HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/26 CVRC Agenda Packet
.
..
CCJi~POR,'\T!()0J
CHUU\ VISTA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ADJOURNED REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, April 26, 2007, 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
CALL TO ORDER
CVRC ROLL CALL
Directors Castaneda, Desrochers, Lewis, McCann, Paul,
Ramirez, Rindone, Rooney and Chair Cox
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL
Council/Agency Members Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez,
Rindone, and Mayor/Chair Cox
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff recommendation:
a. That the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
approve the minutes of March 22, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
{he following items(s} have been advertised as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item,
please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Clerk prior to the meeting.
2. CONSIDERATION BY THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY OF CHULA
VISTA CITY COUNCIL OF THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM NO. 07-01)
AND RELATED REZONING ACTIONS
The proposed UCSP consists of a neighborhood level planning document that
provides new zoning regulations, development standards and design guidelines to
implement land use designations, policies and objectives of the 2005 General Plan
for the area described above, and associated amendments to the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Plan and implementing documents, and certification of a Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC adopt the following resolutions:
2A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 06-01) FOR THE URBAN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY EIR 06-01; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM 07-01)
2B. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2007 AMENDMENT OF THE TOWN
CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
2C. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RESCIND CERTAIN IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS
AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Staff Recommendation:
That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the following resolution:
Page 2 of 5
CYRC/CC - Agenda - 04/26/07
2D. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVElOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA RESCINDING IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS OF THE
TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the following resolution:
2E. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 06-01)
FOR THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RElATED ACTIONS;
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING ND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council place on first reading the following ordinances:
2F. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
ADOPTING THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-07-01) AND
RElATED REZONINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN
2G. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA AMENDING THE TOWN
CENTRE I REDEVElOPMENT PLAN THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE
2007 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CVRC and/or RDA on any subiect matter within
the CVRC and/or RDA's iurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally
prohibits the CVRC and/or RDA from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if
appropriate, the CVRC and/or RDA may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff.
Comments are limited to three minutes.
ACTION ITEMS
3.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO
AGREEMENTS FOR FOUR SITES WITHIN
REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA
EXClUSIVE NEGOTIATING
THE TOWN CENTRE
The CVRC has entered into four Exclusive Negotiating Agreements that are due to expire
on or around June 5, 2007. The ENAs are being amended to add an additional 300 days
to the Negotiating Period to explore the development feasibility of the ENA properties in
conjunction with the proposed adoption of the UCSP.
Page 3 of 5
CVRClCC - Agenda - 04/26/07
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC adopt the following resolutions:
3A. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH AVION DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
THIRD AVENUE AND E STREET SOUTHEAST SITE.
3B. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH DOUGLAS WILSON COMPANIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CHURCH STREET AND DAVIDSON STREET WEST SITES.
3C. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH AND MADRONA NORTHWEST SITE.
3D. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH INTERGULF-MAR (PARK) LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
THIRD AVENUE AND G STREET NORTHWEST SITE.
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
a. Revised CVRC Board Application
5. CHAIR'S REPORTS
a. Consideration of formation of a subcommittee consisting of two
independent directors to participate with two members from the Sweetwater
Union High School District to review the district's Asset Utilization Project
proposal and advise city staff
6.
DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
Page 4 of s
CVRC/CC - Agenda - 04/26/07
ADJOURNMENT
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation/Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to its
regularly scheduled meeting on May 10, 2007, at 6:00 p.m.
The Chula Vista City Council will adjourn to its regularly scheduled meeting on May 1,
2007 at 4:00 p.m.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The (hula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend} and/or
participate in a eYRe meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings
and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Community Development Department for specific
information at (619) 691-5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired.
Page 5 of 5
CVRC/CC - Agenda - 04/26/07
.,-'.
ai
..
c [,
,
CORPORATION
(HULA VISTA
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. 2
DATE:
April 26, 2007
FROM:
CVRC Board of Directors
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors
Mayor and Council members
~
Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager ;/
Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director (i)f..r All
/'
Mary Ladiana, Planning Managerl1tY
1/
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan
and related actions
Item Title: Public Hearing: Consideration by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation, City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency and City of Chula Vista City Council of
the Urban Core Specific Plan (PCM No, 07-01) and related
rezoning actions
Resolution: Of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
recommending that the City Council Adopt a Resolution
Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report for the Urban
Core Specific Plan (EIR # 06-01, SCH #2005081121), and
Adopting the Urban Core Specific Plan (PCM No, 07-01) and
related rezoning actions
Resolution: Of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
recommending that the City of Chula Vista City Council Adopt
the 2007 Amendment of the Town Centre I Redevelopment
Plan
Resolution: Of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
recommending that the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment
Agency Rescind Certain Implementing Documents and
Requirements of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan
cJ.-/
Page 2 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
Resolution: Of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
Adopting a Resolution Rescinding certain Implementing
Documents of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan.
Resolution: Of the Chula Vista City Council Adopting a
Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Urban Core Specific Plan (EIR # 06-01, SCH #2005081121)
f---
Ordinance: Of the Chula Vista City Council Introducing an
Ordinance Approving the Urban Core Specific Plan
Ordinance: Of the Chula Vista City Council Introducing an
Ordinance Adopting the 2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Plan
INTRODUCTION
With the adoption of the General Plan on December 13, 2005, the Urban Core Specific
Plan (UCSP) is the next critical planning document necessary to facilitate revitalization
of western Chula Vista, in particular the City's urban core. The UCSP is the first in a
series of significant zoning changes proposed to implement the vision established by
the 2005 General Plan.
The new land use designations provided under the 2005 General Plan require new
zoning regulations, in particular mixed use and urban core residential zoning districts, to
ensure the systematic implementation of the 2005 General Plan. This requirement to
have zoning consistent with the City's General Plan is established in Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.06.030. The UCSP also allows comprehensive
planning of issues beyond parcel-specific zoning, including planning for improvements
and amenities within the public realm throughout the larger urban core, as well as
linkages to the Bayfront and thriving communities in the eastern portion of Chula Vista.
The current Public Hearing Draft UCSP represents the culmination of a significant
planning process that has occurred over the last two-and-a-half years. The current
UCSP and EIR (Attachments 1 and 2), or various components thereof, have
undergone extensive public review and discussion, and have been reviewed and
recommended for approval by the Resource Conservation Commission, Design Review
Committee, and the Planning Commission over the last six months, as described in this
report.
c1-~
Page 3 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
State law (Government Code 65854-65861) establishes the process for adopting zone
changes of property and requires that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing
on proposed rezoning actions and provide a written recommendation to the City
Council. Additionally, pursuant to CVMC 2.55.050, the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation performs the same legislative functions as the Planning Commission for
areas within the City's redevelopment areas, and therefore, a public hearing of the
CVRC on the proposed rezoning actions and a written recommendation to the City
Council is required.
This report is intended to provide the relevant information on the necessary actions for
the decision making bodies of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and City
Council. A separate report covering the actions of the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency is contained in Attachment 3.
BACKGROUND
In December 2005, after a multi-year planning process, the Chula Vista City Council
adopted a new General Plan that represents the vision for the City through the year
2030. A significant component of the 2005 General Plan described a new vision for
portions of the City referred to as the "urban core" (see map, Attachment 4). The long-
range vision as described in the 2005 General Plan anticipates that:
'The urban core has developed into a vibrant area, with housing; shops;
restaurants; entertainment; and activities that attract from eastern Chula Vista
and city-wide. Higher density housing, shopping, and job centers are located
near the major transit stations, including E Street and Interstate 5; H Street and
Interstate 5; and near Third Avenue and H Street. These key activity nodes give
people transportation choices, encourage the use of mass transit, and help to
reduce vehicular traffic. They are accentuated by landmark building design, and
for the two Transit Focus Areas at E Street/Interstate 5 and H Street/Interstate
5, strategic use of some taller (high-rise) structures that draw attention, and
. provide unique identities for these important gateway entrances to the urban
core and the bayfront. A network of linked urban parks and plazas creates
pleasant pedestrian routes and provides areas for community activities.
Increased population (residents and workers) in the Urban Core Subarea has
created opportunities for more shops and a variety of restaurants. Entertainment
and cultural arts are housed in new and renovated buildings, offering both day
and evening activities. The streets are bustling with shoppers and people
enjoying outdoor dining or heading to entertainment venues.
~-6
Page 4 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
A grade-separated trolley line at E and H Streets has improved the flow of east-
west traffic, while a local shuttle provides frequent service between Urban Core
Subarea activity centers. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line allows residents in
the East Planning Area convenient access to the Urban Core Subarea.
