 3286 37% 1,659 1883 21% 300 57. ..= 14'
60 7812 2 2914 37% 1,383 1597 20% 300 O. ... 54
6' ~ , 2563 37% 1,242 15... 23% 300 3. . 72 = 111
62 I 87311 1 2563 29% 2.239 15.. 16% 3001 3. . 72 = 111
63 I 5B.71 2 2914 49% 329 1597 27% 300 O. ...= 54
fL/
REV
, 0/2219,
12!!i199
1J171OO
"'
1'!JJ'I1'fPOlUil.llnOflO
I......,.. II'l.A1<J !I'!JJ') IPI..oVo.
ISlf'Iooru_1 11 ~41 J I~ol 14601 <;311
"" ....', , 1...1
'" 1J!7 14031
T,..,,,,,,,, 2113 '407 '8631 ,...
...... ". ...7 4z:s1 '59
""'" " . \111 "
~ ~,.'___'___~'__,'~'_,.u._'___'______ __n' '___,__'_
2'25/00
TR....C1 ~
%.-:'
l-.Or.:
64 ~
65 57()o1;
66 8107
67 7383
68 6873
69 6117
70 630.
71 6255
72 7205
73 6461
74 5635
75 5993 3
76 ~ 2
5051
5827
77
78
7.
80
81
82
83
84
8S
86
87
88
8.
.0
.,
.2
.3
..
'5
96
.7
.8
99
100
101
102
'03
10.
105
'D.
107
108
109
110
I 56051 2
5798
7497
834'
8328
8841
6630
6288
6748
7638
7023
6680
57741
UH, ~_,."
UI.A, '-"C
7421
6052
6277
7036
5065
SOo.
'998
5258
5784
5839
8421
8458
8427
S384
84'3
....
5535
6447
8438
r~ I
'"...AA :
,
3286
291.
2563
2914
3286
2563
2914
3286
291.
2914
2563
3286
2914
2563
2914
3286
2914
2563
2563
2914
2563
2914
2563
2914
3286
2914
2563
2914
3286
2914
3286
2563
3286
2914
2563
2563
2563
3286
2914
3286
2914
2563
2914
3286
2563
2914
2563
SUNBOW 18 U, J (Ei,ooo'S)
FLOOR AREA RATIO TABLE
~f'~ ",;.
-
'"''
,~
1U:5,..n,
MLo."~~
,S.4G,i,i
,
5'%
32%
39%
48%
42%
46%
53%
40%
45%
45%
55%
55%,
51%'
50%
44%
48%
41%
36%
58%
5'%
58%
49%
51%
56%
52%
44%
39%
39%
35%
37%
39%
52%
43%
34%
36%
38%
57%1
54%
60%
54%
48%
54%
60%
46%
45'"
40%
215
291
796
"5
889
1,307
(128)
18.
(165)
329
256
(75)
169
626
1,209
1,302
'.666
1,577
1.084
172
797
1,638
1.300
U11
(110)
67
(284)
71
382
63
(278)
48'
632
978
58
em
COVEJi,AG!:
'883 i
1597
1584
1597
1883
'584
1597
1883
1597
1597
1584
1883
1597
1584
1597
1883
1597
1584
1584
1597
,_
1597
1584
1597
1883
1597
'S84
1597
1883
1597
1883
,-
1883
1597
1584
1584
1584
~883
1597
1883
1597
1584
1597
'883
,_
1597
,-
:.o~
~Y.DI""'"'-~'ST<<u..~-.u..~
"""~"IE'o7RVlJtoor ~0I'0"'I
S1'}j'J('TJkESI SCr" ~ n
57-
"
~m
31%
28Dk
20%
22%
27%
2S%
25%
30%
22%
25%
28%
31%
30%
31%
27%
25%
26%
25%
23%
32%
32%
32%
30%
28%
32%
28D.k
27%
21%
23%
19%
21%
24%
30%
24%
21%
23%
24%
33%
29%
35%
29%
30%
30%
34%
29%
25%
25%
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
TRACT 90-7
o.
".
o.
S7.
39.
o.
57.
o.
O.
39.
57.
o.
39.
O.
S7.
o.
39.
39.
o.
39+
o.
3. .
o.
57.
Q.
39.
o.
57.
o.
57.
39 _
57-
0-
39 _
39 -
39.
57...
0_
57 -
0-
,,-
0-
57 -
39 _
O.
39 _
84.
72'
72 ::-
84'
72 :::
84'
72 :::
84'
84'
84=
72 ::-
84'
84=
84
84
72
84
84
72
72
72
94
84
84
84
72
84
84
72
84
72
REV
10:22'99
, 2t6J99
1/17100
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
3
,
2
1
223
1.896
1.147
4..
80'
553
184
'.0049
840
536
10
9
94=
84=
72 -
84-
-:-D;",;.
A.NC"~vl
-
1':11
84'
",
84
,.,
111
84
,.,
84
84
,,,
,.,
84
",
84
141
84
",
,,,
84
",
84
,,,
84
,.,
84
",
84
,.,
"l.A~ 1N'J'000000000TlO"O
IPL...-, ,
IPLo,....: ".Lo,....J ,..u....
84-
n.
84=
84-
84'
84=
72 .
94'
94'
72 =
84'
84'
6.396 AVG LOT SIZE 47'% A FAR 27% Av Lot Cove
BOLD= Variance requested for excess FAR
NOTE; This table is calculated on estima1ed square footage for living area, garage, c::oyered porch.
These siZes are ESTIMATES ONLY, and are aub;ecttD change during the course of planning and conatrvction.
Ai homeownenI ah8I be ~ for verifying the ~4I".,,,_tiur. with the City of Chula VISta beIofe proceeding with
any adMty baed on a reiance upon the above runbera.
ASSUMES 61% FLOOR AREA RATlO AS A MAXIIIUII
/6
ATTACHMENT 4
Appendix B
THE \..ITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1 . List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Kaufman and Broad Coastal. Inc. Sunbow - Chula Vista Lot Option, LP
12235 El C&mino Real. Suite 100
San Diego. CA 92130
12626 High Bluff Drive. Suite 350
San Diego. CA 92130
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or .as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
None
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No.-..!.-
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
John Vance. K&B
Michele Kittinger, K&B
Lisa Gordon. K&B
Kurt Bausback, K&B
Don Druse, Rick Engineering
Tracy DeTagyos. Rick Engineering
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date: 1/17/00
John B. Vance, Manager, Forward Planning
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
. Person l.S d.e..fined as: ''Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venJure, association, social club, freaternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. this and any other county, city and country. city municipality. district. or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as Q unit. " / f.o
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
-3
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: SUPS 00-09: Consideration of a mixed-use development
that includes 106 affordable housing units and 15,000 square foot of retail
commercial space and a request for a twenty four percent density bonus, a
reduction in the required parking for the residential units and commercial
use, a reduction in open space for the residential units, an increase in the
number of compact spaces allowed for the residential units, and a reduction
in the required landscape buffer to facilitate the development of this
project, known as Main Plaza, located at the north east comer of Main
Street and Broadway ---Applicant: Avalon Communities
The applicant, Avalon Communities, LLC, is requesting approval of a Special Use Pennit for the
construction of a mixed-use development that includes 106 affordable housing units and 15,000
square foot of retail commercial space on 4.43 acres located on the northeast comer of Main
Street and Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The project is known
as Main Plaza.
The project also involves a request for a twenty four percent (24%) density bonus and
modifications of certain development standards pursuant to California Government Code Section
65915. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required parking for the
residential units and commercial use, a reduction in open space for the residential units, an
increase in the number of parking spaces allowed as compact for the residential units, and a
reduction in the required landscape buffer to facilitate the development of this project. Such
development incentives are contemplated under the provisions found in the California
Government Code Section 65915 and the Chula Vista Housing Element. The requests, if
approved, would facilitate the construction of 106 affordable residential units for low and
moderate-income households.
As specified in Section 65195 (b), for qualified affordable housing projects, the City must either
(1) grant a minimum 25 percent increase, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the developer,
over the otherwise maximum residential density, and provide at least one additional regulatory
concession or incentive (unless it finds the additional incentive unnecessary); or (2) provide
other incentives of equal financial value based upon land cost per dwelling.
Based on an Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that there
would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends that the Negative
Declaration issued on IS 00-47 be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for IS 00-47 and adopt
Resolution SUPS 00-09 recommending that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency: A)
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
Adopt Negative Declaration IS 00-47; B) Approve the Special Use Permit 00-09; C) Approve an
Owner Participation Agreement with Avalon Communities for the development of a mixed use
project that includes 15,000 square feet of commercial space and 106 affordable housing units
located at the northeast corner of Main and Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area; and D) Grant the requested 24 percent increase in density, a reduction in the required
parking for the residential units and the commercial use, a reduction in open space for the
residential units, an increase in the number of compact parking spaces allowed for the residential
units, and a reduction in the required landscape buffer to facilitate construction of this project
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft City Council
Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On March 22, 2000, the Housing Advisory Commission voted to recommend to the Planning
Commission to consider waiving the required front setback for the commercial building and
consider tandem, other parking alternatives or reductions in parking for the residential
component of the project. On June 7, 2000, the Housing Advisory Commission will consider a
recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council approval of the project.
The proposal was presented to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for a preliminary review on
May IS, 2000. On June 5, 2000, the DRC fonnally considered the mixed-use project and
conditionally approved the Design Review Pennit.
The proposal was also presented to the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) for review on
June 5, 2000. The RCC determined that the Initial Study is adequate and the Negative
Declaration be adopted. The Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the project
will have no significant environmental impact and an Initial Study and Negative Declaration
have been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The project site is located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Broadway within the
Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (see Exhibit I). The property is currently developed
with a 50-space trailer park, a used car sales lot, and a car stereo installation building. The
general area is characterized by light industrial or retail commercial uses.
2. General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
General Plan
Retail Commercial
Retail Commercial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Retail Commercial
Zoning
CCP
CTP
ILP
ILP
CTP
Land Use
Mobile Home Trailer Park
Shopping Center
Salvage Center
Distribution Center
Shopping Center
2.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Commercial Retail. The
Montgomery Specific Plan designates the property as Research & Limited Industrial. However,
the property is also located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The zoning is CCP,
or Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifying district, that allows for mixed-use
developments with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Pennit is a Special Use
Permit when located in a redevelopment area.
3. Proposal
The applicant is proposing the development of mixed-use project that includes 106 affordable
housing units and 15,000 square foot of retail commercial space with 180 residential and 73
commercial parking spaces (see Exhibit 2). All 106 units will be affordable to and occupied by
low and moderate-income households, with 51 of the units affordable to very low-income
households at 45% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
The mixed-use building will contain 15,000square foot of ground-level commercial space, with
residential garages in the back. There are 2-levels of residential above the garages, containing
six 2-bedroom units and two 4-bedroom units on each level, for a total of twelve 2-bedroom
units and four 4-bedrooms units above the commercial space.
MIXED-USE BUILDING:
Ground Level:
2nd Level:
3 ,d Level:
16 UNITS =
2-bedrooms:
3-bedrooms:
4-bedroom:
6
6
12
2
2
4
There are seven exclusively residential buildings to the north, behind the mixed-use building.
All of these buildings contain three levels, with two types of building designs being utilized.
Five are of the type that has 10-units of housing, and two are of the type that has 20-units of
housing.
The ten-unit buildings consist of two 3-bedroom units on one side of the ground level, with
garage parking on the other side. There are two 2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units on
each of the two levels above, for a total of six 3-bedroom units, and four 2-bedroom units in each
these five square buildings.
10-UNIT BUiLDING (5 TOTAL):
Ground Level:
2nd Level:
3'd Level:
10-UNITS (x 5 =50 UNITS) =
2-bedrooms:
3-bedrooms:
2 (x 5 =10)
2 (x 5 =10)
2 (x 5 =10)
6 (x 5 =30)
4-bedroom:
2 (x 5 =10)
2 (x 5 =10)
4 (x 5 =20)
The twenty-unit buildings consist of two 2-bedroom units and two 4-bedroom units on one side
of the ground level, with garage parking on the other side. There are six 2-bedroom units, and
two 4-bedroom units on each of the two levels above, for a total of fourteen 2-bedroom units,
and six 4-bedroom units in each of these two long-bar buildings.
3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
20-UNIT BUILDING (2 TOTAL): 2-bedrooms: 3-bedrooms: 4-bedroom:
Ground Level: 2 (x 2 =4) 2 (x 2 =4)
2nd Level: 6 (x 2 =12) 2 (x 2 =4)
3'd Level: 6 (x 2 =12) 2 (x 2 =4)
20-UNITS (x 2 =40 UNITS) = 14 (x 2 =28) 6 (x 2 =12)
In summary, there are 106-total housing units, consisting of 60 two-bedroom units, 30 three-
bedroom units, and 16 four-bedroom units, with 18-units at the ground level, 44-units on the
second level, and 44-units on the third level:
GROUND LEVEL (18):
2ND LEVEL (44):
3RD LEVEL (44):
=106
2-bedrooms:
4
28
28
60
3-bedrooms:
10
10
10
30
4-bedroom:
4
6
6
16
TOTALS:
The proposal involves a request for a 24 percent density bonus, a reduction in the required
parking for the residential units and commercial use, a reduction in open space for the residential
units, an increase in the number of parking spaces allowed as compact for the residential units, a
reduction in the required front landscape buffer, and an estimated $1,272,000 in financial
assistance from the Redevelopment Agency is being requested to facilitate the development of
this project.
Density Bonus:
As specified in Section 65195 (b) of the California Government Code, the City shall grant a
minimum 25 percent increase over the otherwise maximum residential density, unless a lesser
percentage is elected by the developer and at least one additional concession or incentive to a
developer of housing agreeing or proposing to construct at least: I) 20 percent of the total units
for low income households; 2) 10 percent of the total units for very low income households; or
3) 50 percent of the total units for seniors. In addition, the City must grant at least one additional
incentive or concession as defined in Section 65195(h) or make a written finding that the
additional incentive or concession is not required to provide the affordable housing. Such
incentives include one of the following: I) Reduction or modification of Development Standards,
Zoning Codes or Architectural Design Requirements, 2) Pennit mixed use zoning within the
housing development; or 3) Allow other regulatory incentives or concessions. As an alternative,
the City could provide financial incentives of an equivalent value.
The applicant is requesting a 24 percent density bonus to increase the allowable project density
from 86 to 106 (20 additional units) dwelling units. The request also includes a reduction in the
required parking and commercial use, a reduction in open space for the residential units, an
increase in the number of parking spaces allowed as compact for the residential units, a reduction
in the required front landscape buffer, and an estimated $1,272,000 in requested financial
assistance from the Redevelopment Agency.
Fifty-one of the units will be restricted for occupancy by very low-income households with an
income at 45% or below the Area Median Income (AMI). Currently, the income for a very low-
Lf
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
income household of four at 45% AMI is $24,175 a year. Rent for the affordable very low-
income units shall not exceed 30 percent of the income at 45 percent of the AMI, which would
equate to a rent of $628 per month for a three-bedroom unit. The remaining 55 units will be
restricted for occupancy by moderate-income households, defined as households with an income
at 120 percent or below of the AMI. Rent and occupancy restrictions will be maintained for a
period of no less than 55 years and will bind all subsequent owners, so that the commitment
remains in force regardless of ownership.
Parking:
Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code requires two parking spaces for each two or more
bedroom unit. One space for every ten spaces may be compact. Guest and parking for disabled
persons is inclusive.
In accordance with the standards set forth by Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code the
proposed project would require a total of 212 parking spaces for residents and guests, of which
two spaces are reserved for persons with disabilities. The applicant is requesting a reduction in
the required 212 spaces or 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing to provide 1.7
spaces per dwelling unit or a total of 180 parking spaces, a reduction of 32 spaces.
In addition, the applicant is requesting compact parking. Standard parking spaces measure 9 feet
x 19 feet and compact spaces measure 7.5 feet x 15 feet. In accordance with this standard,
eighteen of the parking spaces can be compact. The applicant is proposing 23 compact spaces,
an increase of 5 compact spaces.
Description: Parking Required Proposed Difference:
Standard: Parking: Parking:
106 units: 2 per unit 212 180 32
Guest parking: none none none none
Compact parking: 1 every 10 none 23 23
15,000 square feet retail: 1:200 75 73 2
Open Space:
The Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.28.090 requires 400 square feet of open space per 2-
bedroom dwelling unit, and 20 percent more for each additional bedroom (480 square feet for 3-
bedroom, and 560 square feet per 4-bedroom units) in multi-family developments. The open
space may be provided in common usable open space areas, private patios, balconies, or
common recreational facilities,
According to the open space exhibit provided by the architect, the project will provide a total of
50,347 square feet of open space or 474 square feet per unit. Each ofthe housing units contains
a balcony or a patio area averaging 60 square feet (57 square feet for 4-bedroom units, 63 square
feet for 3-bedroom units, and 62 square feet for 2-bedroom units) which constitutes private
usable open space.
5
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
Front Setback/Landscaping Buffer:
The front building setback is 25 feet along Main and Broadway (front and exterior side yards)
per the CCP zone requirements. In addition, a 15-foot landscape buffer is required per the
Montgomery Specific Plan. The applicant is requesting a reduction from a 15-foot landscape
buffer along Main and Broadway to 10 feet.
4. Analysis
Land Use Compatibility:
As noted above, the site is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses. The site is served by
public transportation. Although the nearest MTDB trolley station is nearly 2 miles away
(Palomar Station), bus service is provided along Main Street and Broadway. Shopping is located
near the project. A school is one mile away and a recreational facility is two miles away from
the project.
The arrangement of structures, parking and circulation recognize the particular constraints of the
site. There are zoning concerns that the residential component is not compatible with some of the
industrial uses surrounding; however, there are mobile home parks to the north and to the east.
The commercial component of the mixed-use building is considered compatible with the
adjacent shopping center to the north on Broadway.
The architecture is internally compatible, with each building providing the same corresponding
elevation. The five IO-unit buildings are a prototype, and the two larger 20-unit buildings
provide the same design for a large structure. The commercial building includes some towers of
varying height, including one to match the 35-ft. height of the residential building behind. The
residential building above the commercial ground level is compatible with the other residential
structures.
The mixed-use building provides the most interest, and the character sketches of the typical
commercial-residential mixed-use building show many offsets and facade elements to create
interest. The roof articulation is a key element of the design, and the shadows cast and the
protruding elements of the building at the ground level are indicated in the sketches. DRC has
required additional details regarding articulation in the actual building plans and elevations as a
condition of approval. Elevations indicate that at least six (6) tower elements would become a
part ofthe commercial component, with variations in height.
The scale of the buildings will be slightly higher than that found in the surrounding areas. The
residential components are all three level structures of approximately 35-ft. in height. The third
levels will be visible above all of the other surrounding land uses. Careful articulation at the
ground level and above will mitigate the bulk involved with the additional height to this area. It
appears that the tower elements will provide some vertical transition from the ground level of the
commercial to the three-story levels of the residential.
The implementation of the character sketches will be key in determining the effectiveness of the
building facades and roof articulation when the project is built. Based on the character sketches,
Co
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
these building will attain a high degree of architectural interest. It is'important to see these same
elements in the actual construction drawings. The conditions of approval will ensure that the
architecture presented will be utilized in the actual building plans.
Density Bonus:
This proposal is requesting a 24 percent density bonus to increase the allowable project density
from 86 to 106 (20 additional units) dwelling units. The applicant will provide 49 percent of the
total units to be restricted for very low-income households. The request also includes additional
modifications to the City's standards for parking and open space for residential developments
and landscape buffer.
Family housing for lower income households is a high priority need identified in the City's
Housing Element of the General Plan. This project supports the City's Housing Element, which
calls for the provision of adequate rental housing opportunities for low and very low-income
households.
The project complies with a top priority set out in the City's Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development. This priority is to implement the City's Affordable Housing Program
so that more newly constructed rental and for sale units are made available to low and moderate
income households, with priority given to very low and low-income families.
This project exceeds the requirements of State law to provide 20 percent of the total units for
low-income households. The proposed project also exceeds the required 30 years of
affordability. In order for the applicant to provide such affordability for the 55-year term, the
requested density bonus and reductions or modifications to standards are required.
Lastly, the applicant will be required to enter into a Housing Cooperation Agreement that will
specify the affordability and occupancy restrictions in compliance with the requirements of State
Law. The Housing Cooperation Agreement will be recorded against the property and its
restrictive covenants will run with the land. The Agreement articulates the rent restrictions,
income qualification of residents, the 55-year term of affordability, and mechanisms for
monitoring compliance.
Parking:
Section 19.62.050 (26) of the Municipal Code requires one parking space for every 200 square
foot ofretail commercial floor space. For the 15,000square foot of commercial space, 75 parking
spaces would be required, and 73 are currently being provided, almost meeting the standard.
However, there are only two landscape strips breaking up each row of parking wrapping around
the corner, when landscape strips are usually required for every 10 parking spaces. An enhanced
pavement pedestrian path from the public sidewalk to the shopping center will also be required
as a condition of approval.
The proposed parking spaces adjacent to the Main Street driveway were eliminated due to traffic
concerns, and a trash enclosure is now shown in this space, which may be removed. In addition,
I
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
the depth of the commercial parking spaces has been reduced from 19- ft. to 17- ft. on both sides
of the 24-ft. drive aisle, to allow for the development of a wider (lO-12-ft.) landscape buffer.
Cars will be allowed to overhang up to 2-ft. in lieu of using wheel stops in the ftont of the
parking spaces.
Due to the potential provision of additional trash enclosures in new locations, the final number of
residential parking spaces may have to be reduced, but will not go below 1.5 spaces per unit.
The total number of parking spaces shown is at a ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit, or 180 for 106 units
of housing. This is less than the 2 parking spaces required for multi-family units of two or more
bedrooms per unit, but can be allowed under State Density Bonus law.
In compliance with State law, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required parking ftom
2 spaces per unit to no less than 1.5 spaces per unit. Of the 180 parking spaces, 85 are in
garages, and 95 are uncovered surface parking spaces, of which 72 are standard spaces (9' x 19')
and 23 are compact (7' x 15') parking spaces.
Proposed Parking:
9' x 17' overhang spaces:
10' x 22' garage spaces:
9' x 19' standard stalls:
7' x 15' compacts:
Commercial:
73
Residential:
85
72
23
However, as evidenced in other low-income housing projects to be presented by the designer and
the Housing Division, the demand for parking in such projects is typically at or near 1.5 parking
spaces per unit. The parking will not be reduced to below 1.5 parking spaces per unit as a
condition of approval.
The City's parking standards requires the project to provide 212 parking spaces for the
residential units (and allow no more than one compact parking space for each ten spaces).
Should the City require compliance with these parking standards, the project would not be
feasible. The property's size would not be able to accommodate more than the 106 residential
units and 180 parking spaces, the recreation building, and 15,000 square foot of retail
commercial and the 73 parking spaces. While the parking requirements could be met off-site,
there is no parking available within close proximity of this project. The reduction of the parking
requirements and increase in allowed compact spaces is required to facilitate the construction of
the proposed proj ect.
The requested reduction in parking standards from 2 spaces per dwelling unit to no less than 1.5
spaces per dwelling unit is substantiated by the reduced need for parking within mixed use
developments and affordable housing for low and moderate-income households. To evaluate the
appropriateness of the request to reduce the parking requirements, staff conducted three surveys.
Staff surveyed other cities to compare parking standards for multifamily residential
developments and allowed reductions in such standards (see Exhibit 3). Staff conducted a field
survey of four existing affordable housing developments to determine the utilization of on-site
parking (Exhibit 4). Lastly, staff solicited comments from the mangers of these affordable
~
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
housing developments for their opinions regarding the adequacy of the available on-site parking
(Exhibit 4).
In comparing the parking requirements of Chula Vista, Chula Vista's appear to fall somewhat in
the middle. There are quite a few jurisdictions that allow for a reduction in parking standards for
mixed-use developments, affordable housing, and senior housing. Reduced standards range from
1 space per dwelling unit to 1.5 spaces per unit.
The reduction in the required parking spaces per unit is further supported by existing mixed use
and affordable housing developments completed by the applicant's architect. The architect
designed similar projects with a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. These developments were
designed with 1. 5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and such parking is adequate to meet the
parking needs of the residents.
Staff has made direct observations during various hours of the day of on site parking available at
Cordova Village, Park Village Apartments, Trolley Terrace Townhomes, Dorothy Street Manor,
and Kingswood Manor. Of the five developments, four were developed with the required
parking spaces and one (Park Village) was developed with reduced parking. Parking was
primarily observed when residents would most likely be home. During the field observations, of
those developments built at or in excess of the required two spaces per dwelling unit, the average
percent of spaces actually utilized was 54 percent. For Park Village, which was built with 1.5
parking spaces per dwelling unit, parking was much more utilized with an average of 79 percent
of the spaces actually utilized. Exhibit 4 also includes comments from the managers of these
apartment communities on the usage of their parking areas.
Parking is available on the street directly adjacent to the project (Broadway). However, as
observed by staff, on street parking along Broadway may not be preferable by residents due to
the significant amount of vehicular traffic.
Staff supports the proposed reduction of the residential parking requirements from 2.0 to no less
than 1.5 parking spaces per unit and an increase of compact spaces from 18 to 23 spaces. All
units are to be occupied by low and moderate-income households. Staffs survey of allowed
parking reductions by other jurisdictions for mixed use developments and affordable housing
developments and the architect's personal experience with such developments support a
reduction in required parking to 1.5 parking spaces per unit. A survey of residents' vehicles and
field observations of existing affordable housing developments within Chula Vista reveal that
onsite parking is currently underutilized. Based upon the current use of the parking facilities at
these developments, it is envisioned that the majority of these households will not have two or
more vehicles. The site is located along Broadway and Main with direct access to public
transportation, lessening the need to own a vehicle. On street parking is available, if needed,
along Broadway. The higher use of compact spaces is required to maximize the total number of
residential parking spaces for the project.
Each residential building has single-garage spaces to accommodate approximately 75 percent of
the tenants living in each building. The remaining 25 percent must utilize the outside parking
areas, or may not request garage parking spaces. There may be 7 or 8 garage spaces for each 10-
q
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
unit building, and 14 or 15 garage spaces for each 20-unit building depending on the need for
more trash enclosures. The mixed-use building has 14 or 15 garage spaces for 16-units,
depending on the need for more trash enclosures.
Since there are no accessory structures or storage spaces provided within the residential units, the
approximately 10 x 22-ft. garages may be used for storage, if parking demand is low. There are
no carports, and the uncovered outside parking spaces do not have typical landscape relief every
10-spaces. These 72 standard parking spaces and 23 sub-standard compact spaces may also
require the addition of intermittent locations of trash enclosures. If the cOVlpact spaces were
converted to standard spaces, it would result in the loss of six parking spaces. The City's
parking standard of 2.0 spaces per unit is inclusive of guest parking.
It is our belief that the majority of tenants will not need the 1.7 or 1-112 spaces of parking per
unit, which would provide available parking spaces for guest. It is highly anticipated that some
tenants are persons or families that do not drive. For example, if each unit only needed one
parking space, there would be 74 guest spaces, based on the current site plan. If each 2, 3, or 4
bedroom housing units accommodates more than one family per unit, or overcrowding occurs,
the limited parking or lack of guest parking may become a problem.