F Street is a pedestrian-oriented promenade that links Third Avenue; the Civic
Center; Broadway; the E Street transit center; and the Bayfront Planning Area
with themed landscaping and public art. The freeway crossings of Interstate 5
have been widened to accommodate additional pedestrian use, and entryways
into the Urban Core Subarea are enhanced and inviting. Chula Vista's Urban
Core Subarea has matured into an urban, pedestrian-oriented, active area that
continues to be the primary economic, governmental, and social focal point of
the south San Diego County region."
As a companion document to the 2005 General Plan, the City began work to develop
implementing regulations, standards and design guidelines in the form of a specific
plan, consistent with the vision described above. The concurrent drafting of the UCSP
allowed for seamless integration of the new objectives and policies established for the
urban core with the intended goal to have the planning tools (e.g. new zoning) in place
shortly after adoption of the General Plan. To that end, the consulting firm of RRM
Design Group was retained in January 2004 to assist staff in the preparation of the
UCSP. In August 2004, the City Council appointed an 18 member Advisory Committee
to work with the City's staff team and the community in developing some of the major
components of the UCSP. A two day charette kicked off the Committee's work and was
followed shortly thereafter with the first community workshop.
Based on input from those meetings, draft "Vision Plans" were created to set the
framework for developing the plan. The draft Vision Plans were presented to the UCSP
Advisory Committee, followed by presentation to a joint City Council/Planning
Commission workshop on November 17, 2004, and a second community workshop. A
positive reaction to the Vision Plans was received.
During the first half of 2005, well-attended monthly meetings were held with the
Advisory Committee to work through significant planning issues such as new permitted
land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and gateway design elements. A
preliminary draft plan incorporating Advisory Committee and other input on key
components was then prepared.
Following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005, a preliminary "Public
Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory Committee in March 2006. In
addition, a third community workshop, jointly sponsored by the Northwest Civic
~-1
Page 5 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
Association and Crossroads II, was held to provide the community with an overview of
the UCSP and garner additional preliminary input on the draft UCSP. Feedback from
both of these events was considered and incorporated, as determined appropriate by
staff and the consultant team, into a "Public Review Draft" released with the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in May 2006.
During the formal 45-day Public Comment and Review period for the DEIR, information
sessions/workshops were held with the Design Review Committee, Planning
Commission, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC). Also, in addition to
the standard process of submitting written comments during the 45-day public review
period, the public was afforded an opportunity to provide oral comments on the DEIR at
a public hearing before the CVRC on July 13, 2006. A total of 13 comment letters were
also submitted on the DEIR.
Staff has analyzed the public input received at public hearings and has recommended
certain revisions to the UCSP. These revisions are reflected in the "Public Hearing
Draft" UCSP (previously provided to the CVRC under separate cover), as well as Errata
sheets showing the proposed revisions to both the Public Hearing Draft UCSP and Final
EIR (FEIR). In addition, comment letters on the DEIR and written responses are
provided in the FEIR.
Environmental Determination
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that
an EIR was required. An FEIR has been prepared for the UCSP and related actions,
and was made available at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing date
(pursuant to PRC Section 21092.5. and Section 15088(b) of the CEQA guidelines). The
Final EIR identifies that the proposed project would result in significant, unmitigated
impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, energy, and transportation. Impacts to
geology, hazards, hydrology, land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, noise,
paleontology, population and housing, public services, and public utilities are less than
significant or mitigated to less than significant. More detailed information on the
environmental analysis of the UCSP is included later in this report under Sections Band
D, and in Attachment 2, FEIR Errata.
..-
c2 -0
Page 6 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that:
1. The CVRC recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution
Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Core
Specific Plan (EIR # 06-01, SCH #2005081121), and Adopting the Urban
Core Specific Plan (PCM No. 07-01) and related rezoning actions,
including revisions recommended in this report; and
2. The CVRC recommend that the City Council Adopt the 2007 Amendment
of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan; and
3. The CVRC recommend that the Redevelopment Agency Adopt a
Resolution Rescinding certain Implementing Documents and
Requirements of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan; and
4. The Redevelopment Agency Adopt a Resolution Rescinding
Implementing Documents of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan; and
5. The City Council Adopt a Resolution Certifying Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Urban Core Specific Plan (EIR # 06-01, SCH
#2005081121); and
6. The City Council Introduce an Ordinance Approving the Urban Core
Specific Plan, including revisions recommended in this report; and
Amending the Zoning Map; and
7. The City Council Introduce an Ordinance Adopting the 2007 Amendment
to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council/Agency Board and CVRC
Members and has found that Councilmember Steve Castaneda and Councilmember
Rindone have property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the areas that are
the subject of this action. Although this could create a conflict for the UCSP, pursuant to
California Code of Regulations section 18704.2, no conflict exists.
cJ.- ~
Page 7 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Resource Conservation Commission - The Resource Conservation Commission
(RCC) reviewed the Draft EIR for the Urban Core Specific Plan (EIR # 06-01, SCH
#2005081121) on July 10, 2006. After reviewing and discussing the document, the
RCC voted 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Stillman abstained) that the DEIR was adequate as
presented.
Design Review Committee - The Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the
proposed Design Guidelines included in the Public Hearing Draft Urban Core Specific
Plan, specifically Chapter VII. Design Guidelines and Chapter VIII. Public Realm Design
Guidelines on September 25, 2006. The DRC of the City Of Chula Vista voted 3-0-2-0
(Members Hogan and Justus absent) to Approve the Resolution recommending that the
City Council of the City Of Chula Vista Adopt the Design Guidelines contained in the
Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM No.07-01).
Planning Commission - The Planning Commission reviewed the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP (PCM No.07 -01) on October 11, 2006 and again on March 28, 2007. As required
by Government Code Section 65854, after reviewing and considering the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM No.07-01), the Planning Commission of the City Of Chula
Vista voted 5-0-2 (with Commissioners Moctezuma and Bensoussan abstaining) to
Approve a Resolution recommending City Council Adopt the UCSP (PCM No.07-01)
and related rezoning actions, with two modifications to the draft PC Resolution PCM 07-
01. In general, the changes recommended by the Planning Commission addressed
residential parking standards (preference for basing standard on the number of
bedrooms rather than a uniform standard); and adding two small parcels to Subdistrict
V-3, as requested by a property owner. These recommendations are discussed later in
this report in Sections D and G.
DISCUSSION
The following section includes: A) a summary of the statutory requirements of specific
plans and location in the Draft UCSP; B) a brief overview of the UCSP and EIR,
including a summary of discretionary implementing actions; C) a consistency analysis of
the UCSP with the 2005 General Plan; and D - G) summary of key policy issues raised
during the public review process with associated staff recommendations.
A. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC PLANS
The UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in CVMC Chapter
19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter
cJ.-1
Page 8 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457, and contains all the mandatory elements
identified in Government Code Section 65451, as follows:
ChulaVistaMunicipal Code Government Code Where
SElfticln.19.07.011 (as Section 65451 Found
amended. byCity.CounCiFon ~equirements in UCSP
Apl'il12,20071
The specific plan shall include: The specific plan shall include a Chapter II
statement of the relationship of
a statement of the relationship of the the specific plan to the general
specific plan to the general plan. plan.
The type, distribution, location, amount, The distribution, location, and Chapters VI,VIII,
intensity of all land uses, within the extent of the uses of land, and Appendix E
area covered by the plan. including open space, within the
area covered by the plan.
The approximate total population Chapters II, IX,
anticipated with the Plan's area. and Appendix E
A depiction of any and all subareas or Chapters II and
other districts within which the Plan's VI
provisions will be applied.
Standards, regulations, criteria and Standards and criteria by which Chapters VI, VII
guidelines by which all development development will proceed, and and VIII
shall proceed within the Plan and any standards for the conservation,
of its subareas or districts. development, and utilization of
natural resources, where
applicable.
The proposed distribution, location, The proposed distribution, Chapters V, VIII,
and extent and intensity of major location, and extent and intensity IX, and
components of public and private of major components of public Appendix E
transportation, sewage, water, and private transportation,
drainage, solid waste disposal, sewage, water, drainage, solid
energy, and other essential facilities waste disposal, energy, and
proposed to be located within the other essential facilities
area covered by the plan and needed proposed to be located within the
to support the land uses described in area covered by the plan and
the plan. needed to support the land uses
described in the plan.
d-?
Page 9 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
A program indicating how and when
the facilities and services to support
the developing land uses will be
installed or financed, and including
the following:
A program of implementation
measures including regulations,
programs, public works projects,
and financing measures
necessary to carry the above.
Chapters IX, X,
Appendix D,
and Appendix E
a A list of facilities and services
b. An inventory of present and future
requirements for each facility and
service based upon the City's Growth
Management Thresholds Standards
c. A phasing schedule that addresses
the timing for installation or provisions
for required facilities and services.
d. A financing program identifying the
methods for funding those facilities
and services consistent with the
phasing schedule, and insures that
the funds are spent on said facilities
pursuant to the phasing schedule.
Provisions and procedures for the
comprehensive implementation and
administration of the Plan
Chapters X, XI,
and FEIR
In addition, CVMC Chapter 19.06 sets forth the statutory authority for the adoption of
implementing ordinances, including specific plans, to implement the general plan. The
CVMC states that:
"The systematic implementation of the general plan or any general plan element
as provided in Section 65303 of the Government Code of the state may be
undertaken by the adoption of specific plans, which shall include all detailed
regulations, conditions, programs and proposed legislation which may be
necessary or convenient for such implementation...."
~-r
Page 10 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
CVMC Chapter 19.07 incorporates by reference the section of the California
Government Code relating to the administration of specific plans and further states:
"Specific plans may be implemented through the adoption of standard zoning
ordinances, the planned community zone, as provided in this title, or by plan
effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan.
The method of implementing an individual specific plan shall be established and
expressed by its adopting resolution or ordinance."
The UCSP has been prepared as an implementing document for future land uses,
public improvements, and programs as set forth in the 2005 General Plan. The new
zoning regulations proposed in the UCSP would replace existing Municipal Code zoning
classifications for the UCSP Subdistricts Area and introduce new zoning classifications
for mixed-use retail/office, mixed-use residential, and Urban Core (high density)
residential as identified in the 2005 General Plan. The UCSP would be adopted by
Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista City Council.
B. OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
Urban Core Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is an approximately 1 ,700-acre area generally located east of 1-
5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street (Attachment 4).
While there are approximately 1,700 acres within the UCSP boundary, the new zoning
regulations and design guidelines would apply only to the approximately 690 acres
referred to as the "Subdistricts Area" which reflect the focused areas of change
described in the 2005 General Plan. The new regulations would accommodate new
growth and revitalization of the Subdistricts Area and would be applicable to new
development or redevelopment projects. Outside of the Subdistricts Area, existing
zoning would not be changed.
One of the primary goals of the UCSP is to create a comprehensive and understandable
regulatory framework that attracts investment and provides a catalyst for revitalization.
This revitalization, in turn, results in pedestrian-friendly environments, gathering places
and public amenities through community development. To achieve this goal, the UCSP
is based on many of the common elements and concepts of smart growth, such as
providing a mix of compatible land uses, utilizing compact building design, providing a
range of housing opportunities and choices, creating walkable neighborhoods, and
increasing transportation choices.
cf.-16
Page 11 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
The UCSP includes the following elements:
. Permitted land uses, development regulations, and standards, all established
through new zoning (Chapter VI)
. Mobility recommendations that address pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobile
and parking opportunities (Chapter V);
. Development Design Guidelines provided for development within the three UCSP
Districts, as well as special guidelines for hotels, mixed-use projects, multi-family
. residential projects, and sustainability principles (Chapter VII);
. Public Realm Design Guidelines that focus on ways to create more attractive and
pedestrian-friendly public environments and gathering places (Chapter VIII); and,
. Assessment of Infrastructure and Public Facilities needs and a Plan
Implementation Program that identifies the implementation programs that will
result in the desired changes emphasized in the UCSP (Chapters IX and X).
The 690-acre UCSP Subdistricts Area encompasses three planning districts: the
Village, the Urban Core, and the Corridors. These three districts are refined into 26
smaller planning subdistricts, each with proposed land use mixes, development
regulations and standards. The new zoning regulations would replace existing Municipal
Code zoning classifications for the UCSP Subdistricts Area and would introduce new
zoning classifications for mixed-use retail/office and residential, and urban core
residential (high-density I) as anticipated by the 2005 General Plan. In place of
traditional zoning classifications (e.g. R-3 Multi-Family; CC Central Commercial, etc),
subdistricts are identified with a numeric designator (e.g. V-2) as well as a subdistricts
name (e.g. Village). The designators correspond to the individual zoning regulations and
standards crafted for each subdistrict.
Consistent with the 2005 General Plan, projected maximum potential buildout in the
UCSP by the year 2030 is described below.
Land Use
Multi-family residential
Commercial retail
Commercial office
Commercial-visitor serving
Existing
3,700 dus
3,000,000 sf
2,400,000 sf
Net Increase
7,100 dus
1,000,000 sf
1,300,000 sf
1,300,000 sf
Total
10,800 dus
4,000,000 sf
3,700,000 sf
1,300,000 sf .
The above buildout projections are estimates. Due to a number of factors unique to
urban revitalization, the exact extent, timing and sequence of infill development that
may occur over the 25-year planning horizon is difficult to ascertain. These factors may
include, but are not limited to: 1) new development which will likely not redevelop
cJ--//
Page 12 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
again over the next 25 years; 2) increased development costs associated with
acquisition, demolition, and cleanup of urbanized land; 3) longevity of other existing
commercial uses and existing housing stock; and 4) project specific economics that
result in less than maximum buildout on a parcel.
The following is a summary of the discretionary actions associated with the Draft UCSP:
ACTION
PURPOSE
Urban Core Specific Plan Adoption
To implement the objectives and policies of the
recently updated Chula Vista General Plan
Urban Core Specific Plan Final EIR To comply with State-required environmental review of
Certification the proposed Urban Core Specific Plan
Town Centre
Amendment
Redevelopment Plan To delete existing land use regulations and instead
defer to the land use development and design
provisions of the Urban Core Specific Plan
Town Centre I Land Use Policy Repeal
Regulation of permitted land uses within the Chula
Vista urban core will instead be pursuant to the Urban
Core Specific Plan Land Use Matrix
Town Centre I Design Manual Repeal
Guidelines for design of development within the Chula
Vista urban core will instead be pursuant to the
Development Design Guidelines of the Urban Core
Specific Plan
To eliminate the requirement for an Owner
Participation Agreement for all Major Remodeling or
New Construction Projects, defined as a minimum
expenditure of $10,000, and instead defer to the
regulations and procedural guidelines of the Urban
Core Specific Plan, including the definition of major
ro'ects
Town Centre I Requirement for a Owner
Participation Agreement Repeal
The actions related to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area are tied to the
adoption of the UCSP because of existing language and requirements within the
Redevelopment Plan that relate to development and design standards and procedural
requirements. Adoption of the UCSP will result in a conflict with the existing language
and guidelines set forth within Town Center I Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, certain
language and requirements must be deleted to ensure that these working documents
are compatible with each other.
Attachment 3 is the Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed 2007
Amendment for the Town Centre I Project Area, which has been prepared pursuant to
Sections 33457.1 and 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health
cJ. -/q
Page 13 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the
Agency is required to submit a Report containing specific documentation regarding the
proposed 2007 Amendment. This information, documentation and evidence are
provided to assist the City Council in its determinations in connection with its adoption.
Environmental Impact Report
Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an
environmental impact report identify the significant effects of a project on the
environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid those
significant effects. This UCSP EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential
impacts associated with implementing the proposed UCSP.
The UCSP EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR, as defined in Title 14, Chapter 3,
Section 15168 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), also known as the CEQA
Guidelines). A Program EIR is used when there are a series of actions that are related
geographically, as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions, or in connection with
the issuance of plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program [CCR Section
15168 (a)]. The advantages of a Program EIR include: the ability to provide a more
exhaustive consideration of alternatives and cumulative effects than is possible in a
single project specific EIR; to avoid duplicative analysis of basic policy issues; and to
provide the Lead Agency (City of Chula Vista) with the ability to consider broad,
program-wide policies and mitigation measures that would be applied to specific
projects within the overall program [CCR Section 15168 (b)]. In addition, a Program
EIR is intended for use by both the City of Chula Vista as Lead Agency, as well as other
Responsible Agencies when taking action on subsequent permits to allow development
in accordance with the proposed UCSP.
The major issues that are addressed in the UCSP EIR were determined based on
review by the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator, Community
Development Department, and public comment received on the Notice of Preparation
(distributed in August, 2005). The issues analyzed in the EIR include land use, landform
alteration and visual quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological
resources, population and housing, hydrology and water quality, traffic, circulation and
access, noise, air quality, public services, public utilities, and public health hazards.