Open Space:
Consistent with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code, requiring a minimum of 400 sq. feet
of open space per 2-bedroom dwelling unit, and a 20 percent increase for each additional
bedroom, or 480square foot for the 3-bedroom unit, and 560square foot for the 4-bedroom unit.
The proj ect architect has provided an open space exhibit indicating that there will be
approximately 474square foot per 2,3, and 4-bedroom unit. Each of the housing units contains a
balcony or a patio area averaging 60 square foot (57square foot for 4-bedroom units, 62 square
foot for 2-bedroom units) which constitutes private usable open space.
The only large, meaningful public open space is limited to the area of the courtyard, and the
recreation center area across a main driveway. However, the recreation building does open into
a large triangular grass area along Broadway that is being acquired as a part of this project and
will add significant usable open space, as shown on the open space exhibit. The large open
spaces need to be further developed with recreational amenities.
Front Setback/Landscaping Buffer:
The front setback/landscape buffer and entire landscape concept plan will be addressed through
the conditions of approval. The landscape buffer along Main Street and Broadway has been
allowed to be reduced from l5-ft. to IO-ft.; however, illustrative sections will be shown to ensure
that a landscape berm will be utilized to screen the undesirable view of the ITont-loaded
commercial parking spaces along Main Street and Broadway. The landscape buffer must include
a pedestrian/public access into the site from the Main Street and Broadway intersection.
The revised landscape concept plan shall provide a planting proposal for trees and shrubs that
corresponds with the surrounding developments, such as an extension of the palm species found
10
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
within the landscape buffer already located along Broadway, a relationship to the existing
landscaping along the west and north property perimeter, and how the tree species specified
throughout the complex will compliment the scale of the open spaces and provide privacy within
the layout of the residential buildings.
A fencing program will be provided that includes wall details of the proposed slump stone block
and/or pilasters with wrought-iron elements, such as gates, and show in conjunction with the off-
site information to be provided on a site utilization plan detailing the adjacent landscaping and
median improvements to Broadway and Main Street. The applicant will comply with all of the
Landscape Planner's comments regarding screening, tree species, etc. Refer to Attachment A.
Additional renderings will be provided to show how the courtyard and recreational area facilities,
including the triangular property being acquired, shall be developed. Additional details of the
proposed improvements, including proposed seating, tables, special paving, landscape and water
features, etc., shall be provided.
Financial Assistance:
The developer is proposing to submit an application to the State Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) to support the estimated $13,125,000 cost of constructing the project.
However, there remains a financing gap.
The applicant has request financial assistance of approximately $1,272,000 from the
Redevelopment Agency of the City to meet this financing gap. The requested financial
assistance equates to approximately $12,000 per unit. A recommendation for financial assistance
will be presented to the Agency at a meeting tentatively scheduled for June 13, 2000. Any
financial assistance provided will be based upon a full financial analysis of the project costs and
need for financial assistance and subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms of the Regulatory
Agreement and Loan Agreement and the subsequent approval of such terms and the documents
by the Agency.
Chula Vista Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
This project will participate in the City of Chula Vista's Crime Free Multi-Housing Program.
This Program was designed to help tenants, owners and managers of rental property keep drugs
and other illegal activity off their property. Managers attend an eight-hour seminar presented by
the police department and rental experts. The City inspects the property and certifies whether or
not the rental property has meet the program's requirements for the tenant's safety, such as locks,
lighting, windows, peep holes, applicant screening, and general appearance. Lastly, a tenant
crime prevention meeting is held. It is anticipated that the project's participation in this Program
will facilitate strong property management, screening of applicants, and maintenance of the
property.
Alternative:
As set forth in California Govemment Code Section 65915 (b), as an alternative to granting a
density bonus or a density bonus and an additional incentive, the City may provide other
incentives of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit, including
11
_'.....__n ._,__
Page 12, Item
Meeting Date 06/07/00
direct financial assistance. Although staff has not calculated the land cost per dwelling, should
the Agency approve financial assistance at the proposed level, it is likely that the Agency will
provide adequate financial assistance to significantly contribute to the economic feasibility of the
project. Should the City not provide a density bonus and the requested reductions in parking, the
project size would be reduced and consequently, project funding from the other sources may be
reduced or jeopardized.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends approval of the project including the requested density
bonus, and reductions from City Code requirements or Precise Plan standards regarding parking,
setback, landscaping, and open space (as authorized by California Code Section 65915).
EXHIBITS:
1. Locator Map
2. Site Plan
3. Parking Requirements by Jurisdiction
4. Parking Utilization Survey of Chula Vista Apartments
5. Planning Commission Resolution
6. Redevelopment Agency Resolution
H: \shared\planning\harold\supsOO-09 .doc
/2
i
j . I
!
I
L
-......---,--
,.
I
I
i
I
--L.('''--
'.-1
I
I
I
i
=~:.::.:____=L
...........-
_....._...~
...........--
........--
~
~,---
LOCATOR PROJECT AVALON COMMUNITIES LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: ' SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 1689 Broadway
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed construction of a 15,000 sq.fI. mixed-use
commercial building and 106 affordable housing units
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: with 181 residential and 75 commercial parking
l NORTH No Scale SUPS - 00-09 spaces provided.
h:\home\planning\hector\locators\sups0009.cdr 05/08/00 J 3
_~~":'::.~",..,:"..:';~,::;".::,:",.=.:~:':.""~,,,,,,",:,,"=~ "'::."'i':-
~ ~! V)
'* Ii ..,,,F i <( i
....- g Z
i r " ~ . "
,'U I ~
QUz) ~'I '. C!i, i ~~
"'-.. F! " S! ..
':~ :I. Z f ~s ~
N""o(~t ~~ ~cId ~
w~:! ~! '~~~ ~
..1fI"T'''' Oz I 01 t)j ~I 0
~;;! ;:.~! I' "'~~. .'i~~-<'1
I Oiij:, 0, " j, '" "
"" zi ....II FS!
i iRi:1 :;: i ii
!!II .,. -< ,
,
.=-:. ~::::. ~:.~
-"",;,'~~,;;;,:,,,"':,'::' ~,='i'i:'~"';' ~.~~~",;,:.':,~..:;;,;;,~,:'J..,~ ,:"",-
~
~
.....-
il31ilSi'U"'!/_
----I
i
i
I
i
i
i
\ '
. I
,
'. I
\ '
, I
\
{,
I
\
I'
, \
I \
i \
\
\
~-----+'--,-
I, II
-
\ ~
\
\ ?~
\ ~
\ ..
'.
I"
,
!
Ij
~e
'I
Ii
II
ii
,
,
I
I
.!
"
il
z
:s
c..
u.J
t-
v;
....
~
:::>
9
!, !::
II (5
~
-<(
11-
II
II
il !I
JL/
Em
g ~~ II I. !g !g
Ii!! ,: I: I; :;
~ ~d! ! ~H; !d~
~ iii ~ h~~"
i!; ~ II; ill '.t[:
~"'" ~. g
g~~~!J; _
.",,,",, "
~ o~o
~ ;!~!!I c
~ '~~\9 " \
"---, "
m!<~ i
~ulil~!
~ f;1 ~ If! ~
- "--If!
F ~:B" 2 :."
". "
. , ~
, ~ ~ <
~<~!~O ~~!i
1)~im!I!I!g!i
; Ii I; ilBnlh
"- .<
".
~~~
~ ~ i!' I'!
~;;S ~ ; '"
2 ~ ~ ~ 2 d\:!! 9
""" "
,,""
\
,"
BE!
~~,
~m mi
I;; ~~~ < m!
~ m ~ ".. ~
,
Smm
r~~
""
m;!
;~~I! : ~
",~j[;5" ~ ~
~!" i '!
N~IL ~ ~
~o ~ ~;il! n
'~~~i~!
~ ~!in! i'
g ~ ~gm n
"-
Parking Requirements by Jurisdiction
(as of May 2000)
Citv Parklna Ordinance Reduction Incentives
1 Bdrm 1.5 spaces per unit A reduction in parking ratio is allowed as an
2+ Bdrms 2 spaces per unit additional incentive to develop lower income
Guest 0.5 spaces per unit for up to or senior housing at the discretion of the
Carlsbad 10 units Planning Commission.
0.25 spaces per unit for each
unit in excess of 10 units
1 + Bdrms 2 spaces per unit 1 space per Mixed commercial and senior or
Coronado Guest No requirement (Inclusive) unit affordable housing
0.5 space Mixed commercial and SRO or
per unit boarding house
1 Bdrm 1.5 spaces per unit None specified
Chula Vista 2+ Bdrms 2 spaces per unit
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
1 Bdrm 1 spaces per unit None specified
DelMar 2-3 Bdrms 2 spaces per unit
4+ Bdrms 3 spaces per unit
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
1 Bdrm 2 spaces per unit 1 space per Senior or disabled housing with
2+ Bdrms 2.25 spaces per unit unit approval of specific plan
EI Cajon Guest 10%, of required spaces
30% Affordable (income restricted)
reduction in housing
parking
Studio 1 .5 spaces per unit 1 space per Mixed commercial and
1-2 Bdrms 2 spaces per unit unit affordable housing
Encinitas
3+ Bdrms 2.5 spaces per unit
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
Imperial Beach 1 + Bdrms 2 spaces per unit 1.5 space Mixed commercial and
Guest No requirement (Inclusive) per unit residential
La Mesa 1 + Bdrms 2 spaces per unit Reductions may be considered with the
Guest 0.4 spaces per unit approval of a specific plan
1 + Bdrms 2.25 spaces per unit 1 space per Senior housing
Lemon Grove unit
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
1 Bdrm 1.3 spaces per unit None specified
2+ Bdrms 1.5 spaces per unit
Guest 0.5 spaces per unit for 20
National City units or less
0.25 spaces per unit for each
unit in excess of 20 units
1 Bdrm 1.5 spaces per unit None specified
2+ Bdrms 2 spaces per unit
Oceanside Guest ~ 1 spaces per unit for 4-10
units
20% of total number of units
for 10+ units
1 Bdrm 1.5 spaces per unit A reduction in parking ratio may be allowed
Poway 2 Bdrms 2.25 spaces per unit as an incentive to develop affordable, lower
3+ Bdrms 2.75 spaces per unit income housing at the discretion of the
Guest No requirement (Inclusive) Planning Commission.
Studio (<401 sq ft) 1 space per unit 0.70 Affordable housing @ 65% or
spaces per less of AMI
unit
Studio (>400 sq ft) 1.25 space per unit 2+ Dus owned and/or managed by the SD
San Diego 1 Bdrm 1.25 space per unit 1 Bdrm 1 space per unit
2 Bdrms 1.5 spaces per unit 2 Bdrms 1.2 spaces per unit
3+ Bdrms 1,75 spaces per unit 3+ Bdrms 1 .4 spaces per unit
Guest (2+ dus) 30% of total number of units Guest Reduced if located near public
transportation
I~
..
13
~
.0'
~
0-
'"
c
.~
~
o
J:
...!1
1;;-"
.- ..
>-0
J20
~:;:
.t::<(
<">c
c.;;;
~~
.- ..
<">c.
'"
'"
c
"
~
0-
-0
~
~
5
I!!
~
'"
..
c
..
:;
E
o
J:
..
;:
~
E
E
o
<..>
;:
~
-0
.~
~ ..
'" ~
_13
OJ:
~ ~
,8>
E
~
z
c
N11
Q)-;~
~ E c
1i)....ro
c ~ E
ON~
-ci . Qj
Q) Q)..c:-
~ ~ ,2J ~
;;;;;_..c:m
~.~ g?~
(ijmro.,....
:!1: (f).J::.-
.- -(f)
g>g>IDe
:';;::.;;:0'0
ro ro ~CC
a.. Co Cf.) {"')
1i>
i!!
1;;
c
o
.w
COD
.~ co
~ro
.. >
c.ro
" ..
cu';
g..S
,,'"
~~
1i>
~
..
c
o
0,.
c"
~:c
~ ro
~~
TI ~
~ CO
E c
o:g
o ro
I-c.
~
"5 ~
.c "m
~~~
E~.E
:Jc"U
-cijg~
" ~ ..
.!::::! () .~
~ .~
~ -E"E
(l) "00 W
:::i5.Q..
~ E ~~
:g8:g~
("II 0 ro II.)
0.... c: a. >
-0
..
~
5
....
~~~*********************************~~
~=~~g~~~ID~NMNID~Nmo~""""""~~ID.,....m~~~o~~MID~"""~~
~,~~,~~~ID~,M~~~~~IDm~~~~~W~M~M~~w~~~m~~m~,-
ro~mmN~~OMo~mwo~M~N~rorow.,....o.,....m~~mONMO~MmM~
~M~M~~~~"""N"",,"""NNNMNNNNNMMN~M~~NMMM~MMMMM
..
'O~
..
~ c.
,8'"
~i
z~
5
..
..
"
..
c.
'"
'0
;
-"
E
~
z
'" '" '" 0 '"
OJ '" '" 0 ..
~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
0 &~ i . 0 0 0
" 2: ~ " ~ " ~ " 2:
~ . . . 0 0 0 .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ <; . " <; . ~ <; ~ <; ~ <;
~ 0 E 0 0 E ~ 0 0 0 .. 0
. . . . ~ . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
E
;::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~a..<a..~a..<o....~o....<a..<a..<o....~o....<o....<a..<o....<<<o....<o....<o....<o....<a..
oooO~OOOO~~OM~~NNro~~Ororo~oooo~oo~o~o~
OOOOMMMNMMMM.,....~~~MMMM.,....~~~OOMONMMNN~~O
~~~ro0~~o~~~ro~~~~~~~roID~~m~g~~~~~roID~ID~
~~gggg88gggegggg~~ggge~~ooooo~
W~~~NN~~~~~~NN~~wW~~NN~~_~Oe~
__~~N~NN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MM~~~
~~uuccuuIDIDuuccuuIDIDuuccuuuccc~~uuccuu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o
o
.
.
~
o
;;:
Iii
~
~
1!
o
c
.,;
o
~
t
>-
~
o
~ '&
ri~
1;. :>
'2 ~
o .
g~
"''''
~~
..
1;j
c
~
E
..
z
13
..
.0'
~
Q.
~
CO
ro ::0
5~ Q
~"'''
~ ~ C'\j ~
-@~ ~
o
o
..
"
E
o
.t::
C
.
o
I-
~
~~
Q;
I-
>.
2
'2
I-
6
~
ro ::0
~$ Q
U5~~<J)
>. '" C>
.t::N '"
~N ~
o
o
6 J'1
~ c
(\] :::><( ::)
~:~ Qa>$ Q
O:sIO~~.~~<J)
~oC'\jca;;CX)""'~
tI)~ ,9.>N "'''-
CO "'~
c ro
S2 0....
::0
$ 9
.c Q <B
~C'\j~
b}
/(P
egggggg
~~~N(\J;;r;;r
~~~~~~~
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS 00-09 DRAFT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-47, APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
SUPS 00-09, FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES 106
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND GRANT A TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%)
DENSITY BONUS, A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE COMMERCIAL USE, AN INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF COMPACT SPACES ALLOWED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
AND A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING BUFFER AND
ACCOMPANYING LANDSCAPING TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS MAIN PLAZA, LOCATED AT THE
NORTH EAST CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND BROADWAY WITHIN THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND APPROVE AN OWNER
P ARTlCIP A TlON AGREEMENT WITH A V ALON COMMUNITIES.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Special Use Pennit (SUPS 00-09) and a
request for a twenty four percent (24%) density bonus and other additional incentives/concessions was
tiled with the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on April 25, 2000 by Avalon Communities
("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said applications request a approval of a Special Use Pennit for a mixed-use
development that includes 106 affordable housing units and 15,000 square feet of retail commercial
space and a twenty four percent (24%) density bonus and other additional incentives/concessions
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, Chapter 4.3, Density Bonuses and Other
Incentives to facilitate the construction of the mixed use development, known as Main Plaza ("Project");
and,
WHEREAS, Project property consists of 4.43 acres of land and is located at the north
east comer of Broadway and Main Street, in the City of Chula Vista within the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area, as diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit
A ("Site"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements ofCEQA, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that the Project will have no negative impact and prepared Negative
Declaration for IS 00-47 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on
said Special Use Permit application 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 10 days prior to the hearing;
and
f1
Resolution SUPS 00-09
Page2
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 7,
2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony
presented at the public hearing with respect to this application; and
WHEREAS, from the facts presented, the Planning Commission hereby determines that
granting the requested density bonus is consistent with the Housing Element of the City of Chula Vista
General Plan and the California Government Code, and that the public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practice support the requested density bonus and other additional
incenti ves/ concessions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission hereby recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the
attached draft Agency Resolution adopting Negative Declaration IS-00-47, approving a Special Use
Permit, SUPS 00-09, for a mixed-use development that includes 106 affordable housing units and 15,000
square feet of retail commercial space and granting a twenty four percent (24%) density bonus and other
additional incentives/concessions to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development, known as
Main Plaza, and approving an Owner Participation Agreement with Avalon Communities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT, the Planning Commission determines that the
density bonus implements the City of Chula Vista General Plan, that the public necessity, convenience
and general welfare and good zoning practice support the density bonus, that the approval of a density
bonus is consistent with State law related thereto and that the granting of said density bonus does not
adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT, the Planning Commission recommends that the
Agency grant the requested increase in density of twenty four percent (24%) to allow the construction
of the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached
draft Agency Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Planning Commission recommends that the
Agency grant the requested incentives to the Applicant in order to balance the financial feasibility ofthe
affordable housing project with the usual amenities found in a development ofthis type in accordance
with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft Agency Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, a copy of this Resolution is transmitted to the
Agency and the Applicant.
/8
Resolution SUPS 00-09
Page3
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 7th day of June 2000 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John Willett, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
I(LH) H:ISharedlPlanninglMain PlazalPc Reso-Main Plaza (June 2, 2000 (2:51PM)]
,q
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
IS 00-47, GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SUPS 00-09, FOR
A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES 106
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE AND GRANTING A TWENTY
FOUR PERCENT (24%) DENSITY BONUS, A REDUCTION IN THE
REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE
COMMERCIAL USE AND THE COMMERCIAL USE, AN
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF COMPACT SPACES ALLOWED
FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND A REDUCTION IN THE
REQUIRED LANDSCAPING BUFFER AND ACCOMPANYING
LANDSCAPING TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS MAIN PLAZA,
LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF MAIN STREET
AND BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND APPROVING AN OWNER
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH AVALON
COMMUNITIES.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel, which is the subject matter of this resolution, is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for
the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 4.43 acres of land
located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Broadway ("Project Site").
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2000, a duly verified application for a Special Use Permit (SUPS
00-09) with request to the Project Site was filed by Avalon Communities ("Applicant") with
the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the application also requests a twenty four percent (24%) density bonus and
other additional incentives/concessions; and
c. Project Description
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to construct a mixed-use development that
includes 106 affordable housing units and 15,000 square feet of retail commercial space and
a twenty four percent (24%) density bonus, a reduction in the required parking for the
residential units and the commercial use, an increase in the number of compact spaces
allowed for the residential units, and a reduction in the required landscaping buffer along
Main Street and Broadway to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development, known
as Main Plaza, ("Project"); and
:2-0
Resolution No. Page 2
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an Initial Study, such
study (IS 00-47) was prepared, and based on such study a Negative Declaration was
prepared and circulated for public review; and
E. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
June 7, 2000 and voted _ to _ adopt Resolution No. SUPS 00-09 recommending that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt Negative Declaration IS-00-47, approve Special Use Permit
SUPS 00-09 for a mixed-use development that includes l06 affordable housing units and
l5,000 square feet of retail commercial space based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, grant a twenty fOUT percent (24%) density bonus, a reduction
in the required parking for the residential units and the commercial use, an increase in the
number of compact spaces allowed for the residential units, and a reduction in the required
landscaping buffer along Main Street and Broadway to facilitate the construction of a mixed
use development, known as Main Plaza, pursuant to California Government Code Section
65195 B, Density Bonus and Other Incentives, and approve an Owner Participation
Agreement between the Agency and the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has
determined that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that
the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the
Project, and implements portions of State related density bonus and that the approval of
Special Use Permit SUPS 00-09 and granting of said density bonus, a reduction in
residential parking, an increase in compact parking, and a reduction in the landscaping
buffer does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses; and
F. Redevelopment Agency Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on June 13, 2000 to consider the
recommendation of the RCC, Planning Commission, and Design Review Committee
regarding the Special Use Permit and requested density bonus and additional
incentives/concessions for the Project and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their
meeting on this project held on June 7, 2000 and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
'}.-f
Resolution No.
Page 3
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the Negative Declaration on IS 00-47 has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
The Agency finds that Negative Declaration on IS 00-47 reflects the independent j udgment of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista.
V. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of Special Use Pennits, as herein below set forth
and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the record that
permits the stated findings to be made.
A, That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
B. The proposed project is desirable at this location in that it provides a mixed-use of new retail
commercial and improved affordable residential housing to a redevelopment project area,
contributing to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.
C. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed project is compatible with surrounding industrial, commercial, and residential
land uses. There is adequate infrastructure in place to support the project. The conditions
of approval will ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
D. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
Code for such use.
The applicant has requested the following modifications:
1. A reduction in the required number of residential parking spaces from 2 to no less
than 1.5 per unit of housing. The proposed site plan would required a reduction of
parking from two hundred and twelve (212) parking spaces to one hundred and
eighty (180) spaces (Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.62.050).
~2-
Resolution No.
Page 4
2.
An increase in the number of compact parking spaces allowed from one space for
every ten parking spaces to one space for every eight spaces (Chula Vista Municipal
Code 19.62.050).
3.
A reduction in the required number of parking spaces for the commercial use rrom
seventy-five parking spaces to seventy-three spaces [Chula Vista Municipal Code
19.62.050 (26)]
4.
A reduction in the required landscape buffer along Broadway and Main Street from
fifteen feet to ten feet (Montgomery Specific Plan, Part 1Il, and page 8).
E. That the granting of this Special Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan
ofthe City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The Project is in substantial confol111ance with the Housing Element of the City of Chula
Vista General Plan, which supports a wide variety of residential products including mixed-
use developments and housing for very low-income large families.
VI. REVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDINGS
The Agency hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and
that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the
Project, and implements portions of State related density bonus and that the granting of said density
bonus, a reduction in residential parking, an increase in compact parking, and a reduction in
landscaping buffer does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby grant, in accordance
with California Government Code Section 65915, the requested increase in density of twenty four
percent (24%), a reduction in the required parking for the residential units and the commercial use,
an increase in the number of compact spaces allowed for the residential units, and a reduction in the
required landscaping buffer along Main Street and Broadway to facilitate the construction of a mixed
use development, known as Main Plaza located at the north east corner of Main Street and Broadway
in the City ofChula to balance the financial feasibility of the mixed use project with 106 units of
affordable housing with the usual amenities found in a development of this type, subject to the
following terms and conditions set forth below:
A. Terms of grant of density bonus and additional incentives
1. Ensure that the proposal complies with the use outlined in the application and
materials submitted therewith except as modified below:
a. Comply with all conditions of Council Resolution _ dated June 13, 2000.
B. The applicant is to enter into a written agreement with the City of Chula Vista specifYing
the tenancy requirements and terms of commitment for, the density bonus and additional
incentives in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915.
23
Resolution No. Page 5
C. Construct the Project as submitted to and approved by the Agency, except as modified
herein and/or required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the Project description.
D. Fifty-one (51) units shall be maintained for a period not less than thirty years as affordable
housing for very low-income households.
E. Fifty-five (55) units shall be maintained for a period not less than thirty years as affordable
housing for moderate-income households.
F. Participate in the City ofChula Vista Crime Free Multi-Housing Program or any other such
program that may be adopted by the City ofChula Vista, with program certification of the
property completed by issuance of the building pennit(s) for the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY APPROVE
THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW:
VII. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Penn it SUPS 00-09 subject to the following
conditions whereby the Applicant shall:
A. Ensure that the proposal complies with the use outlined in the application and material submitted
therewith except as modified below:
l. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the character sketches of
typical mixed-use commercial/residential building provided along with the conceptual plans
which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, and
landscaping on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19
(Zoning).
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed and implemented to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Condition of Approval shall be
submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the
Municipal Code; all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building pennit
Issuance.
5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transfonners, AC condensers, etc., as well
as trash enclosure facilities, shall be located out of public view or adequately screened
through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, benning, and/or landscaping
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
24
Resolution No.
Page 6
6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as well as from on-site resident views above or across the site as required by the
Planning Director. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building
design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Details shall be on
building plans.
~
7. All gutters, downspouts and vents must be integrated into the roof and wall systems, to
ensure that there will be no unattractive appendages to the elevations presented for review
and approval.
8. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall
be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to
Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the municipal Code regarding graffiti control.
9. Based on the review of the conceptual landscape plans by the City Landscape Planner, the
planting and irrigation plans shall be revised by the applicant and resubmitted for review
and approval. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Landscape Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
lO. The landscape buffer along Main Street and Broadway has been allowed to be reduced from
l5-ft. to 10-ft.; however, illustrative sections must be provided and shall indicate a
landscape berm which will be utilized to screen the undesirable view of the front-loaded
commercial parking along Main Street and Broadway. The landscape buffer must include
a pedestrian/public access into the site from the Main Street and Broadway intersection.
11. The revised landscape concept plan provided shall include a planting proposal for trees and
shrubs corresponds with the surrounding developments, such as an extension ofthe palm
species found within the landscape buffer already located along Broadway, a relationship
to the existing landscaping along the west and north property perimeter, and how the tree
species specified throughout the complex will compliment the scale of the open spaces and
provide privacy within the layout ofthe residential buildings.
l2. A fencing program must be provided that includes wall details of the slump stone block
and/or pilasters with wrought-iron elements, such as gates; this must be shown in
conjunction with the off-site infonnation which shall be provided on a site utilization plan
noting the adjacent landscaping and median improvements to Broadway and Main Street.
Comply with all of the landscape concept comments regarding screening, tree species, etc.
13. Additional renderings will be provided to show how the courtyard and recreational area
facilities, including the triangular property being acquired, shall be developed. Additional
details ofthe proposed improvements, including proposed seating, tables, special paving,
landscape and water features, etc., shall be provided. Refer to Attachment A.
14. The parking layout shall be modified due to the increase in trash enclosure locations and the
orientation of proposed trash enclosures being changed to meet trash-hauler accessibility
2~
Resolution No.
Page 7
requirements as well as pedestrian/resident safety. The number of parking spaces shall not
be reduced to below a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per residential housing unit without
modification to the Special Use Permit.
15. The building permit plans shall comply with 1998 Building (UBC), Plumbing (UPC),
Mechanical (UMC), and 1996 Electrical (NEC). Plans shall also comply with Title 24
energy and disabled access requirements. Show dimensions of separation between buildings
and show assumed property lines on building plans. A separate building permit shall be
required for signage and lighting. Refer to Attachment A.
16. The Fire Department requires 20-ft. wide driveway access and fire hydrants throughout the
vehicular circulation system. The housing units shall utilize fire sprinklers per NFPA 13.
The housing units shall contain a fire alarm system per NFP A 72.
l7. In lieu of a complete circulation, hammerhead or cul-de-sac fOTroads over ISO-ft. in length,
provide a turnaround and back-up as shown on the revised site plan exhibit at the southeast
corner of the courtyard portion of the site plan. Refer to Attachment A.
l8. The Engineering Department will require fees for sewer capacity (based on the
new/additional plumbing fixtures), development impact, and traffic signal (based on
additional development) prior to the issuance of building permits. Refer to Attachment A.