The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on May 31, 2006; 13
public comment letters were received. Additionally, a CVRC public hearing was held on
July 13, 2006 to receive any oral comments on the DEIR. The Final EIR includes all
comments received, and responses to them.
c1.-/d
Page 14 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
After completion and public review of the Draft EI R, some revisions to the Public Review
Urban Core Specific Plan were identified by City staff in order to refine plan
implementation, respond to issues raised by public input, and to correct minor
inaccurate information. All of the refinements and corrections were reviewed, and the
majority of them did not affect the impact analysis and/or significance conclusions in the
DEIR. An evaluation of these changes is summarized in the Errata published with the
UCSP FEIR in September 2006. It should be noted that the changes regarding building
height exceptions of up to five feet for ground floor uses, and for allowing limited
neighborhood serving commercial uses in the V-1 subdistrict have subsequently been
removed for consideration at a later date.
Subsequently, in response to public input provided at the October 11, 2006 and March
28, 2007 Planning Commission hearings, some additional minor modifications have
been proposed to the Urban Core Specific Plan (see sections D and E of this report). An
evaluation of each of these modifications as they relate to the impacts identified in the
FEIR has been included in Sections D and E, as well as in the Second Errata to the
FEIR (included in Attachment 2). As described in Sections D E, and Attachment 2,
none of the additional proposed modifications would change the impact analysis and/or
significance conclusions in the FEIR.
The Draft and Final EIRs identify that the proposed project would result in significant,
unmitigated impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, energy, and transportation.
Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required to be
adopted for these unmitigated impacts. Impacts to geology, hazards, hydrology, land
use, landform alteration/aesthetics, noise, paleontology, population and housing, public
services, and public utilities were found to be less than significant or mitigated to less
than significant. For those impacts with associated mitigation a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been provided with the FEIR.
Any development proposed in the area covered by the UCSP will require design review
and approval of a discretionary Urban Core Development Permit. Section 15168 of the
State CEQA Guidelines defines the process wherein a Program EIR serves as the basis
for environmental review of subsequent projects. Sections 15182 and 15183 of the
CEQA Guidelines provide additional review guidance for projects proposed in
accordance with an adopted Specific Plan, or consistent with adopted Community
Plans, General Plans or Zoning.
The FEIR for the UCSP -- which is a Program EIR -- will be used by the City of Chula
Vista for discretionary actions associated with subsequent development and other
activities within the UCSP area which require CEQA review. Projects will be reviewed
ci-Jf
Page 15 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
under CEQA and in light of the FEIR, and a Secondary Study will be prepared to
determine if the FEIR adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the
proposal. If it does, no additional environmental review is required. If not, additional
environmental documentation would be required in the form of a Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR, an Addendum, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This subsequent
project review process is outlined in detail in the Section 2.3.3 of the FEIR.
C. CONSISTENCY OF UCSP WITH THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN
The proposed UCSP is based on the objectives provided in the 2005 General Plan and
provides further detail on how these objectives will be implemented. The components
of the UCSP implement the 2005 General Plan vision of a vibrant urban core and
include mobility recommendations, land use and development regulations, development
design guidelines and incentives, public realm design guidelines, infrastructure and
public facilities improvements, and a community benefits program. The concurrent
drafting of the UCSP alongside the 2005 General Plan allowed for seamless integration
of the many new objectives and policies established for this area of the City.
A consistency analysis between the General Plan and UCSP has been prepared and is
provided as Attachment 5 to this report. The analysis provides a summary of the major
components of the UCSP and identifies the 2005 General Plan Objectives related to the
Urban Core and the relevant sections of the UCSP.
To monitor progress towards implementing the land use goals envisioned by both the
2005 General Plan and UCSP, a series of checks and balances are proposed. These
include annual review of new development under the City's Growth Management
Ordinance, bi-annual review of amenities and facilities implementation in conjunction
with the City's budgetlCIP review cycle, and five-year assessments of the progress of
the UCSP.
D. ISSUES RAISED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT UCSP
(5/31/06 - 7/13/06)
The following topical issues were raised during review of the Public Review Draft UCSP
and during the 45-day public comment period for the DEIR, and have resulted in some
staff recommended changes in the UCSP. This section provides a summary and
analysis of and recommendation about these issues. Issues included in this section are
generally those raised by a number of people or those with significant implications to
successful implementation of the UCSP. A complete set of the public comments
received on the Public Review Draft UCSP is attached to the end of this report
~-/6
Page 16 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
(Attachment 6). Issues raised that did not result in recommended changes to the
UCSP at this time are discussed in Section G.
1. Issue: Building Heights along Third Ave between E Street and G Street
should either be higher or lower.
Analysis: Some concerns related to building height and intensity for the Village area
between E Street and G Street were raised during public review. The Third Avenue
Village Association (TAVA) indicated that the proposed height (maximum 45 feet) of
buildings along the majority of the Third Avenue frontage was too low and that a height
of 60 feet along and east of Third Ave was more appropriate. In contrast, Crossroads II
and Northwest Civic Association indicated "heights of buildings between E and G Streets
should not exceed a maximum height of 45 feet.
The current Central Business (CB) zone, which applies all along Third Ave frontage, has
no height limit. The preliminary draft of the UCSP had proposed up to 84 feet for the
entire length of Third Avenue. However, in response to public comments made at
numerous UCSP Advisory Committee meetings held during 2005, the proposed height
was reduced to 45 feet along the "traditional" storefronts, specifically those areas not
redeveloped within the last 20-25 years.
The proposed varied building heights along Third Avenue were developed with
consideration of existing conditions, regulations and new policies established by the
2005 General Plan. In December of 2005, after nearly 5 years of extensive community
input, the General Plan was adopted and included the following Policy LUT 50.12, which
states that:
"Along the immediate street frontage of the Third Avenue corridor,
primarily between E and G Streets, buildings shall be predominantly low-
rise, with mid-rise allowed, provided that upper stories are stepped back
from the facade and are architecturally compatible with surrounding
development. "
The Public Review Draft UCSP proposed the majority (75%) of Third Avenue frontage
along E and G Streets as low-rise, with heights up to 45 feet, while the remaining (25%)
of Third Avenue frontage was proposed for mid-rise, with heights up to 84 feet (seven
stories) with mandatory minimum 15-foot step backs at 35 feet. Of the approximately 50
lots fronting along Third A venue between E Street and G Street, only 11 parcels would
have development standards allowing mid-rise heights of up to 84 feet, again with
mandatory stepbacks at 35 feet. These parcels are located at the "entrance" to the
rX-/~
Page 17 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
Village area at Third and E, in the Park Plaza area on Third, and at the SW corner of
Third and Park Way.
The UCSP contains extensive design guidelines that ensure high-quality building design
and integration with the surrounding area. The locations of the mid-rise buildings allow
designers, through greater variety of construction types (e.g. concrete and steel), the
ability to create an exciting sense of entry to the Village, integrate parking alternatives
(e.g. subterranean or wrapped structures), and in general spur redevelopment in areas
along Third Avenue that may not otherwise be feasible, especially in the short term. In
addition, the new Redevelopment Advisory Committee provides a venue for the public
to weigh in early in the development process with comments on the design of future
projects, further ensuring high-quality building design and integration.
Recommendation: Based on the analysis summarized above, the proposed maximum
building heights along the Third Avenue frontage should be retained as proposed in the
Public Hearing Draft UCSP.
2. Issue: Mixed use with residential development should be "permitted" in
the Corridors Districts along Broadway and Third Avenue without requiring
a Conditional Use Permit.
Analysis: The general mix of uses has been established by the policy direction of the
2005 General Plan and is reflected in the proposed development regulations and
standards for these subdistrict areas. However, with regard to land use with residential
mix, the Public Review Draft UCSP initially recommended a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for Mixed Use Residential in the Corridors to focus mixed uses along the mid
segment of Broadway (between E and H Street). Staff has subsequently reviewed this
requirement, and has recommended minor revisions to the UCSP Land Use Matrix that
would allow mixed-use with residential in Corridors sub-districts without a CUP. This is
consistent with the land use designations of the GP and vision of the UCSP.
The 2005 General Plan and associated traffic model, which was used as the basis for
the UCSP traffic study, assumed the general mix of land uses would include residential.
The DEIR for the UCSP (page 5-30 and 5-38) assumed residential uses in the
Corridors. The change from "conditional" to "permitted" is procedural in nature and does
not change the impact analysis or significance conclusions of the FEIR.