19. Driveways shall be restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out on Main Street and
Broadway because of existing raised medians. Driveway approaches must be 8-ft.
minimum from the PCR and constructed per Chula Vista Standards CVCS-I. A construction
permit will be required to perform any work in the City's right-of-way. Refer to Attachment
A.
20. The project shall comply with all current Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. A
grading permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to
Attachment A.
21. The Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department is recommending utilization of
components which will address access control, surveillance detection, and police response.
In addition, participation in the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing program shall be
required. Please contact the Multi-Housing Coordinator, at 691-5127. Refer to Attachment
A.
22. Commercial and residential properties must have enclosures, bins, or carts that meet design
specifications. The locations and orientation of storage bins and dumpsters must be pre-
approved by the City franchise trash hauling company. Provide sufficient space for
designated recyclables. A shared paper/cardboard bin, along with food and beverage
container cart with other stores may be permitted. A commercial trash enclosure large
enough for solid waste, mixed paper, and a cart for food and beverage containers must be
provided to meet the minimum 50 percent recycling requirement.
2..10
Resolution No.
Page 8
23. There shall be no less than seven (7) residential and one (I) commercial bin enclosure with
sufficient capacity and design to handle the solid waste, mixed paper and rigid container
collection streams, to limit the number of trash-hauler visits to no more than two (2) per
week for the residential complex and five (5) trips per week for the commercial complex,
unless otherwise approved by the City Conservation Coordinator.
24. This development shall consisting of 60 two-bedroom, 30 three-bedroom and 16 four-
bedroom units dwellings shall provide a minimum of one 4-yard trash bin for every 10-units
and one 4-yard mixed paper bin for every 10-units.
25. At least one 4 to 6-yard bin for green waste shall be provided in the complex to be serviced
bi-weekly or monthly and a location designated for seasonal services such as bulky item,
Christmas tree and household hazardous waste collection. For convenience to the residents
the enclosures should be geographically distributed throughout the complex, with an
enclosure adjacent to each building.
26. Residential enclosures should be adequate to service a 4-yard mixed paper bin, a 4 to 6-yard
trash bin and at least two 90-gallon carts for rigid containers. The commercial enclosure
should have room for two 4 to 6-yard trash bins and two 4 yard mixed paper bins. The trash
bin and one mixed paper bin for the commercial facility can be replaced with a compactor
for cardboard and or mixed paper, and a compactor for trash. The manufacture and design
of compactors must be pre-approved by the City or Pacific Waste in writing prior to
purchase or installation. The commercial enclosure should be adequate to temporarily store
other items such as rendering collection bins, pallets, discarded displays and other items as
applicable. The applicant shall contact the Recycling Coordinator to ensure that provisions
are made (691-5122).
27. The applicant shall contact the local water district to determine the additional demand and
alteration to the existing water systems for domestic and/or fire protection purposes. In
addition, irrigation plans may need to be designed to reclaimed water standards and
specifications. All fees and deposits shall be provided at the building penn it stage.
28. All school fees shall be paid as part of the building pennit. Refer to comments received
from the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School
District. Refer to Attachment A.
29. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after
approval of this pennit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health,
safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee
and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto.
However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial
expense or deprive Perm ittee of a substantial revenue source that the Permittee cannot, in
the normal operation of the use pennitted, be expected to economically recover.
30. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19. l4.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure
to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this penn it to be reviewed by the City
for additional conditions or revocation.
27
Resolution No.
Page 9
VIII. DENSITY BONUS
The Agency hereby grants the requested increase in density of twenty four percent (24%) to allow the
construction of a maximum of one hundred and six (106) dwelling units for the residential component of the
project located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Broadway in the City of Chula Vista.
The Agency further approves the following incentives to the Applicant in order to balance the financial
feasibility ofthe affordable housing with the usual amenities found in a development of this type consistent
with the Special Use Permit, SUPS 00-47, for the Project:
1. The Agency implemented alternative parking standards of no less than one and a half (1.5)
parking spaces for each dwelling unit and one space for every eight spaces of the total
residential parking spaces provided at compact size;
2. The Agency implemented alternative parking standards of seventy-three parking spaces for the
15,000 square feet of retail commercial, a reduction of two spaces from the required seventy-
five;
3. The City allowed a reduction in the required landscaping buffer along Main Street and
Broadway from l5 feet from the property line to 10 feet.
4. The City allowed a possible reduction in the required open space for each unit of housing.
IX. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement (Attachment "A"), indicating the
Applicant has read, understands, and agrees to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will
implement the same.
X. INDEMINIFICATlON/HOLD HARMLESS
Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Agency,
its members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses,
damages, demands, claims, costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, "liabilities")
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Special
Use Permit, (b) Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation
of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by
executing the Agreement of this Special Use Permit where indicated. Applicant's/operator's compliance
with this provision is an express condition of this Special Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on
any and all Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
XI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The Redevelopment Agency directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Determination and file the same with the City Clerk.
zg
Resolution No.
Page
10
XI!. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
!:
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption ofthis Resolution is dependent upon the
enforceability of each and every tenn, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any
one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the penn it shall be deemed to be automatically revoked
and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
(LH) H:ISharedlPlanninglMain PlazalCC-Reso Main Plaza
2-q
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 06/07/00
ITEM TITLE:
PCM 00-18: Consideration of an amendment to the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan-Planned Community District
Regulations to change the Land Use Designation of 2.3 acres at the
northeast comer of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Street
from Residential Condominium (Re) to Village Center (VC); and
amend the Sunbow II Design Guidelines to change the adopted "Main
Street" Pedestrian Village commercial design concept to a more
contemporary neighborhood commercial center design - Kitchell
Development Company.
The applicant, Kitchell Development Company, has submitted an application to amend the Sunbow
II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan-Planned Community District Regulations to change the Land
Use Designation of2.3 acres at the northeast comer of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Street
from Residential Condominium (Re) to Village Center (Ve) (see Figure 1 and 2 & 2A). The
applicant has also requested an amendment to the Sunbow II Design Guidelines to change the
adopted "Main Street" Pedestrian Village commercial center design concept to a more contemporary
neighborhood commercial center (see Attachment 6).
The Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study (IS 00-16) and determined that,
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to
by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
were prepared, which must be considered by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on the
project (Attachment 5).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Based on the Initial Study, adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS
00-16 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for the Project.
2. Adopt attached Resolution PCM 00-18, recommending that the City Council approve the
proposed SPA amendments in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance.
1.
Page No.2, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/07/00
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved the Sunbow II Planned Community General Development Plan (GDP)
in December 1989, and the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in February 1990. The approved
600-acre Sunbow SPA Plan consists of five multi-family sites with capacity for 818 units, ten single-
family sites comprising 1,128 lots (totaling 1,946 units); one community park; one elementary
school; one neighborhood commercial center; one industrial park; and approximately 176 acres of
open space.
The 1,946 unit Tentative Map was approved in May 1990. Construction began in early 1998 with
330 single-family units in Phase lA, which is west of Medical Center Drive and Brandywine
Avenue. In the spring of 1999, a 132-unit senior housing project along Medical Center Drive
between Medical Center Ct. and Naples Ct. (see Locator) was constructed by Chealsea Investments.
In June of 1999, additional construction of single residential units began to the south of East
Palomar Street, and east of Brandywine. In early 2000, the construction of 156 multi-residential
units began directly north of the Village Center/Commercial site. Currently, Final Maps are being
processed for the remaining single-family residential units at the east edge of Sun bow, located east
of future Paseo Ladera.
On March 6, 2000, the proposed amendments to the Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines
were presented to the Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC recommends approval of the
proposed amendments as presented in Attachment 6. The DRC agreed that the development pattem
within Sunbow and existing nearby communities are more suburban in nature, and therefore, the
proposed amendments to the Sunbow Design Guidelines for the Village Center as presented in
Attachment 6 would allow for a more compatible neighborhood shopping center that caters to a
suburban community such as Sunbow.
The proposed amendments are presented in a side-by-side fonnat, so that the new design proposals
can be compared with the existing SPA Text/design guideline. On the revised pages new text is
shown underlined, and deleted text is shown in strikeout fonnat. New illustrations are shown in
regular black line and deleted illustrations are shown with a line through them.
DISCUSSION:
I. Existing Site Characteristics
The Project involves 10.4 acres in the Village Center (Planning Area 8) and 2.3 acres in the
Residential Condominium (Planning Area lOa) for a total of 12.7-acres. The project site is
currently vacant and has been mass graded in conjunction with the Sunbow II mass-grading
program. The site is relatively level, except for the existing manufactured slopes at the north
and east side of the parcel. The site is surrounded by Medical Center Drive to the west, a
vacant future park site to the east, across High Cloud Street, a future multi-family
2-
Page No.3, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/07/00
development to the north, and East Palomar Street to the south.
3. SPA Land Use Designations and land use
CV Municipal Code Sunbow SPA Existing
Zonin~ Land Use Desi~nation Land Use
Site PC, Planned RC, Residential
Community Condominium) and VC,
Village Commercial Vacant
North PC, Planned RM(Multi- Vacant
Community Residential)
South East Palomar East Palomar 4- Lane
Street Street Major Street
East PC, Planned OS (Open Space)/
Community Comm.Rec. Vacant(future park)
West Medical Center Medical Center Class 1
Drive Drive Collector Street
4. Requested SPA Amendment
The proposed SPA amendments are more specifically described in the following paragraphs
Planned Community District Reg-ulations
The requested amendments to the SlU1bow II SPA plan consists of changing the existing land
use designation of approximately 2.3 acres at the northeast comer of East Palomar Street and
Medical Center Drive within the Sunbow II planned community from Residential
Condominium (RC) to Village Center (VC). The following table illustrates the proposed land
use change and affected acreage transfer:
ITEM ADOPTED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE ADOPTED PROPOSED
ACRES ACRES IN ACREAGE DD'S DU'S
VC, Village lOA ]2.3 +2.3 0 0
Commercial
RC, Residential lO.6 8.3 -2.3 214 214
Condominium
3
Page No.4, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/07/00
Design Guidelines
The Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines amendment consists of changing the adopted
"Main Street" Pedestrian Village commercial design concept to a more contemporary neighborhood
commercial center. The adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan envisioned a Main Street, Pedestrian Village
Center with a variety ofland uses including commercial! residential mixed-use projects.
The applicant has prepared amendments to the existing Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines
that allow for a more compatible and more efficient commercial center reflecting contemporary
neighborhood commercial center design that is more compatible with the existing and proposed
developments within Sunbow (See Attachment 6).
ANALYSIS:
Planned Community District Regulations
The proposed land use change will increase the commercial Village Center site trom 10.4 acres to
12.7 acres, and allow site design flexibility and more efficient internal distribution and circulation
system for a neighborhood commercial center. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed increase in
commercial village center acreage will produce a more successful commercial center and provide
necessary and convenient retail shops and services for future residents of Sunbow.
To expand the Commercial Village center site, the applicant is proposing to reduce Parcel lOA
acreage trom 10.6 to 8.3 acres and retain the adopted number of permitted dwelling units as
prescribed in the Sunbow II SPA (214 maximum). As a result, the density, will change trom 20 du's
lac to 25du's/ac. However, the SPA maximum number of dwelling units for Parcel lOA may not be
achieved due to the irregular shape of the lot and the surrounding topography.
While the individual parcel density wil1 increase, the overall residential density authorized for the
Sunbow II SPA will remain unchanged.
Design Guidelines
The existing Sunbow developments to the north (multi-residential), west and south (single family
residential) are primarily stucco and Spanish-type architecture, and representative of a suburban
community.
The Sunbow Design Guidelines for the Village Center envisioned a 'Main Street' Pedestrian Village
Commercial Center with a mixed-use type development. Mixed-use is generally comprised of retail
or office uses on the ground floor and residential components on the upper floor(s). This concept is
4
Page No.5, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/07/00
reflected by allowing 'residential' as a permitted use within the Village Center zone of the Sunbow
SPA. The idea was to create a pedestrian village with a traditional main street and diagonal parking
to encourage pedestrian activity. The building scale consisted of two- and three-story high mixed-
use buildings that would be reflective of more dense urban centers.
The planned "Main Street" concept was based on a relatively flat area, which could accommodate
pedestrian paths from the surrounding community to the site. However, the pattern of suburban
development did not result in a flat area as required to foster the pedestrian linkages, as envisioned
within a main street concept.
As mentioned above, Sunbow community is being developed in a suburban pattern, and as such, the
concepts presented within the existing Design Guidelines are contrary to several principles of
contemporary commercial development. One of the Design Guidelines required that all the
buildings face away from the main thoroughfare (i.e. East Palomar Street and Medical Center Drive).
The applicant has indicated that this "Main Street" concept, while very attractive, is not marketable
within a suburban community such as Sunbow.
Staff concurs with the applicant that the proposed design concepts present greater flexibility that will
be able to accommodate more contemporary style neighborhood commercial centers, while
preserving the 'pedestrian' intent ofthe Village Center. The proposed changes are summarized as
follows:
. A single-story design for the commercial center and delete the two-and three-story elements
that are in the design guidelines.
. A neighborhood commercial center concept incorporating the California Spanish village
theme and to allow for more retail and commercial uses in the future.
. A centralized parking plaza with pedestrian-compatible median decorative walkways.
. An enhanced pedestrian circulation and amenities such as pedestrian walks on parking
medians, trellises over the walk areas and outdoor plazas for sitting and eating.
. Update the plan to delete obsolete graphics that do not represent current built environment.
Concurrent with this SPA amendment application, the applicant is processing a conditional use
permit for the different land uses in the commercial center and Design Review application for the
physical improvements on the site. The CUP application will be presented to the planning
commission for consideration and approval in the near future.
5
Page No.6, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/07/00
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions
listed in the attached draft City Council Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Draft City Council Resolution & Ordinance
4. Figures
5. Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines
7. Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations
8. Ownership Disclosure Fonn
A:\PCM OOl8 PC Agenda 7 June OO.doc
o
\
\
LOCATOR ~.3k KITCHELL DEVELOPMENT CO. PROJECT DESCRlP1lON:
C) SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT North east comer of Medical Center
ADDRESs: Drive & East Palomar Street Request Proposed amendment to the Sunbow Sectional PIaMing
Area (SPA) Plan to change the land Use Designation of 2.3 acres
SCAlE: ALE NUMBER: from Residantial (RC) to VBIage Canter (VC); and amend the
NORTH No Scale PCM - 00-18 Sunbow II Design Guidelines.
h:lhomelplanninglhector\locatorslpcm0018.cdr 05/17/00
ATIACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Resolution
g
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-OO-IS
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-16 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW II
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN- PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRlCT REGULATIONS CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
2.3 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MEDICAL CENTER DRlVE
AND EAST PALOMAR STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINTIJM (RC)
TO VILLAGE CENTER COMMERCIAL (VC); AND AMEND THE SUNBOW II
DESIGN GUIDELINES CHANGING THE ADOPTED VILLAGE
COMMERCIAL DESIGN CONCEPT FROM A " MAIN STREET" PEDESTRlAN
VILLAGE TO A MORE CONTEMPORARY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
CENTER. KITCHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2000, a duly verified application was filed with the City ofChu1a
Vista Planning Department by Kitchell Development Company ("Developer"), requesting approval
of amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan- Planned Community District
Regulations to change the land use designation of2.3 acres located at the northeast corner of East
Palomar Street crom Residential Condominium (RC) to Village Commercial (VC); and amend the
Sunbow II Design Guidelines to change the adopted Vil1age commercial center design concept crom
a "Main Street" Pedestrian Vil1age Commercial design concept to a more contemporary
neighborhood commercial center ("Project); and,
WHEREAS, the area ofland which is subject matter ofthis Resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Figure 2 & 2A and commonly known as a portion of Sunbow II-Planning Area lOA,
and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 2.3-acres located at the
northeast corner of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Road ("Project Site"); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental ReviewCoordinator prepared an Initial Study (IS 00-16)
and detennined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there wi11 not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been
incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared which must be considered by the Planning
Commission prior to a decision on the project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission [mds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-OO-
16 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project impacts with respect to potential
environmental impacts will be mitigated by adoption of the Mitigation Measures described in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and that the
Mitigation Monitoring Program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the
pennittee/ Project applicant, and any other responsible parties implement the project components
and comply with the mitigation Monitoring Program; and,
WHEREAS the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on June 7, 2000, as
set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain
findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCM-00-18 herein, and recommended that
the City Council approve the Project based on certain tenns and conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director 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 it mailing to property owners and 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 advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
June7, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE 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 THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFOR.."ITA, this 7-day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jolm Willett, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
A:\PCM-OOl8.PCR.doc
ATIACHMENT 3
Draft City Council Resolution & Ordinance
f {
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-OO-
16 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW
II DESIGN GUIDELINES TO CHANGE THE ADOPTED VILLAGE
COMMERCIAL CENTER DESIGN CONCEPT FROM A "MAIN
STREET" PEDESTRIAN VILLAGE TO A MORE CONTEMPORARY
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject matter of this Resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and commonly known as Sunbow II Village Center and
for the purpose of general description is located at the northeast comer of Medical
Center Drive and East Palomar Street ("Project Site"); and ,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2000, a duly verified application was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department by Kitchell Development Company
("Developer"), requesting approval of amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan- Village Center Design Guidelines to change the
adopted Village commercial center design concept ITom a "Main Street"
Pedestrian Village to a more contemporary neighborhood commercial center
("Project); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
various entitlements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, Sunbow II
General Development Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No.
15427 ("GDP") on December 5, 1989; 2) a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan,
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA"); 3) Planned Community District
Regulations, Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations; 4) Design
Guidelines, Sunbow II Design Guidelines; and 5) Public Facilitites Finance Plan,
Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan all previously approved by City
Council Resolutions 15524, 15525, and 15427, and Ordinance 2346 on December
5, 1989; Sunbow II Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP approved by
Resolution No. 18978 on April 28, 1998; and,
I~
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on June 7, 2000 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony,
voted ( ) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below.
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 13, 2000 on the
Project, and to receive the recommendations of the Planning and Resource
Conservation Commissions, and to hear public testimony with regard to same;
and,
WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said SPA
amendment application 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 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project
at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. June 13,2000 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on the Project held on June 7, 2,000, and the minutes and
resolutions resulting therefTom are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
III. PREVIOUS EIR-88-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS;
APPROVALS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed,
considered, and certified FSEIR 88-01 (Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan).
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
/3
.__ _,.___.."^__W ,.__..~__.___._.,.,.__,~._._._.._,...,.__
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study (IS 00-16) and
detennined that although the proposed project could have significant effects on
the environment, there will not be significant effect in this case because of
mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project
proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring program
were prepared which must be considered by the City Council prior to a decision
on the Project.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-00-16 has
been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the
City of Chula Vista, and that the Mitigation Monitoring Program is designed to
ensure that during Project implementation, the pennittee/ Project applicant, and
any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with
the mitigation Monitoring Program.
The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby
adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adopts Mitigation Monitoring
Program set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
VI. ADOPTION OF SPA AMENDMENT
In light of the findings described herein, the amendment to the Sunbow II Design
Guidelines, in the fonn attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, is
hereby approved.
VII. SPA AMENDMENT FINDINGS APPROVAL
A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN FOR SUNBOW (AS
AMENDED) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SUNBOW GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The amended Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines, which is a component
of the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, are consistent with the
adopted Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) and the Chula Vista
General Plan.
B. THE SUNBOW SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED
WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALlZED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS.
1'1
. ~~,_._. .,_. -- ._-.-'-...--'" ,-,.."..._,,- ---- ....,_.. --_... ..'.--
The Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines, as amended are consistent with
the Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan and will therefore promote the
orderly sequentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area
(SP A) Plan areas.
C. THE SUNBOW SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA, AS AMENDED WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONEMNTAL QUALITY.
The amended Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines provide site plan and
architectural guide to develop a functional and properly adapted commercial
center.
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND
OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS
TO CREATE A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED
DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT
WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS
TITLE.
The amended Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines provide development
standards to create a functional and attractive commercial center to serve the
residents of Sun bow II in a stable and desirable commercial environment
E. IN THE CASE OF COMMERCIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT
WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN THE AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL
PLANNING TO THE PUPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING
AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH
DEVELOPMENT.
The proposed amendments to the Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines do
not involve new commercial development.
F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND
ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
The amendments do not involve amendments to the planned circulation system
depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED
ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL
PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL USES NEEDED AT SUCH
PROPOSED LOCATION (S).
15
The proposed amendments to the Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines do
not involve new commercial development. However, the adopted commercial
uses reflect the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and will provide needed
commercial services to future residents in the area.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED
AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY
WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT.
The proposed amendment will be highly compatible with surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Thus, these areas can be planned in substantial compatibility with
the Proj ect.
VIII. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO SPA
In light of the findings described herein, the City Council does hereby approve
amendments to the Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines in the form
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits "C" s.bject to the conditions
listed below.
IX. SPA AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Implement all remaining conditions of Sunbow II SPA Plan
Resolution 15524 not modified by the Resolution, which shall
remain in full force and effect.
2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, prepare, submit and
obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building of all
necessary changes to the adopted Sunbow II SPA documents, maps,
text and exhibits to reflect Councils approval of this SPA
amendment, and submit twenty copies of final replacement sheets.
3. At the time detailed development plans are available and prior to
issuance of a grading permit, a sewer study shall be submitted to the
City Engineer showing that the projected sewage flows will not
exceed the City established thresholds for the sewer capacity.
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
1(0
or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or
a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
XI. 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 anyone or more terms,
provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction top
be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be
automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M.Kaheny
City Attorney
H:IHOMEIPLANNINGIStanDlSunbowlResolutionsIPCM 00-18 Sunbow CC Resolution.doc
/7
A
....
,.
"'... .,1
EXHIBIT A
18
EXHIBIT B
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Please see Attachment 5
/q
._-_...... --."'-'--~-"-""~'--""--------.'--'-'-"'-'-'--"'--
EXHIBIT C
Sun bow II Village Center Design Guidelines
Please see Attachment 6
Zo
.. "'.-. ._-~..... "_.._."."., ...--..--..-,..---"'.---,,.-.'..-..-..---.... -...---., .-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN - PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS
REGULATIONS, LAND USE DISTRICT MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF 2.3 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST
PALOMAR STREET AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE FROM
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (Re) TO VILLAGE CENTER (VC)
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject matter of this Ordinance is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit ''ft:' attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, and commonly known portion of Sunbow II-Planning Areas lOA, and for
the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 2.3-acres located
approximately at the northeast corner of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Road
('Project Site); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2000, a duly verified application was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department by Kitchell Development Company
('Developer), requesting approval of amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) plan- Planned Community District Regulations to change the land use
designation of 2.3 acres located at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street ITom
Residential Condominium (RC) to Village Commercial (Ve); and amend the Sunbow II
Village Center Design Guidelines to change the adopted Village commercial center
design concept from a'Main Street"'pxlestrian village commercial design concept to a
more contemporary neighborhood commercial center ('Project); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
various entitlements, including: I) a General Development Plan, Sunbow II General
Development Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15427 (nGDpn)
on December 5, 1989; 2) a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, Sunbow II Sectional
Planning Area Plan (nSPAn); 3) Planned Community District Regulations, Sunbow II
Planned Community District Regulations; 4) Design Guidelines, Sunbow II Design
Guidelines; and 5) Public Facilities Finance Plan, Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing
Plan all previously approved by City Council Resolutions 15524, 15525, and 15427, and
Ordinance 2346 on December 5, 1989; Sunbow II Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP
approved by Resolution No. 18978 on April 28, 1998; and,
~I
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on June 7, 2000 and after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted (
) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the
findings listed below; and,
E. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 13, 2000, on the Project and to
receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Resource Conservation
Commissions, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and,
WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said SPA
amendment application 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 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. June 13,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was
introduced for first reading (June 13, 2000), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved Resolution No. by which it imposed amendments on the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Village Center Design Guidelines and adopted Mitigated
Negative Declaration IS-00-16 and Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program.
II NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
A. FINDINGS FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Sunbow II Planned
Community District Regulations, Land Use Districts Map and statistics are consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the general
welfare and good zoning practice support the amendment.
~2
B. APPROVAL OF ZONE AMENDMENT
The City Council does hereby approve the amendment to the Sunbow II Planned
Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map as represented in Exhibit A.
III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and
that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Ordinance
shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
IV. 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
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John Kaheny
City Attorney
A:\PCM-0018.CCO.doc
z.:?
.
STA11S11CAL
"- '-UIIE -- lOTAL .
.... """""" AaIES ......
. ... ... 711
7 ... 8 158
10 IIC ,... 210
... lie ... ".
11 IIC 18.0 110
12 RS 48.1 218
,. lIS 20.2 112
" RS 2U 110
,. IP .... 00
,. RS 32.7 U4
17 HI; 23.7 102
.. lIS 26.3 112
2D RS 10.6 ..
21 lIS 17.0 71
"" ... 2'1.8 103
- ....... ''''
-.-.
o'
,-
-. '-~_:':_.:.._:..~_ -J
.
PER TENrATNEIlAPOR FlfrW...IlAPCAlCULIiIlONB
.-.... -. lOT.... PROVIJED BY LEASTAR 7/2M19
DISIIICr ' -...... ...... .-caoAl..IIBIEMIIL1
VC '2.7 0 ..
lIP -IUdIIIIDDEVaOPWENr
.. 14.7 0 .... -IIEIICEN'IIAL IUII..rAMLY
........ 10.0 0 lie ....DEIfJIAL ~MUIII
SCHOOl. we -_CSIIIR
~ 10.7 0 IP ~-
IE OP -OI'SI ...CO
.....""""" . 211.7 0
ROAOS . ,....~DlDGECH~_E
..... 1....
PIJIINE
....
.
23
11
WMM110TAL.
N01'E:
AU. GROsS ACREAGE ~ Fell EACH PLAN80G AREA AIlE
CAlCULATIONS BASED ON 11iE ~ AREA IIOUNDARY
EXJ'Ek..., 11) 11iE CEIi'TERL.JNE OF THE -'DJACENI' ROAD, EXCEFr
FOR IIEDICAL. CBII'eI DA., IIIW<<JYWVE AVE., EAST PIU.OIIAR ST.,
AN) PASED lADERA.
Exhibit A
24-
A
. . ~ ~ . .... \".".".""0
No Scale
~ - . .
~'.
, -
.,.... .
.
.11..: :-.
'._-.:.$~~:
: : :..:::: . .
,-
---.--. .....::---
.--:: :':.. -'w
'-
8
EXISITING RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (Re)
LAND USE DISTRICT
BOUNDARY
.-.....:
CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM RC, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
TO VC, VILLAGE CENTER
EXHIBIT A-I
2S
ATTACHMENT 4
Figures
z.Co
A
~ EXISTING
~ SUNBOW
U4' LAND USE DISTRiCTS MAP
I
- -~.-
". \,
~ -
'"
.
.;
-- ,",-
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
PlANNING LAND USE GROSS' TOTAL-
AREA "STRICT ACRES UNITS
. RM '.3 78
7 RM 8 ".
10 Re 16.2 210
lOA RC 10.6 214
11 RC 18.0 '80
12 RS ".1 2'8
13 RS .... 112
14 RS 22.6 110
15 RP 18.9 .3
I. RS 32.7 ,..
17 ... 23.7 '02
" RS 26.3 112
20 RS 10.8 .5
21 RS 17.0 7.
22 RS 21 I!I 1m
........ 300.7 1948
--,'"", .'