Recommendation: Minor revisions have been made to the land use matrix to allow
mixed-use (commercial with residential) as a "Permitted" use rather than by CUP, in C-
1, C-2 and C-3. This change is consistent with 2005 General Plan and vision and goals
of the UCSP, and the assumptions and conclusions of the FEIR.
d-/1
Page 18 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
3. Issue: Residential Parking Standards may be too low.
Analysis: Based on public comments and direction from the UCSP Advisory Committee
at their final meeting in March 2006 and prior to release of the Draft EIR for public
review, the proposed minimum residential parking standards were increased by 50%,
from 1.0 to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit; and 0.5 to 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit in the
Transit Focus Areas. In addition, the Draft UCSP has always included a "guest" parking
standard of 1 space per 10 dwelling units, whereas currently in other areas of the City
there is no separate guest parking standard for residential uses. These minimum
residential parking standards included in the Draft UCSP and DEIR EIR are nearly the
same as existing citywide standards for multi-family residential: slightly more for studio/1
bedroom units (1.5 spaces CVMC vs. 1.7 spaces UCSP) and slightly less for 2+
bedrooms (1.7 spaces UCSP vs. 2.0 spaces CVMC).
By way of background, typically in urban areas, a greater emphasis on multi-modal
mobility choices (walking, bikes, transit, and cars), urban form and design, economic
considerations unique to revitalization, and negative effects on the provision of
affordable housing, warrant consideration of more flexible parking standards. UCLA
Professor Donald Shoup (FAICP) in his book, The High Cost of Free Parking,
demonstrates that as parking requirements are increased, there is a direct increase in
project development costs, negatively impacting housing affordability, and subsequently
leading to increased rates of vehicle ownership, traffic volumes, vehicle congestion and
air pollution. Additional parking increases in the UCSP would reduce feasible Floor Area
Ratios and inhibit the creation of a more balanced split among non-motorized travel
modes, including declining public transit. This counteracts many of the pedestrian-
oriented measures proposed in the Plan and results in a suburban rather than urban
form, creating a scale fit more for cars than for people.
Further, parking standards have little impact on perceived on-street parking "shortages"
and little ability to affect "spillover" impacts to adjacent residential areas. Spillover
impacts related to the availability of on-street spaces are more likely the result of poor
parking management and therefore appropriately addressed through parking
management solutions such as performance based meter pricing and residential
parking districts. While minimum parking standards are proposed for new development,
parking management will be subsequently addressed through the City's Northwest
Parking Management Study. The Northwest Parking Management Study, which has
already gotten underway, will conclude well in advance of completion of any new
development projects.
c1-/f
Page 19 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
The Planning Commission, at their meeting on 3/28/07, recommended the alternative
minimum residential parking standard presented by staff, for subdistricts other than
Transit Focus Areas. This alternative standard is based on the number of bedrooms,
rather than a uniform standard of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The alternative
standard would instead be 1 space per studio and one bedroom units and 2 spaces for
two+ bedroom units. The net effect of this alternative would still average 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit. The proposed minimum parking standard alternative will not result in the
reduction of parking required and therefore would not change the impact analysis or
significance conclusions of the FEIR.
Recommendation: For subdistricts other than Transit Focus Areas, either: 1) retain
parking standards as increased for the Public Review Draft UCSP; or alternatively, 2)
apply a parking standard of 1 space per studio and one bedroom units and 2 spaces for
two+ bedroom units. The net effect of Alternative #2 would still be averaged at 1.5
spaces per dwelling unit, but may be more conducive to creating a greater variety of
housing types and size due to reduced construction/parking costs for smaller units
(studios and one bedroom). The Planning Commission recommended Alternative #2
residential parking standard at the 3/28/07 public hearing on the UCSP.
4. Issue: New zoning proposed by the UCSP could cause mobilehome parks
to close.
Analysis: At the October 24, 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council amended the
General Plan to establish a Mobilehome Overlay District and to adopt new policies for
the evaluation of the conversion of mobilehome and trailer parks to other types of
development. In general, the policy requires that prior to the City's consideration of any
proposed change of use to and/or rezoning of a mobile home or trailer park, a plan must
be prepared in conformance with applicable State and City regulations that outlines the
steps and provisions to mitigate the adverse impacts of the conversion on affected
residents.
Currently, CVMC Chapter 9.40 outlines the process for mobile home park closures, but
has not been updated in 25 years. An update to the ordinance has recently begun and
is expected to be complete in six months. The updated ordinance would provide, on a
programmatic level, the local requirements for future individual project applicant's park
closure plans, including those necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts of the
conversion on affected residents.
Recommendation: Defer rezoning pursuant to the UCSP of the mobile home and
trailer park areas to a future date, following completion of the update of the mobilehome
park closure ordinance (CVMC 9.40). This change would not affect the significance
conclusions of the FEIR. The assumptions in the impact analysis would stay the same,
c1-) r
Page 20 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
however, the catalyst for any potential impacts (rezoning) would be deferred to a later
date.
5. Issue: The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) recommends an Air
Quality "Buffer" Zone for areas within 350 to 500 feet of the centerline of
Interstate 5 to address potential air quality (diesel particulates) effects on
new development.
Analysis: As described in the DEIR, in April 2005, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) published the "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective." The handbook makes recommendations directed at protecting sensitive
land uses, while balancing a myriad of other land use issues (e.g. housing,
transportation needs, and economics). It notes that the handbook is not regulatory or
binding on local agencies and recognizes that application takes a qualitative approach.
As reflected in the CARB handbook, there is currently no adopted standard for the
significance of health effects from mobile sources. Although there is no adopted
standard for mobile sources such as a freeway, the effects as analyzed in the DEIR
were considered to be cumulatively significant.
The only means of effectively reducing these effects is the implementation of source
controls. The CARB has worked on developing strategies and regulations aimed at
reducing the risk from diesel particulate matter. The overall strategy for achieving these
reductions is found in the "Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles" (State of California 2000). A stated goal of
the plan is to reduce the cancer risk statewide arising from exposure to diesel
particulate matter 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. A number of programs
and strategies to reduce diesel particulate matter that have been or are in the process
of being developed include the Diesel Risk Reduction Program which aims to reduce
diesel particulate emission over the next 5 to 15 years through improved automobile
design and alternative fuel efficiency. These programs are outside of the jurisdiction of
the City of Chula Vista.
In recognition of the guidance provided in the CARB handbook, the UCSP Development
Design Guidelines (Chapter VII, Section G.6) have incorporated site design measures
that must be considered by future redevelopment adjacent to 1-5, where possible, to
help minimize effects. These measures include siting residential uses away from the
freeway, tiering residential structures back from the freeway, and incorporating
mechanical and structural measures into the building design. While these measures
may serve to reduce the severity of diesel particulate emissions impacts,
implementation of diesel vehicles source control measures by State authorities would
be required to significantly reduce diesel particulate impacts. A mandatory application of
~-~CJ
Page 21 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
these suggested design measures, such as prohibiting development within 350-500 feet
of the centerline of the freeway, would have significant implications on any future
development or redevelopment of parcels adjacent to the freeway.
Recommendation: Retain the language in the UCSP Development Design Guidelines
that requires new development adjacent to Interstate 5 to consider and implement
where possible, site design measures as described in Chapter VII.G.6.
E. ISSUES RAISED AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS (October 11,
2006 and March 28, 2007)
On October 11, 2006, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider
the UCSP and related rezoning actions. The initial public hearing on October 11, 2006
was continued pending the outcome of Proposition 90 on the November 2006 ballot.
Subsequently, Proposition 90 failed, and the Planning Commission public hearing was
re-convened on March 28, 2007.
A number of requests for modifications to the proposed UCSP land uses and
development regulations were received at the October 11 Planning Commission public
hearing. The requests suggested revisions either to the land use matrix or individual
sub-district zoning sheets contained in Chapter VI Land Use and Development
Regulations of the Public Hearing Draft UCSP. Many of the requests also addressed
proposed building form, and would constitute minor modifications that, if implemented,
would not change the impact analysis or significance conclusions of the FEIR.
Following the October 11th Planning Commission hearing, staff reviewed these
suggested revisions for consistency with the GP and FEIR, and with the overall
principles of the UCSP. The following are recommended changes to the UCSP to
address some of the issues raised. Those issues that did not result in recommended
changes at this time are discussed in Section G.
1. Issue: Allow ground floor office uses in V-2 and V-3 where fronting on
Third Avenue.
Analysis: Currently the Zoning Sheet for V-2 permits 20% non-ground floor office use,
and the Zoning Sheet for V-3 permits 10% non-ground floor office uses for any new
development. A proposed revision would delete the requirement on these sheets that
offices must be located above the ground floor.
The UCSP envisions a gradual change along Third Avenue from predominately first
floor offices to more retail uses in order to create a livelier, 24-hour street environment.
cJ, -:</
Page 22 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
Existing ground floor office uses, currently at about a 50% ratio with commercial retail,
can remain as legal non-conforming uses until the space has been vacant for 18
months or more. At that time, the new use is required to be retail. This has raised
concerns from businesses along Third Avenue, who fear loss of income if new retail
tenants cannot be found, and from the Third Avenue Village Association.
Staff is now recommending an alternative that would allow the market to determine the
best use of ground floor space (office or retail) rather than regulating ground floor
tenants through the UCSP. This could achieve the gradual migration to more retail uses
(as envisioned by the GP), while also addressing the concerns raised by property
owners. Recent anecdotal information seems to suggest that that the ground floor
space along Third Avenue has already begun shifting towards retail, creating less of a
need to be as prescriptive in mandating the use of ground floor space. More flexibility
and less regulation on the internal use of buildings, in particular the ground floor, is also
more in keeping with the tenets of the UCSPs form based zoning approach, which
focuses more on creating appropriate urban form and less on the function and interior
use of buildings.
With the proposed change, the impact analysis and significance conclusions of the
FEIR remain the same or could be lessened because: 1) the mixed use designation
(mixed retail/office/residential) was already contemplated by both the 2005 GP and
UCSP; 2) any impacts considered in the EIR, such as traffic, were not based on the
specific location of individual uses within buildings (Le. ground floor vs. second floor);
and, 3) office uses generate less traffic than commercial uses.
Recommendation: Revise the land use matrix to allow ground floor office use along
and adjacent to Third Avenue in subdistricts V-2 and V-3, and make accompanying
changes to the V-2 and V-3 zoning sheets.
d-~ }Z
Page 23 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
2. Issue: Lower the minimum building height in UC-3 from 30 feet to 18 feet.
Analysis: This was requested due to concerns about property owners being forced to
build higher than desired. A reduction of the minimum required building height is
considered a minor change to the development standards for the subdistrict and would
not be a significant departure from the guiding principles of the UCSP or vision of the
GP. The analysis in the EIR is considered a "worst case," since the minimum height is
proposed to be lowered and would lessen the effects already analyzed. In addition, the
change to lower the minimum height requirement could result in a reduced density.
Therefore, the change would not affect the impacts analysis and significance
conclusions of the FEIR.
Recommendation: Lower the minimum building height in UC-3 from 30 feet to 18 feet.
3. Issue: Include provision for processing projects that are currently in the
permit processing "pipeline."
Analysis: A pipeline project provision would set procedures for the administration of
any projects within the UCSP subdistricts area that have been substantially processed
by the City consistent with existing zoning prior to the UCSP adoption. However, this
provision is already in CVMC Section 19.07.030, and may apply to any projects within a
specific plan.
This is a procedural matter, and would only be considered at the request of an individual
applicant. There is no way of determining its future application on an individual project
basis at this time, and it does not affect the impacts analysis and significance
conclusions of the DEIR.
Recommendation: The effective date section of the ordinance adopting the UCSP will
include a reference to the existing pipeline provision for specific plans in CVMC
19.07.030(C).
4. Issue: Permit some flexibility in the application of the UCSP development
standards to encourage innovative design and to effectively administer
projects with any unforeseen development and/or design challenges.
Analysis: Staff agrees that it may be necessary and appropriate for the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation or Planning Commission to authorize certain exceptions to
the land use and development regulations, provided that the exception is based on
certain findings, including that a better design or greater public benefit would be
achieved. Review and consideration of a development standard exception is not
d- ;0
Page 24 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
permitted by right but would be considered on a project by project basis concurrent with
the review of the Urban Core Development Permit, as outlined in Chapter XI.C.1 of the
Specific Plan.
Because this is a procedural change, and would only be considered at the request of an
individual applicant, there is no way of determining its future application on an individual
project basis at this time, and it does not affect the impacts analysis and significance
conclusions of the DEIR. Additionally, any potential new or increased/decreased
impacts associated with its application would be identified during project review as part
of the Secondary Study process described in the FEIR Section 2.3.3.
Recommendation: Add development exception provisions, as shown in Attachment 7.
5. Issue: Clarify the definition of "Minor" Project
Analysis: One request was to identify the correct sub-section in the Municipal Code
that defines the term "minor project". Staff has identified sub-section "i" of CVMC
19.14.582 as the correct reference. This editing change does not affect the impacts
analysis and significance eonclusions of the DEIR.
Recommendation: Include this reference in UCSP Chapter XI - Plan Administration.
F. ON-GOING ISSUE RELATED TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
(CVMC) SECTION 19.80 (CUMMINGS INITIATIVE)
The following topic has been raised and discussed at various stages during preparation
of the UCSP and its associated public input process. Most recently the topic has been
deliberated by the City Council and at public meetings conducted in April 2007. The
following summarizes the heart of the debate.
1. Issue: Is the UCSP consistent with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC)
Section 19.80 (Cummings Initiative)?
Analysis: In the late 1980s, a citizen's initiative, referred to as the "Cumming's
Initiative," was passed by a majority vote of the electorate and was incorporated as
CVMC Section 19.80 (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988). The purpose and intent of the initiative
was generally to ensure the quality of life for the residents of Chula Vista through a
variety of measures, including preserving the character of the community, ensuring
provision of adequate public facilities and services and ensuring the balanced
development of the city. The ordinance states that the intent is "not designed to halt
quality growth, but to ensure that rampant, unplanned development does not overtax
d-J-1
Page 25 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
facilities and destroy the quality and home town character of Chula Vista". In order to
accomplish this, the Ordinance requires the staged provision of public services and
facilities commensurate with growth through funding mechanisms such as a system of
fees collected from developers at the time of new development.
Since the passage of the Cummings Initiative in the late 1980's, many of the quality of
life issues described above are now routinely addressed during the City's development
review process. The City has established quality of life "thresholds" that are regularly
evaluated through the environmental review process as projects are proposed and
developed. Development Impact Fees (DIF) have been put in place to require new
development to provide their proportionate contribution to public services and facilities.
A Growth Management Oversight Commission has also been established and annually
reviews the growth management program with reports submitted to the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
CVMC 19.80.070(A) states that Planned Communities (used in the eastern part of
Chula Vista) are deemed to be in compliance with the section, but does not address
other similar planning documents such as Specific Plans. This oversight is being
addressed separately through a minor amendment to the Ordinance, which will clarify
that Specific Plans meeting specified findings would also be deemed in compliance. On
April 12, 2007, the City Council approved an amendment to CVMC 19.07 and 19.80 (by
a vote of 5-0) to make this clarification. The Ordinance adopting the UCSP includes the
specified findings as amended in 19.07.012. The UCSP has been prepared pursuant to
CVMC 19.07 and is in keeping with the purpose and intent of CVMC 19.80, as it
requires new development to provide adequate public services and facilities
commensurate with their impact.
The other aspect of Cummings that relates to the UCSP is the so-called "zoning two-
step," which only allows zoning density increases of specifically listed residential zones
by one "step" every two years (A, R-E, R-1, R-2, and R-3). Because the UCSP contains
almost entirely new mixed use zones, and few purely residential zones, it becomes
difficult to determine in the areas within the Plan boundaries zoned R-1, R-2 or R-3 what
constitutes a 2-step rezone. The area of concern is related to the R-1 and R-2 zoned
areas within the UCSP. This constitutes about 28 gross acres, or 4% of the UCSP
Subdistricts Area.
Recommendation: In an effort to resolve the concerns raised by the public regarding
the areas currently zoned R-1 and R-2, it is recommended that these areas be removed
from the UCSP comprehensive rezone. If in the future, individual property owners chose
to redevelop their property, the property owner would be required to process a rezone to
c;2. -:( S-
Page 26 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
bring the underlying zone of their property into conformance with the City's General
Plan.
2. Issue: Is the UCSP consistent with the new findings adopted by the City
Council on 4/12/07 required for Specific Plans prepared pursuant to CVMC
Section 19.07, specifically the finding relating to the provision of public
services and facilities?
The short answer is yes, as is demonstrated by the following summary of the
information contained throughout the UCSP and associated FEIR, and compiled into
Appendix E of the UCSP that addresses the issue of provision of public services and
facilities. Additionally, the specific findings that the City Council must make regarding
Section 19.07 are included in the UCSP adoption ordinance.
The City of Chula Vista's General Plan was updated in December 2005 and created a
new vision for the city. A large part of that vision, developed over a 5 year planning
process, focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of western Chula Vista. New
growth is planned around "smart growth" principles such as mixed use, and transit
oriented development that concentrates infill and redevelopment to select focus areas
and corridors to protect stable single family neighborhoods, better utilize land resources,
reduce environmental effects and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure.
The General Plan calls for the preparation and adoption of specific plans to carry out the
vision of the GP in an organized and orderly fashion. With the approval of new land use
designations under the 2005 General Plan, new zoning regulations, in particular mixed
use and urban core residential zoning districts, are required to be developed to ensure
the systematic implementation of the 2005 General Plan. This requirement to have
zoning consistent with the City's General Plan is established by State law and in CVMC
Section 19.06.030. The UCSP implements the policies and objectives of the GPU to
direct a portion of the growth expected to occur in the City over the next 20 years to the
Urban Core Area, by providing zone changes, development regulations and design
guidelines to accommodate future growth.