/.:.:~
"""lONG LAND UBE GROSS' TOTAL-
.... DI8'TH1CT ACRES UN!TS .. -REllDENtlAL .NGlE FAMILY
5 YO 10.4 0 .. "'DEN1IAL PLANNED DEVB.OPIIIENi
23 p 54.7 0 ... -REllDEN1IAL MULlI.fAMLY
" RS-ELEM 10.6 0 OC 4i'lEIIDENTlAL COMX>MlNIUM
SCHOOL VC -VILLAGE CENTER
. 06lCOMM. 10.7 0 " -I NC081RIAL PARK
lIE<: OP -OPEN &PACE
0191 SPA.CE.. 217.7 0
AOAOB . CANDIDATE CHURCH SITE
I1RANC TOTAL B04.B '948
PER TSiTATIVE MAP OR FINAL MAP CAlCUlATIONS
PROVIDED BY lEASTAR 7121S199
NOTE:
AU. GROSS ACREAGE NUMBERS FOR EACH PlANNING AREA ARE
CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE PlANNING AREA BOUNDARY
EXTENDED TD TIiE CENTERUNE OF THE ADJACENT ROAD
Figure 1
27
-----.-----..-----....-----.
.
- .. -' '.- -J
STATISTICAL PER TENT.uNE MAP OR FJNM. AlAPCAlCULATIONS
"- '-UIIE l.W)UIIE GIIOSS" roTAL ' PAOVI)E[) BY lEASTAA 112fW9
-. TOTAL" .........,
-- DISTIIk:T AaIES IN1'S .... DISTRICT .' AaIEz UNITS
12.' 0 .. -REIIIJ:IEHIAL.NaE FAMLY
. ... '.3 71 8 \/C o. ~AL PLANNED ClVB.OPI.ENI'
, ... 8 158 23 .. ..., . OM ~a:NDAl t..U.1I-FAMlLY
I. IIC 15.2 2'. 18 RS-B.E8O 10.11 . OC -REllDEN1IAL OOM)OMNIUM
'DA IIC ... 2" SCHOOL VC -WUAGE CENIBl:
11 IIC 11.0 1&0 8 ""-""-. 10.7 . I. 4__
12 lIS 48.1 :!'I8 IIEC OP .o119i SWlce
13 lIS 28.2 112 OPEN """'" . 217.7 0
" AS 22., 110 IIOADS .. CANDlDATECHLlRCHIITE
UitsNID TOTAL ~.II ,_
1i lIP ,... 93
18 lIS 32., 1.. NOn,
17 III; 23., '.2 AU. GROSs ACREAGe NUMBERS FOR EACH ~ AREA ARE
II lIS 25.3 112 CA1.CUlATIONS BASED ON lHE PlANNING AREA BOUNDARY
20 lIS 1Q.6 .5
2' lIS 17.0 711 EXTENDED TO 1HE CEN7elUNE OF lHE ADJACENT ROAD, EXCEPT
2:1 ... :11.11 1m FOR MEDICAl. CENTER DR., BRANDYWINE AVE., EAST PAlOMAR ST..
- -. I- AN) PASEO lAOERA.
FIGURE 2
28
A
No Scale
"
.. .
",..' .
.
.11.,: :..
'--- .:' ~~-~:
: : :.=::;. ~ .
,-
--..--' . ..-
- "-~'
.-.....~ ".
-
EXISITING RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (RC)
LAND USE DISTRICT
BOUNDARY
.--....
CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM RC, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
TO VC, VILLAGE CENTER
FIGURE 2-A
Zq
30
ATTACHMENT 5
Mitigated Negative Declaration
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,
PROJECT APPLICANT:
CASE NO: 1S-00-16
.".. Pro5~c! S~ning
The Plaza at Sunbow
Northeast corner of East Palomar Street and
Medical Center Drive in the Sunbow planned
community. The project site is approximately 0.75
mile east ofInterstate 805, south of Telegraph
Canyon Road, and north of Otay Valley Road.
641-1"'J-04
Kitchell Development Company
DATE:
May 12,2000
Tbe project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of East
Palomar Street and Medical Center Drive in the city of Chula Vista. The
proposed land use change will add 2.3 acres to the Village Center, totaling 12.7
acres within the approximate 600-acre Sun bow II planned community. The area
is generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road.. east of Interstate 805, and
north of Otay Valley Road. Tbe project site is currently vacant and is relatively
flat. except for the existing manuracrured slopes at u'Je rear (north) of the site and
at me east terminus abutting the newly paved High Cloud Drive. The site has
been graded under previous approvals and there is no remaining natural
vegetation. Existing site elevations range nom 400 feet above mean sea level
(A.MSL) in the northeastern ponion of the site to approximately 335 feet AMSL
in the southwestern ponion, near the intersection of Medical Center Drive and
East Palomar Street. The Sun bow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan area and
western ponion of the proposed project site are traversed by the La Nacion Fault,
a "potentially active" fault exlllbiting no acti\'ity in over 11,000 years. The fault is
not considered a significant constraint to development. Figure 1 shows the
regional location of the project site and Figure 2 shows the vicinity location.
The project site is located in the Sunbow II SPA Plan, and the surrounding area
has experienced a lllgh degree of development. In December 1989, the City
Council considered and approved the Sunbow Planned Community General
Development Plan (GDP), and me SPA Plan was approved in February 1990.
Impacts associated with these actions were discussed in the Sun bow General
31
~
PROJECT LOCATION
--
(America
United Srates ~
- nos
, U 'dos Mex1ca
Esraaos m
I
\
11\ MILES 2
~J:-,ob$32Ay~ ppnIC$\T!,:glOnal
4
FIGURE 1
Reaional Location of the Project
32. '"
-~-- --
~_<~:~~.:~=:~~~cc~~~~:;') C ('
.. .
\
~ '\.-,~:1-':- \_
. \~. .~ II .
..~, -""
=-:1
.,. ",
c===~~
- ~,..
~/^
, .....'
:0.-/ ''''~~_.
~-Gk'
\
.'~-
"~._~:
~ ...---0-__: _~_~_ ~'
~-~.?;gg?;: -
~c._-~~Ai~~~ ~_.
'=:c~' ).-.t ~'/:. ' "C- .:==
,>~-' -- .:~~ ' J-~. ..... "'" -
:t. ~,-:-
> SlT.\'BO\V GDP ~~':c,. =---! r-4
. ',co.. PLA~ AREA ~~1:~~'/~/~?C
-?:-? 'I ~-'- '\--;_~::~~f
~--=-~~~~1~~--~~~~'W"'~~ -t,:~ .
1---
!
I
.
:;>-':,~:-?~_~r-7' .
- -,--:~;~~~.<j~~..~. ;'-~S':-'
,....<'"::~
" '-
-~~' ~=:: /
~ .._- - :::
"-=-~~'_-:"":
'--=-,-,-
=-~-
~
.~
.~----
-.-.
..'
.
r
,
-
;-"
-\. -.
" . ~
-'.:;.'-"~/::-:::--/
~=_:::::. I
-::.- -
.~='
-->-.","-
:~",-. . .
,=,-=~-.. '.~
,~_ ~~::r..,... .. .."
, : h
,
.
..
..
iJ-. "\-
'-/\ /J ....1. I . .
--?;-~-_\ j~ ~
, ._~i._,
.:.__ .~ 'J - -,..
<Y''''''-,
1~oo_<_~::
*:-0. .
->-,-
~ -
~-""~::
~~
..-'
=-
~~.-~
/
h
,-
~
~/
~-
j;.?t,,--
------.
'~=~,,-o~~.::.--_,,=:=:--
;.-' "--
""="'--
.-'
"
r+.__ _'_
'\~;;'~~-t,' ~
I~:'::&-==
~-'..-
.":" -~ .
,/'-';i~:-/j'-
1~'~?l ~.' -~,
',cc " ~Y~oI '!l\
~. ': -- W~j
"C-, LlJ l
'=-..:-' L:.~-=i,
--,-":~;;L -- .
----- ~~ .'~-
~~~0f::~:~ -
-~'f 'L
VAL' EY. ....
~I", ~~'
i r:~ --_ ,'OJ
I ,),"1," ~ t r
i .,'/ "j,
, ,
-,.~.
~ -. .'
~......._.._.,::.C
...'~- ..
r
,
~(\"'~
.' .
.~:
" .. ."~-
Y ::;,'\1
, "
__-;-?=o-~~=.."':-:"'_
P.,i1,10:
~'"'7
:;oc, V
~,
, '
=~r~':"-'" ~.1
1\13:- Sou;-:::e: C.S,G.S_ '7.5 Minu~e !C1?og::-aphic
r::.':':)~d ImDe:-,a: Be3~"h
~tGm~
[@1'
and :\a:iona~ City qLi.2.ci7"2.n&je~
o
:'O(l(i
...:O(!,:'
33
j::..r..j
..'
....
.1
i
.. ~ f
. '::~_': I
." .1
'~>., '.,:.~;
.' ......,
-.:-.:".:;J
.....
....
..
.....r
.. .
I:
,
l.
-
....
,
, ,
\ -
~~/
--,C",
..'/. -;c'
- "",('---
- / C?
:/ :,,:,'
.~Q
-"....
.~-
'<:'--~,?~ - 'A
- ''::--
-"'-;==_'C' .
~ ~.
L(;J.l::::"'" -
. --
-- -
/
~. ~..
,-
-~
-~/=--
~-
. .
" ~
.~
--
;;.- ::;
-.
~ ~-~~
.<:c
~c,
!,;~;::' :-~~;:.-,
..
~'-'
~
,"r;,
~~
,-
v:
~
-
--"
V.,,"I:
<=---;~ /'=~'
v_
~
I '-'
/"'/-
~-/
;""--,,,=~ .
.""J~-~-:[~~
-I' --~ I 2-C
~'-"'-
--,.-_-<~
, '1\ - --~
~-\ -~-
...,
t IGURE
Project Site Location
Development Plan Environmental Impact Report (GDP EIR) in 1988, and
Addendum for the Sun bow II SPA in 1990. The 600-acre approved Sunbow SPA
Plan consists of five multi-family sites with capacity for 818 units, 10 single-
family sites comprising 1.128 lots (totaling 1,946 units); one community park;
one elementary school; one neighborhood commercial center (the proposed
project site); one industrial park; and approximately 176 acres of open space.
These environmental documents are incorporated by reference within this
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sunbow Plaza project.
Residential development in the project vicinity is proceeding under a Tentative
Map approved in May 1990 for a total of 1,946 units. Construction began in early
1998 beginning with 330 single-family units in Phase lA, west of Medical Center
Drive and Brandywine. In the spring of 1999, construction began for a 78-unit
affordable multi-residential development adjacent to Medical Center Drive at the
northerly portion of Sunbow. In June 1999, additional construction of single
residential units began to the south of East Palomar Street. In early 2000, the
construction of 156 multi-residential units began directly north of the Village
Center/Commercial site. Currently. Fina] Maps are being processed for the
remaining single residential units at the east edge of Sunbow, located north of
East Palomar Street and east of the planned Paseo Ladera.
In addition to the above, approved and existing development in the surrounding
area consists of the existing Sharp Hospital Medical Center and a recently
approved 156-unit multi-family development to, the north, a future park site is
planned for the area east of the project and High Cloud Street and East Palomar
Street, a four-lane Major Street. borders the site to the south. Medical Center
Drive. a Class 1 ColJector Street. is adjacent to the west.
The majority of the proposed project site (lOA acres) is currently zoned VC
(Village Center) and is anticipated for future development with retail commercia]
uses. An approximate 2.3-acre portion is currently zoned RC (Residential
Condominium).
B. Project Description
The discretionary actions for the proposed project include amendments to the
approved SPA Plan for a proposed land use change, Design Review and CUP for
the proposed uses in the neighborhood commercial development.
Land Use Chan2:e:
The project includes amendments to the text. maps, and statistics of the Sunbow
Sectional Planning }\rea (SPA) Plan. Planned Community District Regulations.
31.{
4
.,.,
and associated regulatory documents to change the existing Land Use Designation
of approximateJy 2.3 acres at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street and
Brandywine ITom Residential Condominium (RC) to Village Commercial (VC)
resulting in 12.7 acres of Village Commercial. The proposed change will
accommodate development of an approximate 101,703-square-foot neighborhood
commercial center. Figure 3 shows the proposed SPA Plan Amendments to the
existing planning areas.
The proposed PJaza at Sun bow is a 101,273-square-foot shopping center. Uses
include a 57,541-square-foot grocery store, 14,884-square-foot drug store, and six
additional pads. Of these, two pads will be developed as drive-through fast food
operations, one as a gas station, convenience store, and car wash, and the
remaining three pads will be developed with other food or retail uses ranging
from 6,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. The proposed gas
station/convenience store and car wash and other retail uses will range from
approximately 2,800 square feet to 7,500 square feet in size. Project grading and
the proposed site plan are shown on Figures 4 and 5.
The location of the proposed gas station is currently planned east of the primary
entrance to the shopping center, near the intersection of East Palomar Street and
High Cloud Drive in the southeastern project area. The project will provide 522
parking spaces on-site in accordance with the City' s Zoning Ordinance parking
standards for the proposed uses. Primary access to the shopping center will be
from entrances on East Palomar Street and Medical Center Drive. Site access will
also be available ITom a second entrance on Medical Center Drive and ITom High
Cloud Drive on the east.
The project includes a landscape easement over the steep slope in the northern
portion of the site. Landscaping and maintenance of the slope will be provided by
the applicant.
Desi!?J1 Guidelines:
The project includes a revlSJon to the Sunbow II Design Guidelines for the
Village Center to change the CommercialNillage Center design concept from a
"small village core" to a more contemporary neighborhood shopping center. This
revision is proposed to allow for greater design options and implementation of the
contemporary community commercial center design to be compatible with the
existing and proposed developments within the Sunbow community
(Attachment A). The current Design Guidelines within the SPA Plan for the
Village Center are limited in design concepts, and do not reflect the contemporary
styles for community commercial centers that are being developed within nearby
communities and southern California.
35
s
-. .-......--,.----.,-- ._~-----_.._,----^--
- ..,
7
......:. -~.:-F~ ~l~: ~~
, ---.~~:,y:;-::,.: ~ ~\\t
-"~~~~~:- '::-'--~"~"~~"-'~-" --:.--,.
.-t" C'. ,'-~ "f _ -
~,.~-" ~.- . -"II~'T;c--: --: .:":; =- - - ,~-~ -: :
. _" ~ .:- : V ~ ,...:.--- -:~':" --- . --~ . ";..
., "~~At ~ ~ -'-- ~
if .=... ~- .' ..', ," - ." --"-, ~
~ . M'~~. ~.;or .-~ ~".'r ..... - . __ ,- .
,.-- ~ .~-'-.<; -.;...... -.. -./~ ,'/ .
. :."'" ~~:t :':, ~ -, :-:.... ';. \'~" ----r ~"
r:. .' --, ~'" - ~.... .. --;::-.~ -_.
,-~: "'- ... _ ~~ ~."" ~ -,," .. .a
.~~~",,-l,--v --.. '-1"""7_-.'" .".,/ ~
~"-..~'- ~ r1~ .=i"' - .,-.' , .;-:....
:~.' ~....- -...; -'-.; p" - =-~
." ~..~.r"... ~ ~
"--,- .~,_ ,-::r' ,'.
~ . , -
4.. ."." ..........._~,.
~(": :- .
.
r~o Scale
r-.
10
-.
-
~
~,
n.
-
--
! t
....
--
....~......
.,..-.;..'J.' '_
+~""__"Ir...
I ~..
..,
Existing :
LO d '.'
gO un ory ........
-- ---
!?1
8
PLA...~LNG AREA ADJUSTME!'\TS
Planning Corrected SPA Plan Proposed Gross Change in acres and
.-\rea Area Area percent of change
7 8.2 acres 8.0 acres lose 0.2 acres (2.4%)
8 10.4 acres, 12.70 acres add 2.3 acres (22.1 %)
lOA 10.6 acres 8.5 acres lose 2.1 acres (19.8%)
Totals 29.2 acres 29.2 acres 0
Sourc:=:: TRS Consultants 4/00
~t~~~
[@
t"o SCALE
FIGURE 3
?>(p
Proposed SPA Plan Amendments
-
R-3:!~c,.t
!!
"
,
,
,
,
,
)
I
,.'-
--
~\.--..-~ "~
'':\'-
, \;,
vs.
\./~---,-'_.
<
~
-::t=
::
,,' -
i..l..I:'"
~OL
~.5
-
O~
-'
-
~v
'"
'"
...
v,
u
'"
'0
-
.r
~
h
~
'"
'.
-
u
~
"
o
:;:
'"
37 g .+- u
0
;;
rJ ~,
'"
~~III
';'; -;-; .::::. lr) =
'" e:
~Q\18$ ~:?: ;;:; ~g:t::: ~ S2 ~ . : I~~~! r.Li -
"
"".'00'.0>.,... M '" '" ",on -
~fn2 Q ., I ~.-rl ~ CJ
' II
~ '" · I ~tF' -
:J .-
~ ~ '3 1:;::;-a. [-'J
~ ~ 5 ~~~ CJ "0
u u .;.:., ,
~ e mID::::' 'CD.
~ on _.O!=: .! .!~m I ......; <:w
N '" .Q ~~~ ~ '"
12 Q ai ~2:5 Q
., II: iii 'C'D'D c..
~~ ~
>- 2' lH :2. ~,;;, b Q
.... ~ ~ i;i;o.!= :..
m ~~l I... I- I- 0 m ~
E ~~r D... 0.. D... :::: a:
E e - .!!'.!!'.!!' E.!!'.!!'~~ ~
-g~= l' "''''''' ~.:..L.~~~
:::J ~ ~ ~ 1-1-1...... ...
e_ ~;;:: e e e e mmmmm
(J) ...JU,)Z ....J 11.11.11. D...c...c..c..c..
1
\
;,
\
II!
11\ -
.. - ~-
.-S' ~=~~ I,
c:- _ - ~ - ..c:rmo':> H".JIr' -= \
-':::' ~~- ~ v
~ ',\-- \ i
,~........---- ',--- i
...-....~
((
II
\\. -
<.."~-
I
Il.~i
o:!l..~
<s;~
11.',
!,i
\
ro. ___
~
',- u ','
'i.,',\\
c .
't..-\\'I
-'-
,
\ .-
\~
::z~
\
\
I ,
I, r
\~
I'
~f
ql
,<,-'F-
~
I
I
----- l-'
---- ~
~-
~
~ -------
----
,
,.
ii
ii
~
f !J
- Go "'_
CJ3J.N3:) ~ ~ 11
~~-~-
,"-
3"3 i ,~
3"180
"'.~.
01..
~""-6
w.~~
~!~
'"
.....
...
~
'"
~
u
.=
'"
'C
-
....
~
"-
"
~
<:
..
'"
z ~
~~'"
" ~
o N
o ~
v. ~
~~III
Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
A CUP is requested for the folJowing uses pursuant to Section 3.0 of the Sunbow
SPA Plan - PC District Regulations:
Plaza at Sunbow Master CUP
Proposed Use
Grocery Store
Conditional Use
. 24-hour operation
. Beer, wine, and liquor sales
Drug Store
. 24-hour operation
. Beer, wine, and liquor sales
. Limited drive-through for prescription drop off and
pick up
Pad "B"
. Drive-through for pick up of fast food
Pad "E"
. Drive-through for pick up of fast food
Pad'T'
. 24-hour operation
. Gas station with car wash
. Convenience store with beer, wine, and liquor sales
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project SPA amendments and CUP result in no net increase or loss
in overall units. The loss of 2.3 acres to the adjacent multi-family site consists
primarily of a large slope area and does not impact the site's usability, and results
in no net loss of units. The additional 2.3 acres will allow for the development of
an approximate 101,703-square-foot neighborhood commercial center. Proposed
uses in the existing plan and VC (VilJage Center) Zone would be allowed pending
approval of the proposed discretionary actions, including the SPA amendments,
Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not
have a significant environmental effect, and that the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
Yi
9
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is attached.
A discussion of these potentially significant impacts ITom the proposed project is
provided below. Technical studies for the issues of geology, noise, traffic, sewer
services, and drainage were prepared to address the environmental effects of the
proposed project. These and the adopted planning and,environmental documents
applicable to site development are available for review at the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91910.
I. Geo]ogy
The site is not delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area but is located within the La
Nacion fault zone. The La Nadon fault. though not active within the past 11,000
years. is considered "potentially active." All proposed uses have been designed to
provide a setback from the mapped fault. The minimum setback for essential uses
I e.g.. hospitals, fire stations, etc.) is 15 feet. The site does not include "essential
uses and the proposed gas station/car wash is located more than 450 feet from the
mapped fault to avoid any potential hazard due to fault proximity to this use.
Implementation of mitigation measures adopted for the previously approved GDP
and SPA Plan, and site specific measures identified in the Update Geotechnical
Investigation for The Plaza at Sun bow (Geocon 2000) will mitigate impacts to a
less than significant level.
2. Noise
The proposed project is to amend SPA Plan to allow 2.3 acres of Village
Center/Commercial in an area previously planned for Residential/Condominiums.
In addition, a CUP is proposed. The Sunbow IT Final EIR concludes that the
unmitigated worst-case furure noise levels in the land use change areas will not
exceed 60 A-weighted decibels community noise equivalent level [dB (A) CNEL].
Although future leaseholders have not been identified for all buildings,
anticipated retail and/or medical office uses would not generate noise levels in
excess of those considered in the noise study. Any specific uses, if inconsistent
with those anticipated and approved for development under the SPA plan and
CUP, will be reviewed for conformance with existing thresholds prior to their
approval. If necessary, additional mitigation measures would be identified prior to
occupancy to ensure conformance with existing noise standards to reduce impacts
to below a level of significance.
Short-tenn construction noise is not regulated by ordinance and impacts are not
considered to result in a significant impact.
40
]0
~'..
.....' , .
. ~, .'
Delivery truck traffic, loading and unloading activities, and operation of cooling
and heating equipment associated with the market operations on the site could
result in significant noise impacts to residential areas to the north. Noise levels
are projected to exceed the City of Chula Vista's 60 dB(A) L""H threshold
standard. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce impacts from delivery
truck operations to a less than significant level. Noise impacts ITom the proposed
gas station/car wash and two drive-through fast food restaurants, and allowed
commerciaJ/retail uses proposed for pads A-F by the SPA plan and CUP, would
not result in significant impacts and additional mitigation is not required
(Attachment B). Following subminal of final design plans, the project will be
reevaluated to ensure that noise levels generated by rooftop heating and cooling
equipment does not exceed allowable limits.
1. Utilities and Service Svstems (Sewer Service)
Preliminary plans for the commercial site provide for a project generation rate
consistent with criteria established by the City of Chula Vista (2,500 gallons per
day per acre). A preliminary sewer study prepared by Stevens Cresto Engineering,
Inc. for the proposed 2.4-acre increase inclicates that the adclitional sewage
generated from the proposed development can be accommodated by the City
sewer collection systems (Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc. 2000). At the time
final development plans are available and prior to issuance of a gracling perrrtit, a
sewer study shall be submitted to the City Engineer showing that the projected
sewage flows will not exceed the City-established thresholds for sewer capacity.
3. Transportation/Traffic
The City of Chula Vista' s Threshold Standards Policy requires that all
intersections must operate at a level of service (LOS) C or better, with the
exception that LOS D may occur during the peak two hours of the day at
signalized intersections. No intersection may reach LOS F during the average
weekday peak hour. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold
Policy for the immediately affected intersection of Meclical Center Drive and East
Palomar Street.
The Traffic Analysis for Sun bow Commercial Development in the City of Chula
Vista was prepared in March 2000 by Darnell & Associates, Inc. to update earlier
studies and project future traffic operations for the year 2010. Although minor
revisions have been made to the proposed project since the traffic study was
completed, the results of the study represent a worst case, or conservative estimate
and remain valid. The traffic study compared the approved project impacts to
those that would result if a SPA Plan amendment and CUP were approved. The
traffic study considered development of a 105.425-square-foot shopping center'
'1-1
.Jl
with anchor stores and seven pads (A-G). The original proposal did not consider a
gas station use. An ahernative 97.925-square-foot neighborhood shopping center
with anchor stores and six additional pads was also considered in the study. The
alternative included a 12-pump gas station, mini-market, and car wash. Although
developing less square footage, the alternative project generated more trips. For
purposes of envirorunental review, the current project is most similar to the
alternative discussed in the traffic study. The following discussion therefore
incorporates those conclusions.
Approved SPA:
As background, the previously approved SPA assumed development of an 8-acre
commercial shopping center within 11.3 acres designated for commercial use. A
by-pass reduction of 40 percent was applied to a trip generation rate of 1,000 trips
per acre to account for the predicted number of through trips that would not be
generated by uses at the project site and would simply "pass by" the project. This
by-pass reduction results in a projected generation rate of 600 trips per acre. Net
trip generation for the approved project was therefore estimated at 4,800 daily
vehicle trips (192 trips during the A.M. peak hour/115 inbound, 77 outbound and
528 trips during the P.M. peak hour/264 inbound, 264 outbound). All study area
roadways, intersections, and project driveways for the approved SPA are
projected to operate at acceptable LOS C or better conditions in the year 20] 0 for
the approved project (City of Chula Vista EIR 88-] and Addendum).
Proposed Project:
In the year 2010. approval of proposed project changes will result in a net
increase in trips as compared to the approved project. The proposed 10],703-
square-foot neighborhood shopping' center would generate an estimated maximum
of 13,611 daily vehicle trips (6]9 occurring in the morning peak hour and 1,342 in
the evening peak hour). After applying the 40 percent pass-by reduction, the
proposed project would generate 8.167 trips. This is a net increase of 3,367 with
] 79 more trips projected during the A.M. peak hour and 277 more during the P.M.
peak hour.
The intersection of East Palomar StreetlMedical Center Drive is projected to
operate at an acceptable LOS D with or without the project during the P,M. peak
hour.
All other intersection and roadway operations would operate at acceptable LOS C
levels with the exception of the intersection of the project driveway with East
Palomar. This intersection would degrade ITom an existing year 2010 projected
LOS C to LOS E during the evening peak hour only. Impacts will be reduced to a .
112.
]2
.....--.- ,.-.--."-- ._...~---~-
Jess than significant LOS D level by construction by the project proponent of a
westbound deceleration/right-turn Jane ITom East Palomar Street into the project.
Conclusion, As currently approved all study area intersections and roadway
operations are projected to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2010 with the
exception of the intersection of East Palomar Street and Medical Center Drive
which will operate at LOS D. Approval of the proposed project would reduce
LOS C operations during the P.M. peak hour at the intersection of the project
driveway with East Palomar to an unacceptable LOS E. Mitigation is required to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of proposed
mitigation would improve operations at this intersection to LOS D.
To mitigate significant impacts at the project driveway on East Palomar Street,
the project shall construct a westbound deceleration/right-turn lane by the
applicant prior to project occupancy. The addition of the westbound right-turn
lane will improve the level of service at the driveway intersection with East
Palomar Street to an acceptable LOS D.
Upon implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, the Engineering
Division indicates that the project would be consistent with the criteria in the
City's Transportation Phasing Plan and General Plan Traffic Element.
E. Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Effects
The project is subject to the adopted SPA Plan and general provisions included in
the approved Final EIR for Sunbow GDP Pre-zone (88-1) and Addendum to the
Final EIR 88-1: Sunbow II SPA Plan (1990). The following specific project
mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the Initial Study for this project to a level below significant. The
mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval, as well as requirements
of the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The mitigation
measures are summarized below.
Geology
1. Potentially significant impacts from site development near the La Nacion
Fault are not considered to be a hazard to development provided develop-
ment is in conformance with requirements of the governing jurisdiction,
the Uniform Building Code, and standard practices of the Association of
Structural Engineers of California. In addition, the project shall imple-
ment all previously approved mitigation measures identified for the GDP
and SPA Plan and additional measures identified in the Update
Lf3
13
Geotechnical Investigation for the Plaza at Sunbow (Geocon 2000). These
include:
· Mitigation measures 7.1.1 through 7.12.1 contained in the revised
Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Plaza at Sunbow by
Geocon, Inc. (February 2000). Mitigation measures address
geotechnical concerns and potential impacts and the report is on file at
the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. These measures shall be
adhered to, subject to approval by the City of Chula Vista. Mitigation
measures outlined for grading, seismic design, and settlement, slope
stability, and construction of retaining walls, foundations, paving, and
site drainage are hereby incorporated by reference.
· Grading plans shall be reviewed by a qualified geologist prior to
finalization. A qualified geologist shall also review project site plans
to determine appropriate setbacks for development in the vicinity of
the La Nacion fault.
. Additiona] subsurface investigation shal1 also be conducted and
approved by the City of Chula Vista once the location of cut and fil1
slopes are known.
Noise
1. Given the site geometry and the proposed grades for the truck loading area, a
screening wall is required along the north side of the truck loading dock. The
wall must to be high enough to break the line of sight between truck
refrigerator units at the loading dock and a five-foot-high person standing 10
feet back from the edge of the pad. The height will be determined during the
final design. This loading dock wall must break the line of sight and result in
a noise reduction of between 5 and 6 decibels. With this barrier, truck noise
will be reduced to below the 60 dB(A) L""" standard.
"
In addition to the loading dock wall, no deliveries shall be made between
10 P.M. and 7 A.M. Any truck in the process ofloading or unloading goods at
that time shall turn its engine off. The applicant shall install signs at the
delivery site stating "no idling after 10:00 P.M." to insure that trucks do not
idle (aside from their refrigeration units) while unloading.
3. In addition to truck noise, heating and air conditioning systems, if improperly
configured, could produce adverse noise. Specific noise levels resulting from
BY AC equipment wil1 depend upon the size and nature of the equipment, its
placement relative to area homes, and any barriers or enclosures, which might
1i.f
14
---..---.
be built. The current narure and configuration of the HV AC system has yet to
be established. When HV AC equipment has been identified and a design is
available, product-specific acoustical information shall be used to calculate
the effects of potential noise exposure. If predicted noise levels resulting from
these systems exceed the City standards, barriers and/or enclosures shall be
designed to insure compliance. Prior to occupancy, a srudy shall be
completed demonstrating that barriers and enclosures, where needed, have
been constructed and are sufficient to avoid adverse noise effects to area
residents.
Sewer Service
I. At the time detailed development plans are available and prior to issuance of a
grading permit, a sewer study shall be submitted to the City Engineer showing
that the projected sewage flows will not exceed the City-established
thresholds for sewer capacity.
Traffic Circulation
The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce significant
(LOS E) intersection operations at the project driveway to East Palomar Street:
I. Prior to occupancy, the project applicant shall construct a westbound
deceleration/right-turn lane on East PaJomar Street to improve the level of
service at the intersection of the eastern project driveway with East Palomar
Street to an acceptable LOS D during the P.M. peak hour.
F. Consultation
I. City of Chula Vista: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Stan Donn, Project Planner
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager
Applicant's Agent: Mark A. Smith, Project Manager, KitchellsDevelopment Company
') Documents
45
15,
City of Chula Vista
1988 Final EIR 88-1 Sun bow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) PJan
1988 Sunbow II GDP EIR
1989 Chula Vista General Plan
1989 City of Chula Vista EIR
1990 Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan
1990 Addendum to Final EIR 88-1: Sunbow II SPA
1991 City of ChuIa Vista Draft Subarea Plan for the MSCP
Darnell & Associates, Inc.
2000 Traffic Analysis for Sunbow Commercial Development. Prepared
for Kitchell Development Company. March.
Geocon Incorporated
1986 Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rancho Del Sur,
107-acre Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Great
American Development Company, San Diego California.
1987 Interim Investigation summarization for Rancho Del Sur, 600-acre
Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Great Ameri-
can Development Company, San Diego California.
2000 Update Geotechnical Investigation: The Plaza At Sunbow Chula
Vista, California. February.
Otay Water District
1999 Subarea Water Master Plan, John Powell & Associates, Inc. Public
Facilities Financing Plan for the Sunbow IT GDP area.
RECON
:WOO Noise Letter Report. March.
Stevens Cresto Engineering
2000 Sewer Study for The Plaza at Sunbow. Prepared for the City of
Chula Vista, California. April 19.
2000 Preliminary Drainage Study for The Plaza at Sun bow. Prepared
for the City of Chula Vista. California. April 19.
41Q
16
3. Initial Study
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study.
any comments received on the Initial Study, and any comments received
during the public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista.
Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista. California 91910.
Review Coordinator
41
,E
Sunhow SPA Amendment
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
The Plaza at Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Amendments, and CUP (see Figures] and 2)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. California 9]9JO
3. Contact Persons and Phone Number:
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager, (6]9) 691-5097
Marisa Lundstedt. Environmental Projects Manager. (619) 409-5922
18
]
~'-"---'-"'~---"'------~---'-"---
Sunhcm SPA Amendmenl
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
:"ess Tnan
Si9niflcan~
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Tnan
SignifIcant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS, Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or D D D ~
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, D D ~ D
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Comments:
Response to la, The proposed project. including amendments to the approved Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan (1985), CUP. and future shopping center development wiU not result in a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista. The project site is located in an area. which has experienced a high degree of
deve]opment. Future development will be subject to the design standards established in the SPA Plan.
Development of the site was anticipated and the potential em'ironmental impacts were previously
evaluated in the Fina! EIR 88-] and Addendum to the Final EIR 88-] Sunbow II SPA Plan (City of Chula
Vista] 9901. Previously approved mitigation measures and design requirements included in the SPA Plan
and ErR establish guidelines and design criteria for a range of activities including grading, site design,
building setbacks. height limits, lighting. fencing, landscaping, and buffer/edge treatments, among other
techniques. The City Planning Department and other appropriate comminees and departments are
responsible for review to ensure conformity with City requirements.
Response to lb, The project area has been previously graded in conformance with measures included in
the approved EIR. Grading and design requirements are included in the SPA and mitigation measures
included in the EIR. Tbe project wiU alter the appearance of the vacant site, but the land use redesignation
of 2.3 of the] 2.7 acres from residential condominium to Village Commercial along with the construction
of the proposed uses covered under the conditional use pennit will not create new significant aesthetic
impacts. The site does not include visually significant trees. rock outcrops, or historic buildings that may
contribute to the scenic quality of the area.
Response to Ie,
architectural and
See responses Ia and Ib above. Future site development will be subject
landscaping requirements that are part of the proposed SPA amendments.
to the
Future
'-f't
"
Sunbow SPA Amendment
development plans must meet the design standards established for the approved plans. Therefore, project
approval wilJ not result in any significant impact to community aesthetics or visual quality.
Response to Id. See responses Ia and Ib above. Furure development plans may employ outdoor lighting,
signs, and materials that could contribute to light and glare in the project area. Impacts will be reduced to
a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures identified in EIR. This
incJudes use of low-pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lamps in outdoor areas to the extent feasible.
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES, In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environ-
mental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps, prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
o
o
o
~
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
o
o
o
~
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
~
Comments:
Response to lIa. Lands designated and approved for urban development are not included on maps
prepared by the California Resources Agency pursuant to the FMMP. The site is planned and zoned for
development, does not contain designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, and has been graded.
Response to lIb, As stated in la, the areas addressed in the SPA Amendment site are zoned and
designated for development for Residential Condominium and Village Commercial. The conversion of
agriculruraJ land was previously addressed in environmental documents alJowing development of the
Sun bow GDP EIR. Impacts resuhing from the proposed project are therefore, not significant.
50
3
-" .
Sunbow SPA Amendment
Response to lIe, Project approval and eventual development of the project site will not result in
additional pressure to convert farmland to nonagricultural uses. Tbe project site is bordered by existing
development or graded land.
Sl
4
Sun bow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
witt>
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
III. AIR QUAUTY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following detenninations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 Igj 0
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 Igj 0
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
o
o
Igj
o
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 0 Igj 0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 0 0 Igj 0
number of people?
Comments:
Response to IDa, Project approval and subsequent site development will generate an incremental
increase in sbort- and long-term emissions as development of the Village Center in planrung area 8
occurs. Air po\]utants will be generated during both the construction and operations phases. The SPA
Plan Amendment is generally consistent with the approved land use plan that currently allows
development of approximately 109.000 square feet of commercial uses on the site. The proposed
construction of 101,703 square feet is less than currently allowed and is, therefore, consistent with the
goals and objectives of the current Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for San Diego and with the
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Consequently, air emissions associated with this project have been
accounted for in the RAQS and no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated due to implementation of
this project.
The project is calculated to result in a net increase of 3,400 ADT over what was anticipated in the
approved Sunbow GDP EIR 88-1 and Addendum. Using the URBEMIS 7G version 3.2 emissions model
(San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Po\]ution Control District 1999), the net increase in traffic would result
in a projected increase in air emissions of 24 pounds of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG), 48 pounds
of nitrous oxide compounds (NOx), 243 pounds of carbon monoxide (CO), and 18 pounds of particulates
52.
5
Sunhow SPA Amendmem
(PM-] 01 daily. According to the 1996 Emission Inventory for the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB I prepared
by the California Air Resources Board (the most recent year for which this information is available). the
total emissions to the SDAB are 240 tons of ROG. 1.500 tons of CO. 220 tons of NOx. and 120 IOns of
PMlOdaily(CARB 1998).
As such. implementation of the proposed project would result in incremental increases to the air basin of
less than 0.01 percent for each of these compounds. These incremental increases are not considered a
significant air quality impact.
Response to IIIb, See response to IDa above. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in
the RAQS and State Implementation Plan. The Sunbow II GDP Final EIR (1989) identified short-term
significant construction-related impacts associated with previous approval of the planned community.
Existing approvals anticipated development of IOS.900 square feet of retaillcommercial space on the 10-
acre "Village Center" commercial site. The proposed project is consistent with the approved use and will
develop less square footage than allowed. No additional impacts will result ITom approval of the
proposed amendments and subsequent development, Existing federal and state air quality regulations
require that the project implement control measures 10 reduce dust and other criteria pollutants through
use of best management practices !BMPs) during construction and best available control technologies
(BACTs) during the operation of future manufacturing and industrial uses on the site. These may include
sprinkling for dust control. covering excavated dirt. street sweeping, hydroseeding or landscaping as
quickly as possible following disturbance, and controlling equipment emissions during grading and
construction. Individual permits may be required for the operation of new manufacturing and research
facilities to control emissions. Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of BACTs and
BMPs will ensure that impacts remain below a level of significance.
Response to IIIc, See response to IDa above. Project impacts will not be increased from those already
addressed in the approved EIR (19891. Project approval and subsequent development will incrementally
increase existing emissions levels but will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant over the long term.
Response to IIId, See response 10 IDa above. The proposed project land use change will have little
effect on future emissions. The City will review all future site development proposals for conformance
with the amended SPA Plan prior to approval. Depending on the type of facility proposed, additional
permits may be required ITom the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to ensure that
emissions conform with existing state and federal standards. The project will not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential impacts are therefore less than significant.
Response to IIIe, See IDd above. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Proposed amendments 10 the SPA Plans and granting of a conditional use
permit will have no effect. Specific uses will be rev'iewed during the permit process to ensure compliance
at the time site development plans are proposed to ensure conformance with the SPA Plan and existing
regulations. Impacts are less than significant.
5'3
6
.'.__._.__._-.-.._.__.__._..,.. _...."e. _
Sun bow SPA Amendmcnl
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
wi1t1
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Intertere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
[8J
D
[8J
o
[8J
o
[8J
o
[8J
o
[8J
Response to IVa. The project site has been graded and is devoid of any sensitive or native habitat.
Therefore, the proposed project will not impact any plant or wildlife species that are federal- or state-
listed or proposed threatened or endangered, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) covered,
narrow endemic, or hold speciaJ status in policies or regulations by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
5'-1
7
.-.---..----,....------..-..--.-.......--.---
Sunbow SPA Amendment
Response to IVb. The proposed project will not impact any riparian or sensitive habitat since the site
does not support any native vegetation communities and the majority of the site has been graded and is
ready for development.
Response to IV c. There are no wetlands on the proposed project site or in the near vicinity of the site,
Therefore, the project will have no direct or indirect impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Response to IVd. The proposed project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Response to IVe. The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
Response to IVe, The project area lies within an area designated for development (take) by the City of
Chula Vista Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
55
8
-._, ."...._."_._._~.._----------,._._---.~-
Sunbow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
wrth
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
v. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project:
a)
Cause a
significance
~15064.5?
substantial adverse change in the
of a historical resource as defined in
o
o
o
~
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
~15064.5?
o
o
o
~
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
o
o
o
~
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
o
o
o
~
Comments:
Response to Va. The property has been graded in conjunction with the previous approvals on the site, and
there is no evidence of historical resources present. The proposed project will not affect any historical
resources.
Response to Yb. The property has been graded in conjunction with the previous approvals on the site,
and there is no evidence of archaeological resources on the project site.
Response to Yc, The entire site is rough graded and ready for development. The proposed SPA
.tvnendments and conditional use permits will not result in any adctitional gracting of the site. No impacts
to paleontological resources are anticipated.
Response to Yd. There is no evidence of any human remains on the project site.
5'''
9
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Sunbow SPA Amendment
Less Than
Significant
-
MJtigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related
liquefaction?
including
ground
failure,
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
[g]
[g]
[g]
[g]
[g]
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[g]
Geocon, Inc. conducted a geotechnical investigation of the entire Sunbow II site in 1986 and updated the
report in 1987 and 2000. Their report and updates are available at the Planning Department, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910.
51
10
--",.,._._-~~_...-._----"-_._,--._.-.-
,-...
Sunbow SPA Amendmen[
Response to VIa, Development of the proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Active faults, The site is not delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area but is located within the La Nacion fault
zone, which consists of several north/south-trending normal faults. The fault crosses the project
site and is considered "potentially active." There is no evidence, however, that on-site geologic
formations have been offset within the past 11,000 years and the fault is not considered to be a
hazard to development provided development is in conformance with requirements of the
governing jurisdiction, building codes, and standard practices of the Association of Structural
Engineers of California. Although not required, all structures have been located to avoid the fault
and the proposed gas station/car wash (pad F) is located more than 450 feet ITom the fault. The
fault will have no impact to the future performance of the facility (GEOCON 2000). In addition,
the project.will implement all previously approved rnitigation measures identified for the GDP
and SPA Plan and additional measures identified in the Update Geotechnical Investigation: The
Plaza at Sunbow (Geocon 2000). These include:
. Mitigation measures 7.1.1 through 7.12.1 contained in the revised Update by Geocon. Inc.
(February 2000). The report includes mitigation measures addressing geotechnical concerns
and potential impacts and is on file at the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. These
measures shall be adhered to, subject to approval by the City of Chula Vista. Mitigation
measures outlined for grading, seismic design and settlement, slope stability, and
construction of retaining walls. foundations, paving, and site drainage are hereby
incorporated by reference.
. Grading plans shall be re\'iewed by a qualified geologist prior to finalization. A qualified
geologist shall also review project site plans to determine appropriate setbacks for
development in the vicinity of the La Nacion fault.
· Additional subsurface investigation shall also be conducted and approved by the City of
Chula Vista once the location of cut and fill slopes are known.
ii) Seismic ground shaking. The most significant credible seismic event with respect to the subject
site would be a 7.0 magnitude event on the Rose Canyon fault zone. For noncritical structures
such as those proposed, the most significant probable seismic event would be a magnitude 6.4
event on the Rose Canyon fault zone. By designing structures to comply with the requirements
of the governing jurisdictions. building codes, and standard practices of the Association of
Structural Engineers of California, potentially significant ground shaking impacts will be
reduced to below a significant level.
iii) Ground failure, including liquefaction, The property has been graded in conformance with the
previous approvals on the site and potentially liquefiable soils have been removed and replaced
5~
]]
Sunh{)\\ Sf'.':'" ..:....m~ndm~n!
\,"jlf; ~'()n1pa;:"1t:c.. The potential for liquefaction 10 occur at the site after standard de\"eJapment
~rc':t:duTes are impJernented ]s. considered less than sifnific~mt.
IV) Landslides. The property has been graded in conformance with the previous approvals on the
site. adhering to the recommended rrutigation measures to reduce potential landslide impacts to
below a significant level.
Response to \'Ib. The proposed project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The project site has been rough graded to prepare the site for future deveJopment. Slopes have been
stabilized and Joose. compressible soils found on the site have been removed and replaced as a compacted
fill. This reduces potential impacts to below a significant Jevel.
Response to \'Ie, The proposed project site is located in an area known for day beds and loose,
compressibit soils. The day beds create a potential for seepage due to the rrugration of perched
ground,,'ateT to slope faces along the day bed. These conditions were rrutigated during rough grading of
the site bv construction of earthen buttresses on unstable slopes_ Drains are installed at the rear of the
huttres;.;:=:- t(1 contro] g.-ound\\'ater migration.
~jj\ i~)~\:.;::. :~):;lDre:::;sibj~ .'-;oils found on the sile haye been remcwed and replaced as a conlpacted fill in
ar:'Oas which ,,'i]j be subj:'Octed to new filJ or structural loads. This reduces potential impacts to below a
significam ]e",e1.
Response to Yld. The property has been graded in conformance with the pre\'ious approvals on the site,
adhering to the recomm:'Onded rrutigation measures to reduce potential expansive soils impacts to below a
signif1:ant level.
Response to '-Ie. Public sewer and water wil] serye the proposed project site. _A.s a result. aeyelODnlent
wil1 DOL resul;: in significant impacts.
Sq
12
,
"
..'-,.,
Sunbow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
wl1h
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
[g]
[g]
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
[g]
[g]
[g]
[g]
[gJ
[g]
Response to VIla, Although some of the uses of the project area have been identified at this time (e.g.,
gas station. fast food operation, market, drug store) some specific retail or food uses have yet to be
(pO
),3
Suno(>\\ SPA Amendment
determined. Any use that might involve the routine transport. use. or disposal of hazardous materials will
be subject to local and state regulations regarding such uses. Businesses that handle. use. or dispose of
hazardous substances are subject to review and approval from County of San Diego Health Department.
Hazardous Materials Division. Air Pollution Control District, and/or Regional Water Quality Control
Board (NPDES General Industria] Permit) prior to operation. Permits are required for automobile-related
facilities such as the gas station and car wash, and any other regulated uses. CEQA Guidelines Section
15064, subsection (h)(l )(A). provides that a change in the environment is not considered significant if it
complies with a standard that was adopted for the purpose of controlling the significance of that change.
A standard may include a rule. regulation. statute. ordinance. or order that has been adopted by any public
agency after a public review.
Response to VIIb. See response VIla above. Businesses that use, store, or transport hazardous materials
must receive permits prior to occupancy. Depending on the use, this may include approval ITom the Fire
Department-Hazardous Materials Management Division. County of San Diego Health Department-
Hazardous Materials Management Division for Plan Review. and/or San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District. Regulations requiring permit approval appJy to proposed uses such as the gas station and
car wash.
Response to VlIc. The Sunbow Planned Community District Regulations state that "'No land or building
shall be used or occupied in any manner which creates an unhealthful. dangerous, noxious or otherwise
objectionable condition due to the use. storage or proximity to toxic materials:' Implementation of this
performance standard will guarantee that all future uses in the proposed Village Center Commercial area
wil1 not create a public hazard due to the use of hazardous materials.
Response to VlId, The proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Response to VIle. The proposed project is not located within the adopted (Brown Field) airport land use
plan. Thus. the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Response to VIll, There is no printe airstrip in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project will
not pose any safety hazard for people working at the project site or in its vicinity.
Response to VlIg, The proposed SPA amendments propose only slight changes to adopted land uses or
regulations. The project will not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Response to VIlli. The proposed project site IS ~enerallv surrounded bv existing or approved future
development and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury. or death
involving wildland fires.
CoI
14
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Sunb0w SPA Amendment
less Than
Significam
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
,,2.
15
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
~
~
~
~
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
~
~
~
~
Sunoow SPA Amendmcnl
Comments:
Response to VIlla, Runoff flowing from impervious surfaces typicaIJy contains polJutants such as oils,
fuel residues. and heavy metals, which would diminish water quality in downstream water. Runoff ITom
future development of the site will be controlled and subject to Nationa] Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) pennitting. In addition, mitigation measures to protect water quality have been
implemented during preliminary site preparation as described in Response VIIIf below. Project
compliance with all federal, state, and local water quality standards and waste discharge requirements
must be demonstrated prior to receiving building and occupancy pennits.
Response to VlIIb, Based on Otay Water District (OWD) planning criteria, the Subarea Water Master
Plan for Sunbow provides potable and recycled water distribution systems and presents a phased
implementation plan for the proposed system improvements that ....ill not significantly affect the amount
of water available for public water supplies.
Response to VIIlc, The project site has been graded, and the proposed SPA amendments will not
significantly affect the previously approved drainage plan for the project site. Implementation of the
storm drain plan ,,'iIJ reduce impacts resulting ITom alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters to a
less th~n signjfic~nt 1evel.
Response to VlIId, The EIR prepared for the Sun bow II planned community (City of Chula Vista 1989)
identified genera] drainage mitigation measures that have been implemented with the adoption of each
SPA affected by the proposed project. An updated report prepared for the proposed project confirms that
no additional impacts or mitigation measures will be required to accommodate the SPA amendments and
CUP (Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc. 2000a).
Response to YIlIe, The property has been graded in conjunction with the previous approvals on the site,
adhering to the recommended mitigation measures. These measures are described in the approved GDP
and SPA EIRs and are included in Response VlIIf below. These measures will reduce potential drainage
impacts to below a significant level. Runoff from future development of the site will be controlJed and
subject to :NPDES pennitting.
Response to YlIlf, The propeny has been graded in conjunction with the previous approvals on the site,
imp1ementing recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential water quality impacts to below a
significant level. These measures require:
1. Plan coordination and approval of pad construction by the City Public Works Department; to collect
and direct surface waters away from proposed structures to approved drainage facilities:
.,
Ongoing maintenance of drainage facilities: installation of subdrains under all fill locations in existing
drainage courses to be determined during grading: inspection and approval of placement of such
faciJities by the engineering geologist prior to fill placement:
~~
]6
Sunbow SPA Amendment
3. Erosion control measures, including revegetation of sJopes with drought-resistant vegetation and
monitoring of irrigation amounts and timing: and
4. Ongoing maintenance of drainage devices, including berms, swa]es, area drains, slopes, brow ditches,
retention basins, terrace drains, and down drains to avoid blockages or ponding.
In addition, for the management of storm water, municipalities in the San Diego region, including the City
of Chula Vista, must comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's NPDES Permit No. CA
0108758. The NPDES permit consists of wastewater discharge requirements for storm water and urban
runoff. Specifically, the applicant is required to implement post-construction best management practices
rBMPs) to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems ITom the gas station, car wash, restaurants,
parking lots, and trash collection areas. In compliance with Permit No. CA 0108758, a BMP program for
storm water pollution control has been created. BMPs appropriate to the characteristics of a project may
be employed to reduce pollutants available for transport or to reduce the amount of pollutants in runoff
prior to discharge to a surface water body. BMPs may include one or all of the following where increases
in impervious surfaces substantially increase runoff rates and volumes:
i. Detention basins to trap pollutants, controJ reJease rates. and minimize downstream effects.
~
Infiltration basins to hold runoff and allow percolation into the ground.
3. Infiltration trenches and dry wells, holes, or trenches filled with aggregate and then covered.
4. Porous pavement such as lattice pavers or porous asphalt used to replace large areas of paving that are
not subject to heavy traffic.
,
Vegetative controls to intercept rainfall and filter pollutants and absorb nutrients.
6. Grass-lined swales or similar construction in place of a buried storm drain, usually in residential areas.
7. Nonstrucrural methods, such as controlling litter and waste disposal practices.
Project approval will not result in impacts to water quality that have not been considered in the previous
EIR. The project must comply with existing NPDES permit requirements and with previously identified
mitigation measures that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The development resulting from
the proposed SPA amendments and CUP will not substantially degrade water quality. Impacts associated
with development are therefore, less than significant.
Response to VIUg, The proposed project does not include housing and is not located within a 100-year
flood hazard area.
Response to VlIIh, The proposed project is not located within a I DO-year flood hazard area.
c..'1
17
Sunbow SPA Amendment
Response to VIlli, The proposed project is not located downstream from a dam and does not propose
construction of a levee or dam.
Response to Vmj, The distance between the subject site and the coast, and the site's elevation above sea
level. preclude damage due to seismically induced waves (tsunamis) or seiches. Due to the elevation of
the site and lack of river tributaries or lakes, the probability for earthquake-induced flooding is negligible.
10$
18
Sunoc)\I" SPA Amendmem
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
wrth
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Signifiean!
Impact
No Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
D
D
D
D
D
~
~
D
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation or an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
D
o
D
~
Comments:
Response to IXa. The proposed project will not divide an established community. The proposed SPA
plan is designed to improve the functionality of the Village Center Commercial area per Section I.J.E
Density Transfer of the Sunbow SPA Plan which states that a density transfer between Planning Areas
must improve "spatial or functional relationships." The project provides the required area necessary to
develop a community shopping center to serve the approved land uses.
Response to IXb, Tbe proposed SPA amendments and shopping center development (see Figures 3
through 5) will not change the ultimate uses that are planned and allowed for the affected areas.
Response to IXc, Tbe proposed project site is graded and located in an area already planned for
development. The subject property will, therefore, not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or
natura] community conservation plan (see City of Chula Vista Draft Subarea Plan for the MSCP, and
Figure:2 of the MSCP [August 1996]).
G,I,.,
]9
Sunhow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
lmpacl
Less Than
Significant
-
Mitigation
IncorporatIon
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
[8J
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
o
o
o
[8J
Comments:
Geocon Incorporated prepared a report of EIR-Level Geotechnical Investigation of the Sun bow II site in
1987. The report is availab]e for review at the Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California 9]910.
Response to Xa, The proposed project site does not contain significant mineral deposits and is not located
in either of the two aggregate resource sectors identified by the State Mining and Geology Board as being
of regional significance (see Figure 3-] of the City of Chula Vista"s General Plan Update EIR [SCH
#88052511]).
Response to Xb, The project site is not located within the Otay !liver valley and is not designated for
mineral resource protection according to the City of Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR (SCH
#88052511). Deve]opment of the site wil1 have no impact on a locally important mineral resource.