Along with the plan for new land uses, the UCSP also identifies the proposed
distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private
transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other
essential facilities that would be located within the area covered by the plan and needed
to support the land uses described in the plan. In addition, the UCSP includes a
program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works
projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the plan.
~-~
Page 27 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
Specifically, Chapters IX, X, XI and Appendix 0 of the UCSP and the UCSP FEIR 06-
01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), provide an
assessment of the demands on public facilities and infrastructure due to development
that may occur as a result of the specific plan, and the plan and mechanisms to ensure
public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development.
Chapter V (Mobility) and Chapter VIII (Public Realm Design Guidelines) provide an
expanded discussion and illustrations of some of the public facilities, such as mobility
improvements - traffic, pedestrian and bicycle-- and other improvements such as parks
and plazas.
As described in the UCSP and FEIR, subsequent new development would be required
to provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with their impact.
Appendix 0 of the Urban Core Specific Plan - Public Facilities Implementation Analysis
(Economics and Planning Systems, 2006) provides projected cost estimates, projected
timing of facilities, and financing mechanisms and revenues. The revenues are based
on projected tax increment and development impacts fees routinely collected as
development occurs in the City. These existing City-wide Development Impact Fees
(DIF) related to the provision of public facilities include:
. City-wide Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee
. Public Facilities (PF) DIF (police, fire, libraries, and recreation facilities)
. Sewer fees
. Storm drain fees
. Traffic signal fees
. School impacts fees (collected pursuant to Government Code 65996)
These fees would continue to be collected from new development as it occurs in the
urban core. Additionally, the Engineering Department will begin developing a
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TO IF) within the next year, to address
additional funding for future long-term traffic intersection impacts that may occur as a
result of "worst case" maximum buildout.
In addition, the UCSP FEIR, prepared as a Program EIR, includes an evaluation of the
City's growth management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic level based on
development projections over the course of the next 20 years. The EIR identifies
mitigation measures which would be applied on a project-by-project basis during
subsequent review of individual development projects. The Final EIR Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts
analysis and/or mitigation measures for significant impacts that address provision of
public services and facilities. The MMRP ensures that subsequent new development
implements timely mitigation for impacts associated with new development, which
cl-c2.1
Page 28 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
includes but is not limited to the installation of infrastructure or payment of fees for
needed public facilities as a result of new growth. These requirements would be
assured through the subsequent discretionary design review and approval of future
project specific Urban Core Development Permits.
Although the UCSP is intended to attract future development to the Subdistricts Area,
the timing, location and extent of subsequent development projects are unpredictable
because of the unique nature of urban revitalization. To further ensure the timely
provision of public services and facilities, monitoring of on-going development activity
would be accomplished through the City's existing annual growth management
monitoring and reporting. Monitoring programs, such as the traffic monitoring program
which monitors the actual performance of the street system by conducting real time
roadway segment travel time studies, would track the rate and effect of growth on an
annual basis. In addition to the annual growth management review, the bi-annual
BudgetlCIP cycle and a five year status report would provide additional checks and
balances of future growth. The integrated system of growth management programs,
standards, regulations, facility master plans, funding systems and monitoring activities
provide an effective system of checks and balances to ensure that the provision of
public services and facilities keeps in step with new development.
Attachment 8 (Appendix E to the UCSP) has been compiled for ease of reference
using the various existing chapters of the UCSP and FEIR to provide a central location
of the components of the UCSP Public Facilities and Services Program, prepared
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the
California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65451.
Recommendation: The UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the recently adopted
requirements of CVMC 19.07.012 as it requires new development to provide adequate
public services and facilities commensurate with their impact.
G.
PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME
CHANGES
THAT
ARE
NOT
Based on public input received at the Planning Commission hearings, recently raised
California Environmental Quality Act concerns, and the need to do further analysis of
the planning and environmental implications, a number of proposals supported by staff
and described in the previous Planning Commission reports are now not recommended
to be adopted at this time. One proposal recommended by the Planning Commission is
not recommended for adoption at this time. Following a more extensive analysis, staff
~-~g'
Page 29 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
may bring back some or all of these as future amendments to the Specific Plan. They
are summarized below:
1. Issue: Maximum building heights in the UCSP are lower than the State
Uniform Building Code (UBC) maximum heights for various construction
types (e.g. Type III, V).
Analysis: Based on input received and review of the UBC, there are some limited
differences between the maximum height provisions in the Draft UCSP and maximum
heights typically associated with low and mid-rise developments of various construction
types. For example, Type III construction has a maximum height limit of 65', vs. the
UCSP limit of 60', and Type V has a maximum height limit of 50', vs. the UCSP limit of
45'. This height difference could be utilized in expanded ground floor heights, to create
an enhanced design of storefronts or entryways. A building height exception of up to 5
feet above the maximum height could be considered on a case by case basis if
requested for the sole purpose of allowing an increase in the first floor ceiling height to
enhance building design and pedestrian orientation.
This height exception for the ground floor could be applicable to all subdistricts except
V-2. It would not be allowed by right, but would be considered, as requested, on a
project by project basis and would be evaluated during the design review of the
development application. The potential height increases are considered minimal and
would maintain building heights typically associated with low and mid-rise structures.
2. Issue: Increase maximum FAR in Corridors District (C-1; C-2; and C-3)
from 1.0 to 2.0.
Analysis: The requested Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase in C-1 through C-3 could be
consistent with the land use policies regarding land use intensity/heights established in
the GP for these subdistricts. The minor increase in FAR could better align with the
urban form and intensity policies described in the GP for these subdistricts, such as low
and mid-rise mixed use buildings, with a commercial/office FAR ranging from 0.5 -1.0
plus a residential density of 40 dwelling units per gross acre. The 2005 General Plan
traffic model, which was used as the basis for the UCSP traffic study, assumed this mix
of uses and level of commercial, office and residential intensity.
An increase to FAR 2.0 could improve neighborhood walkability in the Corridors through
improved urban form. New buildings would be better able to provide subterranean
parking, which would most likely be precluded under a maximum FAR 1.0 development
scenario. Greater design flexibility and additional building area could offset the costs of
subterranean parking. Subdistricts C-1 and C-2 are also currently designated as
c2-;{~
Page 30 of 32
Item No.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts, which provide enhanced design
measures (e.g. setbacks, stepbacks, landscaping, and walls) to transition new
development adjacent to lower density (R-1 and R-2) neighborhoods.
Additionally, minor modifications to the parking locations description on the C-1, C-2,
and C-3 zoning sheets to disallow parking in the front of the building could be proposed
in the future with this FAR increase. This change could further enhance building form
and walkability by focusing new development along the streetwall rather than set back
and separated by front parking lots, and would in some areas, provide further
separation between new buildings to adjacent lower density (R-1 and R-2)
neighborhoods.
3. Issue: Remove Lot Coverage requirements from all sub-districts due to
concerns that the standard could overly restrict building form.
Analysis: Additional comments addressed the issue of urban versus suburban form
and whether lot coverage requirements are a necessary and appropriate tool for
regulating building form in an urban setting. Based on input from the Planning
Commissioners, the community, and the city's consultant, lot coverage requirements
may in fact be redundant. The UCSP has other requirements for regulating a building's
form, particularly FAR, building height, building setback, building stepback, street wall
frontage, open space and parking requirements. All of these development standards will
help guide site design and building form, will be applied on a project by project basis,
and will have varying results based on the individual characteristics of a parcel.
Subdistricts currently designated as Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts would
also provide enhanced design measures (e.g. setbacks, stepbacks, landscaping, and
walls) to transition new development adjacent to lower density (R-1 and R-2)
neighborhoods. In addition, lot coverage maximums may prove counterproductive by
allowing or even incentivizing the provision of surface parking as opposed to
landscaping and open space.
The UCSP includes other development standards (e.g. building height, building setback,
building stepback, street wall frontage, and parking locations) to achieve the building
form as envisioned by the 2005 GP.
4. Issue: Combining Village Districts Land Uses to allow some commercial
uses in the V-1 subdistrict
Analysis: Public input was received regarding the potential to allow limited
neighborhood serving commercial uses, such as coffee shops and small bookstores
d-3lJ
Page 31 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
within the V-1 subdistrict, to serve the immediate residential neighborhood. The existing
condition of this area already includes a mix of residential, commercial and office uses.