101
20
Sunbow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
~
o
o
o
o
D
D
~
o
o
D
~
D
o
~
~
Response to XIa. The proposed project is to amend the SPA Plan and adopt the Conditional Use Permit.
The approved Sun bow II Final EIR (1989) concludes that the unmitigated worst-case future noise levels
will not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels community noise equivalent level [dB (A) CNEL].
A noise analysis was prepared by RECON on March 20, 2000 to reevaluate the project. A focus of the
analysis was to address the effect of delivery trucks to the project site, and potential noise emanating ITom
heating and air conditioning equipment associated with the proposed market. Multi-family residential use
is approved for the property immediately north of the proposed project site in the vicinity of project uses
that could generate noise. The current site design places the loading dock at the northern edge of the
market, approximately 100 feet ITom the residential property boundary to the north. Tbe analysis also
discussed impacts from the proposed gas station/car wash and general retail and food service operations.
(qg
21
Sunbow SPA Amendment
The City of Chula Vista has established noise guidelines and an adopted noise ordinance. For multiple
dwelling residential uses between the hours of 7 :00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., the exterior noise limit at the
receiving land use is 60 decibels average hourJy noise level (L..). Between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and
7:00 A.M.. the limit is 50 decibels.
The noise study indicated that, with the proposed truck delivery operations to the market, impacts to off-
site residences will exceed City thresholds and are considered significant. Noise levels associated with
three truck deliveries per hour to the market" s loading dock are calculated to reach 69 decibels at a
distance J 00 feet ITom the source. The level would decrease to 63 decibels if only a single delivery is
made per hour.
Using a reasonable maximum delivery cycle of one truck (with a refrigeration unit) per hour, mitigation
would be needed to achieve a three-decibel reduction and meet the City's 60-decibel daytime limit. This
is the level necessary to reduce significant noise impacts to off-site residential areas.
Noise levels resulting from the proposed operation of the gas station/car wash, two drive-through fast
food operations. and retaillfood uses are not calculated to exceed threshold standards at the property
boundary of the nearest residentiaJ area. lmpacts from these uses are therefore less than significant.
The following mitigation is required to reduce significant noise impacts to the off-site residential area
located north of the proposed project market:
. A screening wall shall be provided along the north side of the truck loading dock. The wall shall be
high enough to break the line of sight between the ITont-end refrigerator unit of any truck at the
loading dock and a receiver measuring five feet high standing ten feet back ITom the edge of the pad.
The loading dock wall shall break the line of sight and result in a noise reduction of between 5 and 6
decibels. With this barrier. truck noise will be reduced to below the 60 dB(A) L 'J standard.
'q,
. No deliveries shall be made between JO P.M. and 7 A.M., and truck engines shall be turned off and not
idled during this time. The developer shall post "No Idling After 10:00 P.M" signs in the delivery area
to ensure that trucks do not idle (aside from their refrigeration units) while unloading.
In addition to truck noise, heating and air conditioning systems, if improperly configured, could produce
adverse noise. Specific noise levels resulting from HV AC equipment will depend upon the size and
nature of the equipment. its placement relative to area homes. and any barriers or enclosures which might
be built.
Potentially significant noise impacts from the exterior operation of building heating and cooling
equipment can be addressed at the time HV AC 'equipment has been identified and a design is available.
At this time. product-specific acoustical information shall be used to calculate the effects of potential
noise exposure. If predicted noise levels resulting from these systems exceed the City standards, barriers
and/or enclosures sha11 be designed to reduce impacts to below the 60 decibel threshold and insure
,,~
~~
Sunbow SPA Amendment
compliance. Prior 10 occupancy. a study shall be completed demonstrating that barriers and enclosures
have been adopted 10 insure no adverse noise effects to area residents.
Response to XIb, The Village Center anticipates future commercial uses. These uses are not expected to
generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels in the project area.
Response to XIc, See response XIa.
Response to XId, See response XIa. During construction, equipment could generate temporary noise.
The proposed project will be subject to the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. The
Noise Ordinance does not establish significance thresholds for short-term construction noise and impacts
are considered less than significant.
Response to XIe. The proposed project is not within the Brown Field land use plan.
Response to XH. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
,0
"
-,)
Sunhcm SPA Amendment
ISSUE
P01entlaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SIgnihcan1
wilh
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
[gJ
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
o
o
o
[gJ
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
[gJ
Comments:
Response to XIla. The proposed SPA Amendments and CUP, if approved, will result in the development
of a shopping center. Planned commurrities have either been approved or are under construction on alJ
four sides of the proposed project site. To the north is the existing Sharp Hospital Medical Center. To the
east, south, and west is existing or graded residential development. The project will provide access to
these planned communities consistent with the Ciry's adopted plans for development. Since the project
represents no fundamental change to the adopted land uses or regulations for the project site, it will
neither directly nor indirectly induce population growth not already planned for in the area.
Response to XIIb, The proposed project will not displace existing housing nor require replacement
housing because the project is located on undeveloped and vacant land.
Response to XIlc, See response XIIb above.
,I
24
Sun bow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
-
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ~
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ~
c) Schools? 0 0 0 ~
d) Parks? 0 0 0 ~
e) Other public facilities? 0 ~ 0 0
Comments:
Response to XIIIa. The proposed SPA amendments and CUP will not change the need for fire service in
the area as previously analyzed in the Sunbow II EIR, Addendum (City of Chula Vista 1989, 1990) and
subsequent approvaJs. The ChuJa Vista Fire Department currently meets the standard threshold for fire
protection for the Sun bow planned community area. Relocation of Fire Station Number 3 from its current
location on East Oneida to Brandywine by the end of 200 I ensures that the City will continue to meet
fire/EMS Threshold Standards.
Response to XIIIb, The proposed SPA amendments and CUP will not change the requirement to pay
public facilities fees for police services based on equivalent dwelling milts by development phase at the
rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. This citywide level nritigation will reduce current
police service deficiencies to below a level of significance.
Currently, the police department is addressing the threshold standard for deficiency by preparing a long-
range strategic plan and a police facility master plan. The strategic plan will evaluate service levels, staff
levels, methods of development, and any other factors related to service delivery. This will also include
an evaluation of the established threshold, which may need to be adjusted. The public facility master plan
will address the possibility of relocating the current police facility to a more central location.
12-
25
Sun bow SPA Amendment
Response to XlIIc. The proposed project wilJ not generate an increase in dwelling units or population in
the project area. Therefore, the proposed SPA Amendments and CUP will not result in a need for new or
altered school facilities or services.
Response to Xilld, The proposed project wi\] not generate an increase in dwelling umts or population in
the project area. Therefore, the proposed SPA Amendments and CUP will not result in a need for new
parks or park services.
Response to XIDe, Preliminary plans for the commercial site provide for a project sewer generation rate
consistent with criteria established by the City of Chula Vista (2,500 gallons per day per acre). A
preliminary sewer study prepared by Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc, (2000) for the proposed 2.4-acre
increase indicates that the additional sewage generated ITom the proposed development can be
accommodated by the City sewer collection systems. At the time detailed development plans are
available and prior to issuance of a grading permit, a sewer study shall be submitted to the City Engineer
showing that the projected sewage flows wi\] not exceed the City-established thresholds for sewer
capacity.
,3
.lfS
Sun bow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impac!
Less Than
Significam
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIV. RECREATION,
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur Dr be accelerated?
o
o
o
[gJ
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
o
o
o
[gJ
Comments:
Response to XIV a, The proposed project will not result in additional residential development and
corresponding population and. therefore. will not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational faci]jties.
Response to XIVb, The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities and does not require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
,'1
27
..~: .
ISSUE
Sunno\\' SPA Amendment
Potentially
Significan1
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTAll0NfTRAFFIC, Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
D
~
D
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D ~ D
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 ~ 0
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs D D ~ D
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
Response to XV a, The proposed SPA Amendments and conditional use permit will not result in a
significant change in the land use and will not substantially change the traffic impacts projected for the
Medical Center Drive and East Palomar intersection (Traffic Analysis for Sunbow Commercial
Development I the City of Chula Vista, prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc. March 2000). Tbe
following discussion is based on the alternative project discussion included in the traffic study in order to
present a worst-case analysis of potential impacts. The net change in traffic volumes and peak hour
impacts will be increased by approximately 3,367 daily trips due to the proposed changes. All project
study area roads will operate at an acceptable LOS C or bener and all study area roadways and
intersections will operate at acceptable LOS C or bener with the exception of the intersection of the
project driveway with East Palomar Street. This intersection will degrade from a projected year 2010 LOS
C for the approved project to LOS E during the evening peak hour on]y. Proposed mitigation foI"impacts
,?
')f(
Sunoa,," SPA Amendment
at the driveway intersection with East Pa]omar Street is construction of a westbound deceJeration/righl-
turn lane. The addition of the westbound right-turn lane wi\] improve the level of service to an acceptable
LOSD.
Response to XVb, See Response XV a above.
Response to XVc, The proposed project is not located in or near an air traffic corridor and will not
adversely affect the safety of such a flight pattern.
Response to XVd, The proposed project has no hazardous design features. Project access IS from
Medical Center Drive and East Palomar.
Response to XVe, Emergency access to the project site will be incorporated into future development
plans.
Response to xvr, The proposed project includes adequate parking capacity, which is based on City
Design Guidelines.
Response to XVg. The proposed project does not conflict with any adopted policies. plans. or programs
supporting alternative transportation.
7~
29
Sunbow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentially
Signlticant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
-
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[8J
o
[8J
o
o
[8J
o
o
[8J
o
[8J
[8J
o
[8J
Response to XVla, Preliminary plans for the commercial site provide for a project generation rate
consistent with criteria established by the City Chula Vista (2,500 gallons per day per acre). The change
to the peak flow generated by the proposed project is therefore estimated at 0.011 cubic feet per second.
Sewer service currently exists in the project area, and pipe capacity impacts were determined to be
negligible (Sewer Study for the Plaza at Sun bow, Stevens-Cresto Engineering, Inc. 2000). At the time
detailed development plans are available and prior to issuance of a grading permit, a study shall be
submitted to the City Engineer showing that the projected flows will not exceed the City-established
thresholds for sewer capacity.
Response to XVIb, See Response X'VIa.
.on
30
,..,..-...-...-.-
Sun bow SPA Amendment
Response to XYlc, The storm water drainage facilities proposed for Village Center and residential
condominiums will be located in the existing street system. Impacts related to the construction of storm
drainage facilities are expected to be less than significant.
Response to XVld. The proposed SPA amendments and CUP will not alter the potable and recycled
water supply requirements already evaluated for the Sunbow II EIR (City of Chula Vista 1989). Adequate
potable and recycled water storage and distribution facilities will be constructed in accordance with the
existing Subarea Master Plan for the SPA plan and to the satisfaction of the Otay Water District. These
water infrastructure improvements are also described in the existing Public Facilities Financing Plans
IPFFPs) for the area. The PFFP identifies the development impact fees (DIPs) that the applicant needs to
pay to mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, and the applicant's obligation to construct or
pay for the necessary mitigation.
Response to XVle, The proposed SPA amendments and CUP will not alter the existing sewage treatment
capacity in the city of Chula Vista.
Response to XYlf, Impacts are considered not significant in the Final GDP EIR 88-1. The proposed
project wou1d develop less than the maximum floor area allowed under existing approvals. would not be
expected to generate a substantial increase in waste in comparison to the approved project. and would
therefore remain less than significant. Additionally, waste disposal needs will be minimized by
incorporation of recycling and waste reduction measures identified in the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element of the County's Integrated Waste Management Plan (1996).
Response to XVIg, See Response XVIf above.
1'g
3]
Sunbow SPA Amendment
ISSUE
Potentialiy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
ND Impact
XVII. THRESHOLD ANALYSIS, Would the project:
a) Exceed the City's fire/EMS Threshold Standards? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Exceed the City's police Threshold Standards? 0 0 ~ 0
c) Exceed the City's traffic Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
d) Exceed the City's parks/recreation Threshold 0 0 0 ~
Standards?
e) Exceed the City's drainage Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
f) Exceed the City's sewer Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
g) Exceed the City's water Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
h) Exceed the City's air quality Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
i) Exceed the City's economics Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
j) Exceed the City's schools Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
k) Exceed the City's libraries Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
Response to XVIIa, The Ciry's threshold standards require that fire and medical units must be able to
respond to calls within seven minutes or less in 85 percent of the cases and within five minutes or less in
75 percent of the cases. Fire Station No.3 is expected to be relocated ITom its current location on East
Oneida to Brandywine by the end of 2001. This move will allow the threshold standard to be met. In
addition. the proposed project will not significantly affect accomplishment of this threshold standard as
there is a supplemental agreement with the landowner for a fire and/or police station,
Response to XVlIb, The Ciry's threshold standards require that police units must respond to 84 percent
of Priority 1 calls within seven minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Pliority I
calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.1 percent of Priority 2 calls within seven
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Prioriry 2 calls of seven minutes or less. This
standard has not been met over the last seven years. The Police Department has initiated efforts to
-,'1
'0
,L
Sun00'" SPA Amendment
address the response time deficiency (i.e., evaluation of staffing needs. service delivery areas. deployment
methods, and false alarms ITom new residential development). See also response XYlIa above.
As future development of the proposed project area proceeds. there will be incremental contributions to
current threshold deficiency in responding to Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls within the area. Development
fees and increased tax revenues to the City from the proposed development would provide additional
officers for the reporting districts. The proposed project will comply with this threshold standard.
Response to XVlIc, The threshold standards require that all intersections must operate at a level of
service (LOS) C or better, with the exception that LOS D may occur during the peak two hours of the day
at signalized intersections. Under City thresholds, signalized intersections west of I-80S which do not
meet the City-wide standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not
worsen. No intersection may reach LOS E or F during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of
arterials with ITeeway ramps are exempted from the standard. The East Palomar Street/Medical Center
Drive signalized intersection is predicted to operate at a LOS D during peak hour operations with or
without the project. Impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Response to )",,'lId, The City's threshold standard for parks does not apply to this project.
Because the proposed project does not generate dwelling units or population in the project area, it will not
adversely impact City of Chula Vista threshold standards for parks and recreation.
Response to )"','Ile. The City's threshold standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent
with the drainage master plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed SPA amendments and
CUP will not prevent the project from meeting City standards. The City of Chula Vista requires that
increased runoff from urbanization be detained to levels at or below natural conditions for the 10-, 50-,
and 100-year frequency storms. Future development at the project site must comply with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board's NPDES Perrrut No. CA 0108758. Best Management Practices appropriate
to the characteristics of the project must be employed to reduce pollutants available for transport or to
reduce the amount of pollutants in runoff prior to discharge to a surface water body. The project will not
result in any significant changes to the drainage panerns and implementation of BMPs will result in storm
water discharge volumes which meet the established City threshold.
Response to XVIIf. The threshold standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the
sewer master plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. City of Chula Vista Ordinance Number 2533
established the sewer impact fee to be paid for future development within the Telegraph Canyon Trunk
Sewer System. The current fee is $216.50 and is subject to annual adjustment. The number of equivalent
dwelling units for the proposed project will be determined during the building permit process. Payment
of the fees will mitigate potentia] adverse impacts to the sewer system to below a significant level.
8D
"
...,")
Sunhow SPA Amendment
Response to XYIIg, The threshold standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water qualiry standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. Supply of potable water wi\] be furnished ITom Otay Water
District reservoirs and pump stations and conveyed to the site by graviry through existing District
transmission mains. Recycled water wi\] be used to irrigate aU landscaped areas, including lawns, planted
borders, and road slopes and medians.
Response to XVIIh, The threshold standard for air quality states that "the Ciry shall annually provide the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District with a 12- to l8-month development forecast and request an
evaluation of its impact on current and future air qualiry management programs, along with recent air
qualiry data. The growth forecast and APCD response letters shall be provided to the Growth
Management Ordinance (GMO) for inclusion in its annual review."
The Regional Air Qualiry Strategy is based on growth projections derived from community and general
plan land use designations, The project area parcels are in the ciry of Chula Vista, which is within the San
Diego Air Basin. The 1991/1992 RAQS, as revised by the required 1994 triennial update, are being
implemented by APCD throughout the air basin. If a project is consistent with the City's General Plan. it
can be considered consistent with the growth assumptions in the RAQS (State of California 1989). The
proposed project is generally consistent with Chula Vista's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with the growth assumptions in the RAQS.
The proposed project is not growth inducing and has been designed to accommodate transit planning
principles and bicycle and pedestrian routes as part of the SPA Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the R:o.QS and satisfies the threshold standard for air qualiry.
Response to XVIIi, The goal for economics is "to provide land uses and activities which respond to the
economic needs of the residents and the City of Chula Vista." The threshold standard is as follows:
]. The City shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report that provides an evaluation of the
impacts of gro'W1h on the city, in terms of both operation and capital improvements. This report
should evaluate actual gro\\1h over the previous l2-month period, as well as projected growth over the
next 12- to l8-month period and 3- to 5-year period.
~
The City shall be provided with an annual economic monitoring report that provides an analysis of
economic development activity and indicators over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected
growth over the next 12- to 18-month period and 3- to 5-year period.
The existing fiscal analysis for the project area estimated City revenues, expenditures, and the resulting
net fiscal impact on the city, which was determined to be positive. All of the relevant City threshold
issues are e,'aluated in the report, which is available for review at the Planning Department, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California 9] 910. The proposed SPA amendments and CUP would not
significantly affect the existing fiscal analysis except to increase the income producing potential of the
area, This is considered a positive impact. .
S?I
i.J.
''-'.
Sunhow SPA Amendment
Response to XVIIj, The City's goal with respect to schools is "to ensure that the Chula Vista City School
District and Sweetwater Union High School District have the necessary school sites and funds to meet the
needs of the students in new development areas in a timely manner," The proposed project would not
result in the construction of any residential units and would not add to the city's school population.
Therefore, the threshold standard for schools is not applicable to the project and causes no impact.
Response to XVIIk, The goal for the libraries is to "provide a high quality, contemporary library system
which meets the varied needs of the community." The threshold standard for the population ratio for
library facilities is to provide 500 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed libraries per
1,000 population. The proposed Project would not result in the construction of any residential units and
would not add to the city" s population. Therefore, the threshold standard for libraries is not applicable to
the project and causes no impact.
gz.
35
ISSUE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Sun bow SPA Amendment
less Than
Significant
-
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY ANDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE,
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects. )
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
83
36
o
o
o
o
o
o
(gJ
(gJ
(gJ
o
o
o
Sun bow SPA Amendment
Response to XVlIIa, See responses to Sections IV and V.
Response to XVIIIb, The proposed SPA amendments and CUP provides a minor 2.3-acre increase in
area and allows development of uses consistent with a commercial area as designated. The project is
anticipated by the existing plan and will not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts when viewed
in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects,
Response XVIllc. The project will not result in substantial, long-term adverse effects. Adverse effects
identified in this checklist associated with noise, traffic/circulation, and sewer service can be mitigated by
the measures listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
~i
37
Sunbow SPA Amendment
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the
future design, construction, or operation of the project.
XX, AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read, understood, and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation
measures contained herein and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. , Failure to sign the line provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and/or Operator's desire that the Project
be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an
Environmental Impact Report.
Signature
/1,{i--
,}
s- It '3 Iou
, ,
Date
~,~{ ~ r/u{I'{
^ c r 5.J,,~o..,J I-l- C
~ I
Printed Name
Agent For
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the preceding pages.
D Aesthetics
o Biological Resources
o Hazards & Hazardous Materials
o Mineral Resources
o Public Services
~ Utilities / Service Systems
D Agriculture Resources
o Cultural/Paleontological Resources
o Hydrology / Water Quality
~ Noise
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
D Air Quality
~ Geology / Soils
o Land Use / Planning
o Population / Housing
~ Transportation / Traffic
ss
,,iB,
...::.---
Sunhow SPA Amendment
XXII, DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, D
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, [8J
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, D
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect( s) on the environment, but at D
least one effect: 1) has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this determination.
0(hl~ /~./(/J~ ~'
Signatur j
~//-o/O{)
Date
B~k,a R~ie f'vlf2.r i trY) 1-. F:Po YlSt?-yj i
Printed Name E:""Vir.oY)~rtt~1 R~jGw
{!./)Dr~II1a:fI)l'-
Citv of Chula Vista
~&II:
81p
39
Sunbow SPA Amendment
SOURCE REFERENCES CITED
Tbe following documents used during the preparation of the initial study/environmental checklist are
availab]e for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning Department located at 276 Fourth A venue, Chula
Vista, California 91910.
California Air Resources Board
1998 Emission Inventory 1996, Prepared by Technical Support Division, Emission Inventory
Branch. October.
Chula Vista, City of
1978 General Plan.
1989 Chula Vista General Plan, July 1989. Update.
1989 Final EIR 88-1 Sunbow General Development Plan Pre-Zone (SCH No. 88121423). September.
1990 Addendum to the Final EIR 88-1 Sun bow II SPA Plan.
] 996 Draft Subarea Plan - Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Darnell & Associates, Inc.
2000 Traffic Analysis for Sunbow Commercial Development in the City of Chula Vista. March 24.
Geocon Incorporated
1986 Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rancho Del Sur, 107-Acre Parcel. San Diego
County, California. Prepared for Great i\merican Development Company, San Diego,
California.
] 987 Interim Investigation Summarization for Rancho Del Sur, 600-Acre Parcel, San Diego County,
California. Prepared for Great American Development Company, San Diego, California.
2000 Update Geotechnical Investigation Tbe Plaza at Sunbow Chu]a Vista, California. February.
MilJer. Laymon N.. and Robert M. Hoover
] 989 Noise Control for Building and Manufacturing Plants Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
RECON
] 984 Noise Analysis for De La Plaza Encinitas. March 23.
San Diego. County of
] 992 ] 991/] 992 Regiona] Air Quality Strategy. Air Pollution Control District. June.
81
40
Sunbow SPA Amendment
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
1999 URBEMIS7G Computer Program User's Guide and program, version 3.2. September 28.
Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc.
2000a Preliminary Drainage Study for the Plaza at Sunbow, April 19,
2000b Sewer Study for The Plaza at Sunbow. April 19 .
~
41
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation monitoring program was prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the
Plaza at Sunbow to comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which requires public agencies to
adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This
monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation
measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
throughout the project approval process.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the
mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating information on the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes
the following:
. Monitoring team qualifications
. Specific monitoring activities
. Reponing system
. Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The Plaza at Sunbow project occupies approximately 12.7 acres northeast of the
intersection of East Palomar Street and Medical Center Drive. The project consists of
amendments to Sun bow Sectional Planning Areas (SPAs) to allow the proposed
commercial uses. The project also includes a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a
greater variety of uses necessary to meet the needs of future shopping center tenants. In
addition, Design Review is required for the project's commercial uses.
The project consists of a change in land use designation within the Sunbow SPA Plan to
allow for a change of 2.3 acres from Residential Condominium to Village Center.
Proposed amendments will provide an improved use of the Village Center Commercial
area (SPA S) by creating a configuration that will suppon the shopping center proposed
for the site.
The project is subject to design guidelines established by the approved general
development plan (GDP) and SPA Plan as amended by the project. Design plans for the
proposed commercial uses must be approved prior to implementation.
8Cf
, ,
The project incJudes a CUP to allow 24-hour operations at businesses that may locate in
the shopping center and to allow uses such as drive-through service for restaurants and a
drug store; liquor sales at the proposed grocery and drug stores; and operation of a gas
station and possibly a car wash, among other uses.
Commercial uses consist of an approximately 10],703- to 108,831-square-foot shopping
center on approximately 12.7 acres. The proposed uses include a 57,54]-square-foot
grocery store, 14,884-square-foot drug store, and an estimated six to seven additional
pads for buildings ranging in size ITom 2,800 square feet to 7.500 square feet.
Anticipated uses on the additional pads include fast food service, retail uses, and a gas
station and automatic car wash. The location of the proposed gas station is currently
planned east of the primary entrance to the shopping center, near the intersection of East
Palomar StreetlHigh Cloud Drive in the southeastern project area. The project will
provide a total of 522-553 parking spaces on-site in accordance with the City's Zoning
Ordinance parking standards for the proposed uses. Primary access to the shopping
center will be ITom entrances on East Palomar Street and Medical Center Drive. Site
access will also be available from another entrance on Medica] Center Drive and ITom
High Cloud Drive on the east.
The project includes a landscape easement over the steep slope in the northern portion of
the site that abuts the Residential Condominium land use area near the existing Medical
Center. Landscaping and maintenance of the slope will be provided by the proposed
project.
The City of Chula Vista prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The
Mitigated Negative DecJaration is a "tiered" document, incorporating by reference
infonnation from previously prepared EIRs, incJuding the ] 988 Final EIR 88-] Sunbow II
SPA Plan and 1990 Sunbow II SPA Addendum to Final EIR 88-], Sunbow General
Development Plan EIR, 1989 Chula Vista General Plan, and City of Chula Vista General
Plan EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring Team
City of Chula Vista staff will monitor for the mitigation measures that are adopted as
conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team will be the
responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor.
Program Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings must take place between all the parties
involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority
of the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in detail will be
qO
..,
addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss
specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts, A City
of Chula Vista staff member will be responsible for all project monitoring and will have a
complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista. A copy
of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be provided to the City of Chula
Vista, the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department, the Mitigation Monitor, and the
construction crew supervisor. A specific list of mitigation measures has been prepared to
list monitoring tasks and the appropriate time ITame that these mitigations are anticipated
to be implemented.
ActioDS in Case of Noncompliance
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the
adopted conditions of approval:
. Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
. Infraction that initiates an immediate corrective action (no work or task delay); and
· Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
In all three cases, the MM would notify the Plaza at Sun bow contractor.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program
should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies
and may be used by the City include "stop work" orders. fines and penalties (civil),
restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties
involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of the Monitor.
Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of
Chula Vista.
The following text includes a summary of the project impacts and a list of all the
associated mitigation measures. The monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
mitigation measures are properly implemented are incorporated into the measures. All
the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are anticipated to be translated into
conditions of project approval. In addition, once the project has been approved and prior
to its implementation, the mitigation measures shall be further detailed.
qr
,
-'
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes all the project impacts and lists all the associated
mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are
properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration are recommended to be translated into conditions of project approval and are
stated herein in language appropriate for such conditions, In addition, once the Plaza at
Sunbow project has been approved and during various stages of implementation, the
mitigation measures shall be further detailed by the mitigation monitor and the applicant.
q2-
4
!
. "
" ~
~
"
>
~ .~
0 ~
~
"
.::J <;
u
"
- ~ 0
'" c B "
. .g ~ 0:
c U c:
0
'" t: !!
,~ ." 5 9 u
~ ~
> - -
~ - 5
:; <'
~
;;
.% >. ~
E ~
E 0- " [j
~ ~
::E <: ~
c
'"
;:i
I J " g %
=1
.~ ~
:; .~
'3 "
%
g - 0
;;
,-
~I " "0 %
. - 5
:..>
~ ~ - - ~
~ 0' .r B
. - 2" U
" '" ~ g ~ CO ~ ~
r. >. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " .~ i;;, ~ -= -" >.
~ 0 "" .~ E- o :g' c.: .D
I f: " = -g ., " - ~ f- >. , ~ V. <:': " ""
...
'"
-
-<
::.::
u
~
-
o
-
~
-<
~
-
...,
'"'
...,
~
:::"
-
'"
'-'
Z
-
:::::
~
...
...
Z
~
-
""
Z
'"'
...,
-
...
=<
~
-
;-.
-
""
,,_:.~ .g .2
~' :=.. '-' '2
~ ~ ~.~
:E ~ ] _<:_~.:
.~ S
~
..
>
.~ ~
~
."
."
~ ~
'- :.> ti
uOti~
-; ."-=' ~ ~
...... s ::.~ "OL=
o;;.~ ~ ~ :::
-[.~i] .~
~~g~--~
:- 00 v. v:
-
'~ ~
=
" ~
0
15 os
" "
D
!! 0
, c
~ :: -g
:5 " ]
-5 ;::
~
.. .2 "
"" " ;::
~ -~
~ ~ '"
~ .s "
N
~ - ;.
-~~~
- 0
r- ~ 2' ~
~ .~ ~
- __" ""_' 0
~.- ~:r
.~ ~
C;._ ~ ~
.~ ~ g -
:2 B ~]
.
i '-' ~
J4 -
~ "
r. " ~
" " ~
" i: c ~
" 6 '" ~
C .D
" .. ~ ~
."
.~ r. t
" CO ~
" .~ ~
'0 0
~ ;; ~
~
>",
2_=_~ ~"2;
o - ~
~
'0 (5 ~ u I
5' ~ ~ 0
~ ~.w ~ e ::.~:'
..... "0:; = -
~'~~.~2
P Q/)::: == ~
~~.~ ~ ~
~~:g
E-
o
.5
~
"
]
~
0 "
"
~ "
g "
Of ~
""
" .
CO ~ .!:;>
~ '" c ~ ~ .!!
~ r. g, "V.
" ~ " Ki " .2 "
~ "
~ ~ '" " " ~
" " c 0
,. ~ u -5 z
.g .!:;> " " , ~
~ " ~ ~ ~ , "
:.:::i ~ " ~ " " ~
-" " CO ~
~ " l! 0 "
l!f
- ~
~: "':
~i ~.
:;1 "
v. ::
I"
1-
~""@
~~
goog
2~
r.
.g .5
~.::..
.= <
-;:: Co.
::::v::
a:;"S!
~ a
-<-
<-~
~5
Cj3
;., c
~ .S!
~- "
g.
~ 0:::
U .2
='0:
O].~
~~ ~
665
, I ,
<:: ~ u
~
.~
-.:
=
<-
"
0:
~
"
~
"
-
I-.
~
~I
:;
.~
co
.s ~
~ g -
<;; :..1.2
5 -= ~ .2
~ ~ ~.~ ~
;;,:::..J ;::;>
~~58"6
I I I I I
<=U::J:.oJ
f-;
tr.J
-
oJ
~
U
r..J
-
-
u
-
"'"
-<
:::::
'-'
,..,
'-'
....~
--
- ~
-::
'" -
...., -
z;
- -
.... =
oE-
f-;
-
z
,..,
...,
:;;
z
,..,
-
-
,...
-<
:..')
E=
-
:;;
.~
- "
0 "
~ <.:
0
>
c
~ .~
c ;;
~g
o <;
u
.r;
t: " "
- B 3
s c
~ .~ '"
;; ~
" ~ c 0
'" t: :g
~ .~ ~ B u ,,;
c u ~ '2 -<
;:: >,,- c
:;0
i! ~
:;
:; c
= l'
- t: "- -,; Ci
.~ ~ .c
c c U '0
15 C- u ~
u ~
::E a: < c '"
?:- U
U
'"
~~ " '"
.2.:.. <;
;; U
:;0 .r
-
c c <;
~ 0 u
"
'"
.g J: "
<;
U B
. t:
~ . E - ,
u
" ~ .s ~ - u 'E~ -' ~ .-
< c $ ~ '" ~ ~ -0
" ""5 - ~ = ~ ~ "
'S .f' -5 c "' .s ~ c 0 " 0 " ~ c. .~ u c
.2 "' - c B ~ u .5 ~ -0 .c ...l 0 .~ B ~ ~
= 2' 'v .2 '? " .E!' "g .~ . <;
"- " . .~ "- :g . " 0;, 0: . OJ ~ "- =
.~ c. .;; .c " . ~ . ] '"
~ ." c. " ~ " ~ = <' '" " ~
~ ~ = .s " .W ~ ~ c. - t
" ,,,, ~ " -i! "
.s ~ = E "?- '? .- "E :; ~ '"
c = " - ~ " - - - - .= " " ,; " -
~. '-' v:
~I'E .s c
~i.g]~ g__'
-- :::.;.'"
= .s 0-=
2.,g~.~~~::
o::"'o02.E__
j~""50C.;::.2
~i~~.~2g
..: ~~ 13.: ~ z
:E ~ S t g <;(
g~~I~~
u _
,i:_ E: "
0; ~ ~
~ :: '-- -:.>
<2 .; ~ 2
v: r.J:> ~
~ ~ 0; ~
""@~ee
:=~ ~ 'o-g
- -- ..... <::
E?::: "5
-< r: L! <.>
~~~~~~.E~ ::~-tg
O::o.IJf-":':~t:~.g;:::;::i.s~
..... ..:.:2;t:'::.3OJJ2!
~!g--~~ -~
!II!HHH
.
.S;; c
;;] .~
~ c "
~ -E ~ .::
g"'S: ~
~]~
.
.
"
,U
~ffi
~~
'V: -
~ ~
2
~
.'
a
0 Co
v g
- .
'"
" u
~ . E 0
0 ~
" c "
'v. .2 "
'" " Ii
~ v ~ -
J v
~ C -0
~ 'v;
- 0
I"
e;: ~
~I~
]'Ii
8.s
, qt-J
i.
= "":' ::
21;"=
..;, =-"
~ -
"'
~S~
N
< ;;
~>=
-0 c
2"E
~ g
~.~ g or.
- 0:;
~- ~;
c"'"
-~ ;= '-'
- or. E
&~ s
::;; ~ ':
2.~~
B w.
1:; ~.=
~
.s
;;
OJ
.'!!>
'"
~
~
;:,
"
c
~
;;.
.
-
...
"
'"
c
~
a:
.2
"
g.
B.g
::;; <: 04
0].::
.u> 0
:::: - ~
":::;:55
1'1 I
c;::..o u
"-
~
c
e-
o;
-
...
"
c
~
-'-
.s
:: ~
HJ .~
u C 0.;:!''E
.s~g'~]
;.- C::.; t>
.::: ;:; :: ~::
:::=:::8:;
1'1 I I I
<::::uc.~
f-;
tr.J
-
....
~
u
""
:c
u
-
G
<
::::
r..;
o
,y~
--
~ w
-..
~=
z:E
- -
,y-
_0
O~
,..
-
z
o
-
~
z
o
-
...
<:
r..;
:-'
,....
-
:::;
I .~
" ~
"
~ '"
;;
>
c
0
'0 ',=
.!!~
" "
Q C
0
U
"
" I~ or,
.2 0 0 .; <
~ .~ ;- 0:
;; u
" u C
'" '" "
E '0 0 B
" J: 0
> 'S "
i= U -
0 <:
:::
~ ~
:; :;
" "
B " ~ ~
'S 0 l'
Q. ;; 0
0 " " :J
::: 0: < -
0 'E
~ .::'
G G
.2 ~ :<
] - ;j
::: .~ ~
-
0
" c 0
C 0 u
a
'"
.~ "
.... c: B x
U
.~ ~ v.
u .s .~ "
< ~ " ~ .r " :::
.~ ::: ? ,. ..2 " -s Q
2: " ~ .<. - " " 0 ~ ~.
" ~ ~ 1:' 8
.; ~ .~ ~ '. :;:;
, .~ " :; - 0 " 0
" " v. ~ ? " :; g 0 '- 0
- " "", .~ .:::
~ 0 " 0 ,.g " -"
~ 0 " 0 "
-E '" ::.: B " ? ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " '?
0 " "- v. 1: B 1i. " - or, 'E.
" " " ~ ~ ~ ". " ~ " - t 0
" 0 2 C
::: "' if 0 'g ; ~ 0 0
c "- C "E t ~ " ~ ~ .." 0
" 1: .." ~ "
.2 ~ ~ -" ~ > ~ ." " 8 ~ > "
" -" "- " " ~ ~ "
,~ ~ or, ~ " " u E ~ .~ ~ B
"- " .~ ~ .~ 0 ~ -E " -
." " r. '"
.2 ~ " v. " ~ - " "
" ~ g u C or, "- " "
~ u .2 " " ";;. " " .s ~ !l
0 " - ~ " " .~ " ~ 0 ~ > ir.
-" ~ c " 0 0 l ~
" '<; "- '" 0 ." ? ~ ] 0
" 0 J' " :::; g ~
.~ > ~ " j .<. .~ .2
" '" " ~ .~ ~ ..g ? C ~
~ .., ~ ~ Si ? -" "
- " '.. ~ v. " - B " '?
[ .." " ~ '- .~
.- u " ~ "
-: ~ -" .~
-""-...: -:::;
"- .r ~
"
~ "" .,g " ? ~ ,"
i:::3 u ;; "
E < I 0
'" g 'a 2: 0 ?
0 .:S
v; ~ u ~ 0 ~
E ? :f ~ ,- ~ 0
~ c "g - " " 0 =
~ .g " ~ 0 "- > ir.
~ ~ "- ~ ? .~
" ~ 0
8 .~ ~. " ~ "
u
Z " -" '" g. .~
> 0 v. ? V3
-
:;1-
~ ~
=: :,;
v. -
.:::; .~
z
:,;= qS
~~
,.. ;..
- ~
;.,
~
[
;;
"
""
.~
1:
o
Q.
u
"
.2
~
'5 =
U.f:
= <;: ~"
o2.g
~~ ~
66:5
I I I
e:: ~ u
>.
"
;;
:.
;;
-
""
~
~~
0;
;;;
.2
g
.2
~ ~
.... ;:: -
] ~ t ~.~
~ t 5 .~ ~
~;::o5o
I I I I I
<.:::U'cl:J
E-
er.;
-
..J
:::=::
u
~
-
-
u
-
~
<
..,.
-
~
0
""~
--
:.a:;
~=
'z~
- ~
"" 5
-
0::'
...
;;..
Z
-
'-'
- ,
~
,
Z
0
~
,....
<
'"
-
-
-
.-
~
I
,
"
" ,g
...e c .91 ii =
~.g 1, '"
a e c
..: t: ~
g .~ B :=_"
r: >:.:: aU
:E
~
:>
.... ..... ~
.~ E ~ ~
6 e- ~ '0
:E:Q::<'c
~II~~I"
<: ...)i
"" '
:<
~
o
g
~
~
~ J: 25
:.;
:::, 0;
~ :E
~
;;
>
~ is
o !:
~E
o S
w
.~ v.
_u
.:::-'
~
~
~.'. ~-
~. ~ 3 :::.
'" - '-' ;:,''g
.. OJ:, - .::t.
~,-~ E.~~
~.~~v.~-=~
-= ~?:! ~ - "" ~,
.;: 0": c: ~ w.
~~~.-:~
.g'~~..E~:
-;:: ;:. =
~t:~~ CJ
.:g v
__"=.E~~~
.=~ ~ -~
~ <:; .....
~:s ~ ~.~
<'~~5~~
:~
:E
:;
~~
"
~ ~
5
~
2~
>.
~ .;:;
- ~
"ii :::
1_ e
l
.21 .~
':.>i ::;
-I '"
~I' ~
- "
0;
['"
.:i2
-E.g
.2 .~
::: E.
~ .~
..s ~ .2
.~.o3 :;..,"'x
~ >.- ~,q,:,s
~~5~<__WN~_
~.~~~ ~E___~~r;
~ ;":t~V ('"-jo;
~ c::;..o ::; V5 ~__
v ::: 2. E .~_" 1;;c' ..
:.~~ ~,--
~ g r f_~~ ;__ ,_H U..
<:; ". I..> '-'
~ ~ OJ _ _
~] ~ = &
..g.
~ ~ ::; ~ ~
~ g, ~ 11 ~ Ei
~ ~~ ;:5 ~
-E '2 ::J ...: ~
:.; ~ ~-=
_~l'~'~
q(P
~ ri
~ .9 '8~,
v. ~ :-."_'
..2 ;:; :::-
<: - ~ ~
~ 5-;:: - g
.:: ~ ~ E
~_:5c.:
:::.. ~ ..,.-
:t~i~
_.rJ ':.> >': ~.~
-::: t.I.... v;
.--- '"--,----
~ .~
i ~
~ 0::
.: U.S
.""= :::: ";; Dl)
0].:
1: .u> 0
o .!= _ ~
~_~655
, , ,
<:: ~ u
;..-~ .~
~ .3 ~
;;; ~-g
.: ~ 8 ,e
.~ E ':: ii 0
.~ ~i}.r~
:; .2 E:: ~::
~ :':F=506
I I I I I
<~v.::::.:.:
....--::
A TTA CHl\1ENTS
en
ATTACHMENT A
q8
.....--. ..",..-.----.------.------...-.---------
Proposed Changes to the Village Center
Design Guidelines Pages 52-57
Prepared For: City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Contact: Stan Donn
Applicant: Kitchell Development Company
Rancho Viejo Road #B
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Prepared By: TRS Consultants
7867 Convoy Court, Suite 312
San Diego, CA 92111
qCj
Sunbow Community SPA Plan
Proposed Changes to Design Guidelines
This booklet provides the proposed changes to the Design Guidelines for the Sunbow
Community SPA Plan related to the proposed community commercial center. The
revisions are presented in a side-by-side format, so the new design proposals can be
compared with the existing SPA text. On the revised pages, new text is shown underlined,
and deleted text is shown in strikeout type, New illustrations are shown in regular black
line and deleted illustrations are shown with a line through them.
100
Site PI:mninE
The concept of die retail element of the viI1~e ~nter for
Sunbow j, that cL II smal: v:llage center, Tb~ retnii
element should be reminj~"t in site p!ann;.,,, arclriteaurc
and ameoities of a small village core that might have
devtloped before the advent ol me mopping center. In
iu eslab~1:1 115 n village eorc, it i$ envisioned that the
retail eleme:n be chaIact!:ri2ed by rniYM-use development
tbat include!; office and 5eJ'\i~ facilities as weB as retail.
Furthermore, its strODg pedestrian r;nb~s witi the higt
density housing 41T; intended to aca:c ... true mixed-we
project of tt.e inner loop integrating retail. office, service_
housing and recreation uses. The rew component shouk
be developed ~ tbe activity focus for t.i:1e entire jnner. loop.
Tht! retail buildings. in the. village CCnt~ shodd b~ 51 u:
lann=d so 115 to ;;,,'oid :! standard strip cemer :lp~ro:!ch.
is preferred 6at the retau buildings be arranged :lrounc
c:ntral ulive that resembles a small scale 5tre~[,
lar lIaffic and p;J.!'lcing ihouJd be :l.Ilowed on thh
give a sense of the retail and busir.ess core: of C]
lage, Pad bdIdings shoukI be sited so as to be
'on or this concept. They should extend the
drives in such a war to create a true villnge
atmaspher :The drives around which the retail component
is organize :>uld extend both to tb~ ~ast and to the
north, ere.nin 'u"e connectior.s for both p.edestr.ID1S
and vehicles to e n:$identia1 and a{;tiviry cDmpon=ts of
the inner loop.
f!'.,
:7Y
-.
'-
.~
~-.. -
-
EXAMf>L.f;; ~ITE PL...... FOR VIt.l.AGE C~NTER
-"
-.,
:;,-
101
..._..._._._-----~. ..~--_._....._--
VILLAGE CEJl.1ER
Concept
Site Planning
The conce)2t Qfthe retail elem~nt uf~" ;.Jlap.. ""tit.., for Sunbow is
that of a ~~,!,!!Y..9Qmiri~~~ ~=tH ,;H"5" ",-tit"," The
retail elemen! sI:9.J:1!d be ~m~~i~cent in site Planning, architecture and
amenities of!ii~H~. A.:=ail v;H~" w,,,
~~:~:~;;,~~;;u~~:;.:~,,~~:
it is envisioned that the retail element be characterized b
d"",v",lup.u..u...ul t:bdt .:......""Iu~~~ office and
facilities as well as retail .. ..
~~ -~
'-'tikI".. :uu....... IvujJo
JCoT~.e'''~~,
'Street: V "",h.;""u:la.. hulL"" Q,UJ !-,a..L~ O)huuiJ LI..- gflV"~ Uti t1.;.0) ~~ n._
tv ~""'" a 0)......1..1..:>"-' vft:b.... ..I.....L.a.J a.uJ 1Uo..')~1",.0)';) .....Vi'"- v[ a .:u..1..w:l1 "al~(,._ Paci
buildings should be sited so as t~l:>e ~~(:xtc;:~2Il..oJ.t1lc;,~~~1B1~fJi
this concept They should an~"'f& v:eh1c;jiJj';;~~~
~ir~fio~ihAt~(-~liiiescO;j;;;;',riiir~"JE~fth~~Jlii?iigiiif,{g
""",.,:,."~:..._~....,,, ,.".,',.~~~~._~-,..~~._"..-
P@g~~; a"''''....;:)i) aud (,At"'UJ ~~ ~~:f,~~t~s~:~",,1 a V'l00) tu.vlI.-At~
a h~.... ~ ...Hao"-' a.tulU,;)j;J.h\".-J.l".o The drives ~~~~ around which the
retail component is organized s~()~fIe.~~<il:>g!1l.tP7fue east and to
the north, creating pu~;h,,, P!l1ili,2,~.iR~YAg,#gJitpf~'kco!m.e.~tions
for both pedestrians and vehicles to the residential ar~iidj~(;entto
the si~e. a..uJ a....L\~l) \",oU..L.LlyVU.....lh.;) vfth.... .:.uu......... Ivvp_
52
102-
"
. '.~..; . -
I
103
<=-
~r
52A
E:t.IIotAHtE:O COHC. ,....'VtHG
I,r CIIOSIW~
Pedestrian aCCe55 is vital for tbe SUcce5S of me reuij center
in its role as the village core, Pedestrian a.ccess to the
surrounding residential, recreation and medicaJ uses, should
be direct and clear. Pedestri;m access from the intersection
of medicaJ center and Palomar should also be direct and
clear to allow for easy access by pedestrians originating
from the single-family residential areas,
Pedes!
.
. '" .......
, . . '.",
. ..'<r~_.
! . -' ~ ~ ~f.~:
. . "
.
I>I'IlI!ET _"TUllE
.!:NHANCUIo COHO.
PAYlNO
""EC$ Pl,AI<TED
TO IUBNFORCE
UPlSAN PEDESTIII4N
IoCCES.
UQHT rOLES
oS'Ec:oNDMY P'A'fiNQ
. ~Rl"HEPfr'
PI'tI......Jt"P' PARK! NO. .ALONa.
I~OII Olllvn
EXAMP.lE:_MINDR VILLAGE INTERSECTION
10"/
,,~
~:>
l)~~._rrlll;:(
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access is vital for the success of the retail center in its role
as the viHag, cor" Pedestrian access
to the sunouncling residential and medical uses should be direct and
clear . Pedestrian access ITom
the intersection of Medical Center .. and _ Palomar ..
should also be direct and dear to allow for easy access by pedestrians
originating from the single-family residential areas.
PEDEST1UAN ACCESS
. TREES PlANTED TO REINFORCE URBAN
ENHANCED CONCREfE PAVING
AT CROSSWALX
ENHANCED CONCREfE PAVING
SECONDARY ENHANCED
PAVING PERIMETER
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
AC PAVING
EXAMPLE: MINOR ONSITE INTERSECTION
~
-
PARKING
ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING
SECONDARY ENHANCED
PAVING PERIMETER
ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING
AT CROSSWALK
lANDSCAPING
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
a
EXAMPLE: MAJOR ONSITE INTERSECTION
IOS
53
.~.._-"_._._---.._---_.__..._._.._,.. ..---.--.... ...,~
Screening
atensive
residential areas IS
Sunbow Residential Guidcli1:i
from the residential areas and the intrust
etc, inIo residcnri:ti projcas..
Loadinl!. ar~ should be screened from direct view from
OmaT and Medical Center Drive to the extent po.ssibk.
should be screened and softened \\-ith
Screening from the adjacent
!!nPOrtaDt to avoid tbe
loading are<1S
ps,
EXAMPLE; PARKING SCREENING AND PEDES
I Dip
20' STANDARD
I 3'
r',UN.
54
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
POINTS EVEJlY 3 D'
TMRouaH ISLANDS
I
7.5' COMPA;T;r:..u.
B.S' STMlOARD:STAU.
$CFlEEN TYPE TREES
AT END OF.ISLANDS
~CP'!" TVPE .TREES
AT INTERIOFl ISLANDS
Screening
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
POINTS
THROUGH ISLANDS
AT BUILDINGS
Loading areas should be screened .fi:om direct view .fi:om Palomar
and Medical Center Drive to the extent possible, Parking areas
should be screened and softened with extensive landscaping,
.~,,-,:;'~':::..*';;- :._,--!:.!2.:.~!l.'-:~ '"-:::. I~':.......~ .~' ~. . '_' ..:.,.'~ 1 '1__:.!..__~;_!.~.1
... Screening .fi:om the adjacent residential areas is
particularly important to avoid the S_b6'W Residefttial Cliidc:lme3
viewing ofloading areas from the residential areas and the
intrusion ofheadlamps, etc, into residential projects,
I
7,5' COMPA~~
8,S'STANDARD!STAlL
SCREEN TYPE TREES
^T END OF ISLANDS
CANCPf TYPE .TREES
AT INTERIOR ISLANDS
18' STANDARD
7'
13' COMPACT
MlfoI, STAlL
EXAMPLE: PARKING SCREENING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
107
54
~l'rs:;'2:
PmEST1IIAN CIIOS5INC
dZ
LANDSCAPINC
15' f
.
STANDARD STALL 9',,20'
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
THROUCH ISlAND
SCREEN TYPE TREES
AT FINGER PlANTERS
LANDSCAPING
J
20'
. CANOPY TREES AT INTERIOR ISLAND
54A'
108
~t8SS and
Roofs
It is envisioncd t.Iuu !be village core will have ~ mass
vazying from one to threc Storics, Variation in form is
desired. if possibJ which can be accompllihed by second
and third stOIy a "ty, Also. the fI"I"c:aJlg can be greatly
cnhanced by the of eupoUi.s, J:'H...."rf"". ba]conicli and
other classic arcbi features. The ""'''''''ing and form
of the building shoo 'oree the pedestrian nature of
thc internal drives by . entrances and points of
interest..
plete roof forms whcrever
partial :roofs are strongly
of buildings may be
ractica1 inclusion of
tbc:sc clements must
California Spanish
flat roofs ns seen
owed.
EXAMPLE: MASSING DIAGRAM
FOR VILLAGE CENTER COMMERCIAL
109
Mass and Form
It is envisi()nedQu1t ~eco~11Dity;,co~iar#~~~~!~~ ~~.~<.
will have elevBtionsWitlioff'SCttill/&es, ""o~~'I1;;> ", "- of
Iffii{'^'~""" -.' _.________~__.M ,19:141' 'MY!!Y!i.n:''!WI,1g".
~... ~amass varying Lv~ VLJ."'- tv t:lu,,~ .stuJ.~~. Variation iItf~
is d' _if.po~sible, which can be accomplish~,'
.' . ~~. ~u.d Awl th.;...J ~tu.l)' ,""hvttJ' ....~ ".''"'.
. v.~~~, Also, the massing can be
greatly enhanced by the use of cupolas, ramAilAs, btd~.....;...~ and other
classic architectural features. The massing and form of the building
~:~:=ce~l;f~~~1E~~~~;o:=in::::' by
Roofs
R,~)Ofs should be pitched a.ud ,-"........pl...!" .wi K,..........~~f
~ wherever possible. Mw...w.J..ty 1'''' .vvf~ a.ud p...lial.vVfi. ......
",b.v~ .LwLU"!;...JFlat roof portions of buildings. may be
incorporated to allow for the practical inclusion of mechanical
equipment, etc. l.v "n... v......., tll.l.....>\"o ....l"".u...a.""ub .LU.u..>1 L.... ..i..~~6U"""d ~ Q.U.
.:..ub...&ulpw.tuftb"" Cdl&..,.u"':a.S'p~.J:..w.~b..."",lu..L"" ofth"" v.dluo.... ,,",V.I.,,",.
Lc.u.o'-'.fu:d .1vui:::. ~ ~...."".u ,,",VJ.U.LU.v.u1y 0)ta.~1-' ...."""ub....1o) Y\'~H .I..1vt b"", gfIvn"",d..
~~.._-".,..".--...,--",_._...._.,..
. ., ., w, 'SING::DMGRAM
~-""~Y~~:~~'~'~~:'-~,'>!~","-":;'~~~"~';)' ";''''~:,'_'~_ r" --_-_-::'-~:-" , ' __, .".'-- '."C"
fQ.~5Vff'~_. ':E1\tfER'i~!'>~RCIALBlJIL.I>lNGS
55 .
110
Materials
The materials used in the village reuill center should relate
to those materials used elsewhere in Sunb~', These
include SIUcco. tile. wood. StOne., wrought iron =d other
materials genenilly indigenous 10 the style of architec:tUre.
Matcrinls sbould be used in their natW'al form and in an
aumcmic way avoiding any extreme applications that are
the rcsu.1t of current styles or trends. Spec:iaJ m:nerials
should be used at entrances and other points of interest
when possible. These materials include. but are not limited
to stone.work. c:1St concrete elements or wood treatments,
Color
The colors used for the reuill elemem 5hould be those of
e California Spanish style of architecture al Sunbow.
colors arc generally soft tones with strong colors
only :J.s accentS.
Architectural Style
The
shall
example
buildings
buildings w
fuU archite
is important.
Sunbow village
A sense of desig
10 the proper
architectUre. Simp
is equally important
architecture. While s
the buildings 10 provi
decorated buildings ~ d
.tecturaJ s~'le of the retail village core :11 Sunbow
classic C::tliforni.a Spanish as i!Justr:l1ed by the
included witb this guideline. All sides of
.11 be treated equally insofar as the retail
be e.xposed to public viC'N on all sides. Th.is
trea.uneDt of all sides of =ch building
create tbe chaTacter and quality of Ihe
e tbat is JI'I"flQ"~ by these gujdelin~
use of quallty materials is imponam
of the California Spanish slyle of
in application of these materials
tbe success of California Spanish
. em dewl must be included in
a sense of the sl}'le. overly
uraged.
. ~
EXAMPL.ES: B1.RLtlING ELEVA.TlONS
vrL.LAGE CENTER
56
III
~'.._'--'--'-"'--""._-- .. --.'.'-'" -.-.-,---...----- ._-",
Materials
The materials used in the ,ill"5" ,,,~l ~~'I!I1itycoriJm~ial center
should relate to those materials used elsewhere in Sunbow, These
include stucco, tile, wood., stone, wrought iron and other materials
generally indigenous to the style of architecture, Materials should be
used in their natural form and in an authentic way avoiding any
extreme applications that are the result of current styles or 1rends.
Special materials should be used at entrances and other points of
interest when possible, These materials include, but are not limited to
stonework, cast concrete elements or wood treatments,
Color
The colors used for the retail element should be those of the
California Spanish style of architecture at Sunbow, These colors are
generally soft tones with strong colors used only as accents,
Architectural Style
lhe architectural style of the ,,,tajf .ni"5" w,~~~
~ at Sunbow shall be classic California Spanish as
illustrated by the examples included with this guideline, Primary sides
of buildings will be treated equally insofar as the retail buildings will
be exposed to public view on all sides. This full architectural
treatment of primary sides of each building is important to create the
character and quality of the Sunbow village core that is mandated by
these guidelines, A sense of design and use of quality materials is
important to the proper use of the California Spanish style of
architecture. Simplicity in application of these materials is equally
important to the success of California Spanish architecture. While
sufficient detail must be included in the buildings to provide a sense
of the style, overly decorated buildings are discouraged.
~~
~~.~
-,' - . . . - ,,-'. . . '.. .' .- .
56 .
\ 12..
.:. .
: fl.'
-.
"
'~
--1- ~
. :' .
EJr "
. .-
-
57
113
~~~'p~~1f.
57 .
/1'1
--.----r--.---..-'--.-,..~-~. ..-..
!l
IJ
liS
57A
r
STUCCO FWISH COI.OII TO _
MATOIIUll.aNC . .
STUCCO CoRNia COI.OII ~ ~
MATOIIUILDING ~ .
METAl C4Tei '--." 'I
(,)"1 ~
~
L.........
::N-...f"..-.,..,.
. ~ 1'" I ~ ..'.';
'...., r'
. ...~~ .
WAI.!. VINE ..,
I'ElUMETElltA""'Sci'PlNG
:
57B.
II (P
ATTACHMENT B
117
______....__._...__.__~~____. .__~~__..._._.._.., ._.~_w.."_
A TT ACHMENT B
NOISE ANALYSIS FOR THE PLAZA AT SUNBOW
The current study evaluates the potentia] for adverse noise effects resulting from the
construction of the Sunbow Center in the City of Chu]a Vista. Sunbow Center is located
at the intersection of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Street. The project involves
the development of market and retail commercial on approximately 13.25 acres in the city
of Chu]a Vista. This study considered the effect of delivery trucks, and potential noise
emanating from the rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment. In addition, noise
resulting from the proposed car wash and fast food restaurants is also discussed.
Mu]ti-fami]y residential use is approved for the property immediately north of the
proposed project. The current site design places the loading dock at the northern edge of
the Ralph's market approximately 100 feet from the residential property boundary to the
north.
The City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance has established noise guidelines and an adopted
noise ordinance. For mu]tiple dwelling residential uses between the hours of 7:00 A.M.
and 10:00 P.M.. the exterior noise limit at the receiving land use is 60 decibels hourly L'4'
Between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. the limit is 50 decibels.
The analysis considered the potential for delivery trucks to produce noise leve]s in excess
of the City standards. Delivery truck source noise was obtained from a study conducted
by RECON for De La Plaza Encinitas and by Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. in Santa
Maria (RECON ]984). These studies report heavy trucks with trailers and nose-end
refrigeration units having operational source noise of 79 decibels 30 feet from the source.
The operation a] characteristics for this noise level included a 20-minute cycle that
involved idling and parking until cleared to unload and unloading with refrigerator units
on.
The effects of distance were considered using point source fal]-off based on the inverse
square law. This results in a six-decibel reduction for each doubling of distance from the
source. The effect of any barrier is based on the path length difference between the direct
line of sight from the source to the receiver and the path length over any intervening
barrier. A break in the line of sight between a noise source and a receiver will minimally
provide a five-decibel reduction in noise.
The overall effect of noise to residential receivers will depend upon the number of trucks
accessing the facility and the time of day they are present. Assuming that it takes about
20 minutes for a truck to arrive, unload, and leave, there is a worst case potential for three
deliveries per hour. If there were three deliveries in an hour, the noise level 100 feet from
the truck for that hour would be 69 decibels. With a single delivery during the hour the
average hour]y noise level would be 63 decibels.
IJg
..
using a reasonable maximum delivery cycJe of one truck with a refrigeration unit per
hour, mitigation would be needed to achieve a three-decibel reduction and meet the City's
60-decibel daytime limit.
Given the site geometry and the proposed grades for the truck loading area, there would
need to be a screening wal] along the north site of the truck loading dock. The wall would
need to be high enough to break the line of sight between the nose-end refrigerator unit at
the loading dock and a five-foot-high receiver standing 10 feet back from the edge of the
pad. This loading dock wall must break the line of sight between the nose-end
refrigeration unit and the receiver. With this break there would be a noise reduction of
between 5 and 6 decibels. With this barrier, truck noise will be reduced to below the 60-
dE(A) L",,,, standard.
In addition to the loading dock wall, no deliveries should be made between ]0 P.M. and
7 A.M., and truck engines should be turned off and not idled whenever possible.
In addition to truck noise, heating and air conditioning systems, if improperly configured,
cou]d produce adverse noise. Specific noise levels resulting from BY AC equipment will
depend upon the size and nature of the equipment, its placement relative to area homes,
and any barriers or encJosures that might be built.
The current nature and configuration of the BY AC system has yet to be established. For
the delivery site, post the area as "no idling after 10:00 P.M." and insure that trucks do not
idle (aside from their refrigeration unitS) while unloading. When BY AC equipment has
been identified and a design is available, product-specific acoustical information should
be used to calculate the effects of potential noise exposure. If predicted noise levels
resulting from these systems exceed the City standards. barriers and/or encJosures should
be designed to insure compliance. A study should be completed demonstrating that
barriers and encJosures have been adopted to insure no adverse noise effects to area
residents.
A car wash is proposed for the corner of High Cloud Drive and East Palomar Street.
Measurements made at similar facilities indicate that noise levels from a car wash with
the dryer operating create 69 decibels at 50 feet from either the entrance or exit of the
facility (RECON 2000). If, during the course of the day, the dryer were operating 50
percent of the time, this noise ]evel would average 66 decibels per hour.
There are no residences immediate]y adjacent to the car wash. Residential use does occur
across East Palomar about 200 feet from the entrance to the proposed car wash. Using
the inverse square law for a point source, this distance would result in a ]2-decibe]
reduction with an estimated noise ]eve] of 54 decibels.
J/q
~
This noise level is well below the noise anricipated from traffic on East Palomar Street.
The traffic report prepared by Dame]] and Associates (March 2000) projected a traffic
volume of ]7,]93 vehicles per day in the year 2010 on this roadway. The Federa]
Highways Noise Prediction Mode] projects a daytime hourly noise level of 66 decibels.
With a 12-decibe] difference between roadway traffic and the operation of the car wash,
car wash noise will not contribute to average area noise. It should be noted that during
times when roadway traffic is low and ambient conditions are quiet, the car wash might
be audible.
Another potential source of noise are the speakers associated with fast food restaurants.
There are two restaurants proposed with this project. One is on Pad B located above
Medical Center Drive and one is on Pad E adjacent to the entrance from East Palomar
Street.
The Pad B fast food speaker if shielded from residences to the north and northeast by the
restaurant building. There are residences to the west across Medical Center Drive. Noise
levels from the speaker to those residences are minimized because of the existence of a
noise barrier that currently exists along the western edge of Medical Center Drive and a
significant grade separation between the speaker, the roadway, and the housing pads to
the west.
The Pad E site overlooks East Palomar. It is about ]35 feet from the southern edge of the
roadway. Assuming the speaker is in operation 25 percent of the time and makes a noise
level of 70 decibels at 10 feet from the speaker when in operation, an hourly L", at the
southern side of East Palomar would be 42 decibels, well below the noise predicted for
the roadway. It should be noted that under conditions when roadway traffic is low and
ambient conditions are very quiet, the speakers might be audib]e.
References Cited
RECON
1984 Noise Analysis for De La Plaza Encinitas. March 23.
2000 Scripps Gateway Freeway Center Noise Review. Apri] ]9.
Miller, Laymon N., and Robert M. Hoover
] 989 Noise Contra] for Building and Manufacturing Plants Bolt Beranek and
Newman Inc.
)2.0
o
;)
ATTACHMENT 6
Sunbow II Village Center Design Guidelines
12- I
Sunbow Community SPA Plan
Proposed Changes to Design Guidelines
This booklet provides the proposed changes to the Design Guidelines for the Sunbow
Co=unity SPA Plan related to the proposed co=unity co=ercial center. The
revisions are presented in a side-by-side format, so the new design proposals can be
compared with the existing SPA text. On the revised pages, new text is shown underlined,
and deleted text is shown in strikeout type. New illustrations are shown in regular black
line and deleted illustrations are shown with a line through them.
I ~2--
Site PI::mr.jnf
The concepl of me ret.a.1l element of the village center for
Sunbow is that of a sma}: v:lIa&e cemer. Tbe reUli:
element mould be r~nnnj~nt in site p'ann;ng. arclriteaurc
aDd amenities of a small village core that might have
developed before the advem of tte mopping cenler. In
its estabJishmer.t AS 11 village core. it is em>isiODCd that the
retail eleme:u: be chafact!:rized by mized.use development
that includes office and ~ice facilities as weD as retail.
Fcrthermore.. its strODg pedestrian linbges wiu tbe hig!:
density howing arc intended to ~:c & true mixed-use
project of tt.e bmer loop integrating retail. office, ~rvice_
housing and recreation u..~ The retail romponem shouk
be developed m tbe activity focus for the entire inner loop.
Th~ ref!\il buildings in ~ village center should be SitE
lann:d SO lIS to ..void :I standard Jitrip center :!P?ro~ch.
is preferred bat the retail buildings be arranged nrounc
CIJU'aJ lIrive !hat resembl~ a small sC4le street.
Jar rr:affic and parkil'.g wouJd be dlowed on thi!
give ;l sense of the retail and biWr.ess core af <J
!age. Pad bdldings should be sited so as to be
an en .on or this concept. They should extend the
drives 0 in such a war to create a truc villnge
atmaspher Tbe drives a....ound which the retail rompooenl
is organize auld enend both to the east and to the
north, CI'!:3tin siu\re connec:ior.s for both pedestr:ans
and vehicles to e .esidcntial and activity compOru:T1tl of
Ihe inner ] DOp.
,,",?
I
~-:-
JB~;;::" ~L-.h
I" ~ ~ N." /'"
. - .-' . . "':'-. .../"
. ", .' . ...........~
.....r. .x:- .. - - ;c'- - -- ." \
!a.,~~' -.,:~-~-.., \',.
L ". ~-~ ~'. .' \_-.~ . ~. f
~,,~S~ :~:<< :. : -'-. ... r
--:J[ ~ _-~~~.-. .
.::~--;:"..- '.'-..
':':'. .--~.
'-
-.
--.
-
~
'.
.~
EXAMPLE: SITE I'I..'N FOR VIt..LAGE CENTER
--'-
52
,23
VILLAGE CENTER
Concept
Site Planning
mg
hv~~ auJ ""'....abvu uses. The retail~t should JJ..~
deve]opedastheactivityfocusforthe~ ',' ~.
""'J...d.';.J.~~.L 1\.1\.11-'.
street: '.\..1.:.""uhu. b.a.1L"", guJ PQ.l.~5 .shuulJ 1,,,,, aflv ""~ \.IoU th.;.;:. J:..~... \,;
. .. . .Pad
__ "'" ,"""I"o.,b a.u.d. ,""Ah...Ud. tlh... d.J.~...,-> vu:.l =.u 0>1.&""'1. Q. VHI,.J tv ".I.~
b.1:lu," val~" atu.w.lph".". The drives~ around which the
retail component is organized .should extend both to the east and to
the north, creating pv~~bv" ~~ii""cg~ecti()ps
forbotl:1pedestrians and vehicles to the residentialllte1i~)@j~jo
t4e-~~::AuJ m,..b, v ;t) \,;6.L.UpVU\"<ll~ vf li...1o.< .:..u.u.""'J. 1v\.11-"
/24
52
y
=-'
~r
52A'
}2S
-~'
--
ENiotAUCED- CONe. PMNB
13 CRO_~
Pedestrian access is vital for tbe su~ss of 1hc retail center
in its role as the village corc. Pedestrian .access to [he
surrounding residential, recreation and medical uses, should
be direct and clear. Pedestrian access from the intersection
of medical center and Palomar should also be direct and
clear to allow for easy ac:ccss by pedestrians originating
from me single-family residential arcas.
Pedesl
&TIllEtT _NTUIIe
'"t,
, ___t#
. ' ,.~:
, . ~
, -..
c >
, ~. !
. .'"
. . ~
!:N"IoCAHCeD COHO.
"""NO
n\HS ~J;;D
TO ItEINFORCE
U!'IISAH P'ED!!STIII~
ACCESS
UOHT POlES
nCONllNlY ~OIQ
. PSU "'MEPn'"
f'klMA.RY f'MIO NG .AlONG.
IHnIIrOOlI>lllVES
EXAMP.le;.MlNOR VILLAGE INTERSECTION
12.!o
53
>'~--.-' .-------..-.---.---..---.--.---.-.
ij .:..:L~S- ;11 uld
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access is vital for the success of the retail center in its role
as the ...mage: e:ore:. Pedestrian access
to the surrounding residential and medical uses should be direct and
clear . Pedestrian access from
the intersection of Medical Center _ and .. Palomar IB!!
should also be direct and clear to allow for easy access by pedestrians
originating from the single-family residential areas.
~
'.
EXAMPLE: MINOR ONSITE INTERSECTION
~
~
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
. TREES PlANTED TO REINFORCE URBAN
ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING
AT CROISSYIAlK
ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING
SECONDARY ENHANCED
PAVING PERIMETER
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
AC PAVING
PARKING
ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING
SECONDARY ENHANCED
PAVING PERIMETER
ENHANCED CONCRm PAVING
AT CROSSWALK
LANDSCAPING
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
EXAMPLE: MAJOR ONSITE INTERSECTION
12-(
53
Screen.ing
extensive
residential areas 15
Sunbow Residential Guidcliri
from the residential areas and the intrusi
etc. into residemi:l! projects..
Loading ar~ should be screened from direct view from
OroaT and Medica! Center Drive to the extcnt po.ssibk..
5hould be screl:ned and softened with
Screening from the adjacent
!!nPonant to avoid tbc
loading areas
ps,
EXAMPLE: PARKING SCREENING AND PEDES
J2.~
20' ST.r.NCARC
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
POINTS EV!OJ\Y 3 O'
THROUGH ISLANDS
I
7 ..5' COMPA;j;~L
a.5' STANOARO:STALL
$CRE;EN TYPE TREES
AT EriC OF.ISLANDS
cw.ICPY T~e .TREES
AT INTERIOR ISLANDS
54
Screening
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
POINTS
THROUGH ISLANDS
AT BUILDINGS
Loading areas should be screened from direct view from Palomar
and Medical Center Drive to the extent possible. Parking areas
should be screened and softened with extensive landscaping.
_~,'.. ..:._I..;_,~~'.,=- -:::.:. '':......~ ~'_::.~' ~ ",~:..: ,_J:-:'Ll ~_~~.l_:""::: ~.:.:.!
_ Screening from the adjacent residential areas is
particular]y important to avoid the S1Iftbew RC3identi8:1 Cllidelmc3
viewing ofloading areas from the residential areas and the
intrusion ofheHillHmps, etc. into residential projects.
I
7 .5' COMPA~~
8.5' STANDARD! STALl.
SCREEN TYPE TREES
AT END OF ISLANDS
COoNC?!' T'tPE .TREES
AT INTERIOR ISLANDS
",,--~
,~_/ '-,
r r--- _. r-
18' STANDARD
7' 13' COMPACT
1.11 N. Si ALl.
EXAMPLE: PARKING SCREENING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
54
(2fl
I'ED6TWJAN CItOSSING
~.' .
IAND5CAPINC
15' f
.
STANDARD STAlL 9'x20'
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
THROUGH ISlAND
5CREEN TYPE TREES
AT ANGER PJ.ANTER5
..
LANDSCAPING
=l
20'
. CANOPY TREES AT INTERIOR ISLAND
54A'
/30
~fBu and
Roors
It is envisioned that tbe village core will have .:l mass
varying from one to three: stories, Variation in form is
desired, if possibl which can be accomplished by second
and third stOI)' . .1.)', Also. the 1T'"u..,g can be gTeatly
enhanced by the of C:UPolJls. r>'......das. baJcomeli and
other classic arcbi features. The rn......ing and form
of the building shou . oree ~ pedestrian nature of
the internal drives by . entrances and poinIS of
interest..
EXAMPLE: MASSING DIAGRAM
FOR VILLAGE CENTER COMMERCIAL
131
Mass and Form
It is envisioned that the communityco=ial center .;11"1';'- w.,-
will have ~1~6ris~thfuffiettiIi.-~ t.oavoid"buIkm~~9ifj of
iiiiIffi&a'~~ ';~ryini'fi:.:.-~:.~~ti::~~lv.~~~:V~~on.in_~~
_ible, which can be accomplished.l?~ ~]
-. . .."',.".~~.'
, ~~'.Y ""tiV!t.Ytjcsm?py~!1!~
, . '"...'. Also, the massmg can be
greatly enhanced by the use of cupolas, ramRri,,~, baiw~,-b and other
classic architectural features. The massing and form of the building
should reinforce the~ ~~_ of the internal drives by
accenting entrances, ~._ _.__.~, and points of interest.
Roofs
Roofs should be pitched ....d w.o..upl."t.., .vv[ Iv. '" -~~"ifr.~f
IIIIIIswhereverpossible. ~d. t)''p'-'.lvufa>u.udjJQ.l.tlai.Luo.I;.Q.L''-'
st.o....J.Y ~""'U!"5..dF.lat roof portions of buildings may be
inCOIpOrated to allow for the practical inclusion of mechanical
equipment, etc. hvyy,,",w,,",.I., til\....>"" ,,",I,,",L.U.,,",.u.~ .LU.u.SL h"", J"",b~5.LU...J ~ Q.U.
':"""'b...&gf }'Q.Lt ufth."", Ce:drtuu~" Sp~~ c.LI.wfuh.."",tUJ."-' vfthl,.. vJi"5'-' ,,",V.L"-'.
k5'-' lldL.a.vuf.:::. ~ .>'"'~ ....V..LU.U.1v.ul)' ~t..;.i-" .........L.1h...J..:> yy~H l.J.vl ~(.. al1v",,,,,,,d.
~~I-.g.~ciA:L.!iIJJi,rjiNGS
55 .
/32..
"~-^--_._.._._--_.-.-~-----_.._-
Materials
Th~ materials used in the village retail center should relate
to those materials used elsewhere in Sunbow. These
include stucco. rile.. wood. stOne.. wrought iron =d other
materials geIWrally indigenous 10 the style of architectUre:...
MatcriDJs should be used in their namral form and in an
authenIic way avoiding any c:xueme applications that ar-e
the result of current styles or trends. Special m:neriaJs
should be used at entrances and other points of interest
when possible. These materials include. but are not limited
to stonework. cast concrete elements or wood treatments.
Color
The colors used for the retail e.1ement mould be those of
e California Spanish style of architecture at Sunbowo
colors are generally soft toncs with strong colors
only as accents.
Architcctur31 Style
The
shall
example
buildings
buildings ""
full archite
is important .
Sunbow village
A sense of desig
to the proper us
architecture. Simp
is equaJ]y important
architecture. While s
the buildings to provi
decorated buildings are d
'tectur.u style of the retail village core ::11 Sunbow
classic California. Spanisb as iUustr::ned by the
included witb this guideline. All sides of
OIl be treated equally insofar as the retail
be exposed to public vi...... on all sides. This
trC2.UI1ent of all sides of each building
create tbe character aDd quality of the
e that is rnand:Ucd by these guidelines..
d use of quality materials is imponant
of the California. Spanish style of
in application of tbese materials
the success of California Spanish
'ent detail must be included in
a sense of the style. ovcTly
uraged.
.
EXAMPLES: B1JIL~ING ELEVATIONS
Vrt.LAGE CENTER
56
(33
Materials
The materials used in the ,~H"5'" j "ta:l ~!ni:"'T;tyS-Q;;'m~i81 center
should relate to those materials used elsewhere in Sunbow. These
include stucco, tile, wood, stone, wrought iron and other materials
generally indigenous to the style of architecture. Materials should be
used in their natural form and in an authentic way avoiding any
extreme applications that are the result of current styles or trends.
Special materials should be used at entrances and other points of
interest when possible. These materials include, but are not limited to
stonework, cast concrete elements or wood treatments.
Color
The colors used for the retail element should be those of the
California Spanish style of architecture at Sunbow. These colors are
generally soft tones with strong colors used only as accents.
:me architectural style of the j"t..a yJ1"5" "Uj~
~ at Sunbow sha11 be classic California Spanish as
illustrated by the examples included with this guideline. Primary sides
ofbui]dings will be treated equally insofar as the retail buildings wiI]
be exposed to public view on all sides. This full architectural
treatment of primary sides of each building is important to create the
character and quality of the Sunbow village core that is mandated by
these guidelines. A sense of design and use of quality materials is
important to the proper use of the California Spanish style of
architecture. Simplicity in application of these materials is equally
important to the success of California Spanish architecture. While
sufficient detail must be included in the buildings to provide a sense
of the style, overly decorated buildings are discouraged.
ArchitecturaI Style
~~
~li~~-..L..E
56 .
/?i!
:fl"
-.
"
'~
-1'. ~
. .
EJl' ..
. .-
-
57
/3~
AR~ttll~~~~if~
.,
57'
(3b
I
!l
IJ
/37
---
57A
r
STUCCO FINISH COI.OII TO _
MATOi IIUIUXNC . .
STUCCO CORNICE COlOR ~ ~
M4TOi ~NC ~ .
METAlGA '--." 'I
(,)"1 ~
~
Jr. /\4:'~"
p..'::; ,
WAI.!. VINE ..,
1'ElUMETD.I.AMDSCAPING
:
57B.
/38
ATIACHMENT 7
Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations
Land Use Districts Map
/31
A
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
PlANNING ......USE """... TOTAL-
AREA DISTRICT """ES UNITS
. RM 4.' 7.
7 RM . ".
10 RC 16.2 210
IDA RC 10.8 214
11 RC 18.0 180
12 .. ..., 218
13 OS 26.2 112
14 .. 22.' 110
" RP 18.9 ..
,. .. 32.7 '44
17 AS 23.7 102
19 OS 26.' 112
20 OS 10.8 00
21 OS 17.0 79
22 OS 711!!1 1m
....... 300.7 '848
A SUNOOW
I -~ LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP
"-',.'
r'-o~
. ~. "l"'.
PlANNING ......USE ....... TOTAl.
AII&A DISTRICT ACIIE!I UNITS -REllDENlAL 8NGLE FAMlY
..
8 VC lOA 0 .. ..filEllDENTlAl PlANNBJ DEVB.OPWiNT
23 .. ".7 0 ... -RBIDENTlAL MULlJ-FAMLY
1. RS.a.ao 10.8 0 RC 1IEIIDENTlAL CON:X>MNIUM
S"'<<XX YC -VILLAGE CENTER
9 OSlCOMM. 10.7 0 I. -INDU81RIALMRK
REC OP -OPEN 9MCE
OPEN SPACE. 217.7 0
ROADS . CANDIDATE CHURCH S1TE
GflANC TOTAL 1tD4.11 lIMO
PER TENTATIVE MAP OR FINAL MAP CAlCULATIONS
PROVIDED BY lEASTAR 7/26/99
NOTE,
ALL GROSS ACREAGE NUMBERS FOR EACH PlANNING AREA ARE
CALCULATIONS BASED ON 111E PlANNING AREA BOUNDARY
EXTENDED TO THE CENTERUNE OF THE ADJACENT ROAD
/'10
.,._._-_.._~.,..,.__.....--
A
No Scale
,;:.?
;,:: ..
STATISTICAL
PINIONG LAM> UIE ...,... TDrAL . ...........
.... ......". """"" UNII'S ......
. ... 4.3 18 .
1 ... . '58 23
10 IIC ,6.2 210 ,.
'IIA IIC 8.3 214
11 IIC '8.0 '60 .
12 lIS 48.1 218
13 lIB 20.2 112
,. .. 22.5 110 BIMNU IOTAL
IS lIP ,... .3
,. lIS 32.1 ,..
11 .. 23.1 '02
,. lIB :z!I.3 112
20 .. '0.8 ..
21 lIB 17.0 78
22 .. 2108 1M
...... _4 ,-
\.
)
-
-i--. .
-'" -
:-:-;:0-::'
'"-'''''
.c;."--~:,,.
".-.
0.....
.....:._.-'.:...~ .J
"
,-
LAlll>U8E ....... TOTAl.
0ISrIIICT ,-...... ......
"" '2.1 0
.. ...1 0
........ '0.8 0
00-.
....,.. 10.7 0
REC
......""""". 217.7 0
IIOAD8
""".. 1....
PER TENTATIVE MAP CFI FIfW... MAPCALCU1.ATICWS
PROVIDED BV lEASTAA 71aW9
RII -IEIICENIAL.NelE FAML'f
AP ..-....mAl. PLAIINiD DEVaCP\oEN1'
AM ....DEN1IAL IUJI-nulLY
RC -laDBl1lAL CONDOMNlUU
VC ~VlI.1.AGE canm
I. ~__
OP -OIBI Bee
. CANDIDm CHIIICH SIIE
NOTE:
AU. GROSS ACREAGE NU_ FCft EACH PlANNING AREA AIlE
CAl.CU!ATIONS BASED ON THE PlANNNO _BOUNDARY
EXTENDED TO THE CENTaIUNE OF THE ADJACENT ROAD, EXCEPT
fOR t.EDICAL CEN'Tffi CR., BFlANDYWlI'E AVE, EAST PALOMAR ST.,
AN) PASEQ lADERA.
ILl /
~"--'--'---"'-
A
. . .. "". ;.y.....
. ~
No Scale
....
~.
, .
.,,." .
7
.
10
. . , .
-. '", -
-"--.:' ~~-~:
. .. '..;,........,
..-
.-
-- ..---' . -.:::--"'
.-':":'..' .
-
.
-
EXISITIN G RESIDENTIAL
CONOOMINIUM (Re)
LAND USE DISTRlCT
BOUNDARY
CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM RC, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
TO VC, VILLAGE CENTER
/~2.
/'-13
ATIACHMENT 8
Ownership Disclosure Form
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor: subcontractor, material supplier.
ACI Sunbow, LLC Lorna Corporation
Ayres Land Company, Inc.
GLV Capital Partners
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% or the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
Ayres Land Company-Keith J. Horne Lorna Corporation-William R. Hamlin
GLV Capital Partners
r - Amanda Gruss Trust
- Joshua Gruss Trust
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
GLV Capital Partners
Amanda Gruss Trust Joshua Gruss'Trust
Amanda Gruss beneficiary Joshua Gruss beneficiary
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No ~
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Keith J. Horne
William R. Hamlin
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Counc;ilmember(s ):
Date:
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDmONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) 2
D.cr"~~;'1 ICfcr <7 rw.J c. . ,2
I Signature of contractor/applicant
M.....K A. SMrl-(
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
fLI-'f
. . Person is defined as: "Any indNidMal, firm. co-portnership, join! venIlU'e. association, social club. freaternal orgonizat/on, carporal/on,
utaJe, tnar. receiver, syndicale. this and any other COlIni)'. city and counJry. city municipality, district. or olher DO/i/jcD.l_~uhJi\li~il'l" nr nmJ
'!!.Iu:-~.~~~.. ~~.....~..=.!:.=:::~~-~,=,:::.;..-;_.:;.:: ,.__..~ ._._..".______.