The UCSP proposed zoning would limit new development to residential only. The minor
change to permitted land uses (to allow some commercial use) could better align with
the policies described in the GP for this area of the Village. The 2005 General Plan
traffic model, which was used as the basis for the UCSP traffic study, assumed a mix of
uses including residential, commercial, and office uses.
5. Issue: Adding two parcels to subdistrict V-3 as requested by property
owner and recommended by the Planning Commission
Analysis: Two parcels were requested by a property owner, to be added to the V-3
subdistrict based on contiguous ownership and preliminary development concept. The
two parcels, specifically located at 311-325 G Street (APN 568-300-0600 and APN 568-
300-0700) comprise 0.15 acre and 0.14 acre respectively (total 0.29 acres). The
Planning Commission, after considering the applicant's testimony and the minor area
that was affected, recommended that these two parcels be added to the V-3 subdistrict.
Based on the minor area, it is not anticipated that the addition would change the overall
projected buildout anticipated under the GP and UCSP.
CONCLUSION
As the City of Chula Vista is approaching its 100th birthday, it is poised to establish the
next chapter in its history. The UCSP is the first in a series of significant zoning
documents proposed to implement the vision established by the 2005 General Plan.
Adoption of the UCSP would provide an opportunity to renew the economic vitality of
the City's urban core similar to the levels enjoyed in the early 1900s and 1950s.
Development pursuant to the UCSP would afford a greater diversity of housing choices
for residents of the city and region, as well as create more choices to work, shop and
play. In return, new development would generate new sources of revenue to implement
the significant urban amenities and public improvements identified in the UCSP.
Preparation of the UCSP soon after the adoption of the 2005 General Plan was
intentional to try to capture development potential under current and future housing and
commercial markets. Upon adoption of the UCSP, the following projects/programs are
recommended as short term demonstration projects to provide a "catalyst" for
implementation of the UCSP:
1. Pursue Immediate Redevelopment of Opportunity Sites
2. Prepare and Implement the Third Avenue Streets cape Master Plan and
Improvements
3. Improve the Existing Storefront Renovation Program
c2-dJ
Page 32 of 32
Item NO.2
Meeting Date: 04/26/07
The UCSP calls for the sensitive and appropriate revitalization necessary to implement
the GP and respond to the needs of the community in a harmonious fashion. It strikes a
balance between more housing opportunities, new shopping experiences, greater
transportation choices, and provides new revenue sources for the public improvements
necessary to help revitalize the City's urban core. Coupled with other private
development activity, the short term demonstration projects listed above would begin
the revitalization process in the UCSP area.
FISCAL IMPACT
As a planning document, the adoption of the UCSP will have no direct fiscal impact to
the City. However, as projects, both private and public, are implemented both a revenue
stream and cost factors will be realized.
As the Urban Core is undergoing reinvestment and redevelopment, the importance of
various improvements and the appropriateness of various funding mechanisms in a
context of competing policy and financial priorities, as well as under market conditions
will evolve through the next several decades. As implementation of the UCSP occurs,
additional information regarding specific fiscal impacts of future individual projects and
work items will be brought to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Hearing Draft Urban Core Specific Plan - PCM No. 07-01 (provided under
separate cover)
2. Final EIR No. 06-01, SCH #2005081121 (provided under separate cover)
3 Redevelopment Agency Report to the City Council
4. Urban Core Specific Plan Subdistricts Area Map
5. General Plan Consistency Analysis
6. Comment Letters received on the Public Review Draft UCSP (April 2006)
7. Appendix E - Urban Core Specific Plan Public Facilities and Services Program
8. Development Exceptions - Insert in UCSP Chapter VI.I
9. Planning Commission Resolution - PCM 07-01
PREPARED BY: Mary Ladiana, Community Development Planning Manager
Brian Sheehan, Senior Community Development Specialist
J-3~
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2006
(Provided Under Separate Cover)
,1- 3-3
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (NO. 06-01)
FOR THE
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2006
(Provided Under Separate Cover)
4-31-
SECOND ERRATA
to the
FINAL URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
April 17 , 2007
After completion of the Final EIR, a number of requests for modifications to the
proposed Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) land uses and development
regulations were received at the October 11, 2006 Planning Commission public
hearing. The requests suggested revisions to the land use matrix or individual
sub-district zoning sheets contained in Chapter VI Land Use and Development
Regulations of the Public Hearing Draft UCSP, to proposed building form
guidelines, and to the Final EIR. These changes were evaluated by staff, and
those that were considered minor modifications, that would not change the
impact analysis or significance conclusions of the FEIR were recommended to be
included.
An analysis of these proposed changes is summarized below. No revisions were
made to the body of the FEIR.
Proposal 1. Allow ground floor office uses in V-2 and V-3 where fronting
on Third Avenue.
Analysis: Currently the Zoning Sheet for V-2 permits 20% non-ground floor
office use, and the Zoning Sheet for V-3 permits 10% non-ground floor office
uses for any new development. This new revision would delete the requirement
on these sheets that offices must be located above the ground floor.
The UCSP envisions a gradual change along Third Avenue from predominately
first floor offices to more retail uses in order to create a livelier, 24-hour street
environment. The Public Hearing Draft Plan allows existing ground floor offices to
remain as legal non-conforming uses, although once the space has been vacant
for 18 months or more, the new use is required to be retail. Because nearly 50%
of current ground floor uses are estimated to be office, the original proposed
change has raised concerns from businesses along Third Avenue, who fear loss
of income if new retail tenants cannot be found, and from the Third Avenue
ViII~ge Association
Staff is now recommending an alternative that would allow the market to
determine the best use of ground floor space (office or retail) rather than
regulating ground floor tenants through the UCSP. This could achieve the
gradual migration to more retail uses (as envisioned by the GP), while also
addressing the concerns raised by property owners. Recent anecdotal
information seems to suggest that that the ground floor space along Third
Avenue has already begun shifting towards retail, creating less of a need to be
o(-.3!1
as prescriptive in mandating the use of ground floor space. More flexibility and
less regulation on the internal use of buildings, in particular the ground floor, is
also more in keeping with the tenets of the UCSPs form based zoning approach,
which focuses more on creating appropriate urban form and less on the function
and interior use of buildings.
With the proposed change, the impact analysis and significance conclusions of
the FEIR remain the same or could be lessened, because: 1) the mixed use
designation (mixed retail/officelresidential) was already contemplated by both the
2005 General Plan (GP) and GP EIR; 2) the UCSP, and impacts analyzed in the
UCSP EIR such as traffic, were not based on the specific location of individual
uses within buildings (i.e. ground floor vs. second floor); 3) currently
approximately 50% of the existing use is office; and, 4) create less impacts than
commercial uses because all categorical thresholds, e.g., average daily trips for
traffic and amount of equivalent dwelling units for water and sewerage
consumption are less than commercial uses.
Proposal 2. Lower the minimum building height in UC-3 from 30 feet to 18
feet.
Analysis: This proposal would change the minimum building height shown on
the Zoning Sheet for UC-3 from 30 feet to 18 feet.
This change was requested to provide a greater variety of building heights in this
subdistrict. A reduction of the minimum required building height for this small
area is a minor change to the development standards for the subdistrict and
would not be a significant departure from the guiding principles of the UCSP or
vision of the GP. The analysis in the EIR is considered a "worst case," since the
minimum height is proposed to be lowered and would lessen the effects of
building height already analyzed. In addition, the change to lower the minimum
height requirement could result in a reduced density. Therefore, the change
would not affect, or if anything, would reduce, the impacts and significance
conclusions of the FEIR.
Proposal 3. Include a "development exception" provision and process to
permit some flexibility in the application of the UCSP development
standards to encourage innovative design and to effectively administer
projects with any unforeseen development and/or design challenges.
Analysis: Due to the long term (20 - 25 year) implementation of the UCSP and
programmatic approach of the associated EIR it may be necessary and
appropriate for the future decision making bodies to authorize certain exceptions
to the land use and development regulations, provided that the exception is
based on certain findings, including that a better design or greater public benefit
would be achieved. Review and consideration of a development standard
exception is not permitted by right but would be considered on a project by
do -3ft,
project basis concurrent with the review of the Urban Core Development Permit,
as outlined in Chapter XI.C.1 of the Specific Plan.
Because this is a procedural change, and would only be considered at the
request of an individual applicant, there is no way of determining its future
application on an individual project basis at this time, and it does not affect the
impacts analysis and significance conclusions of the DEIR. Additionally, any
potential new or increased/decreased impacts associated with its application
would be identified during project review as part of the Secondary Study process
described in the FEIR Section 2.3.3.
Proposal 4. Add clarification to the CVMC section reference regarding
"Minor" Projects"
Analysis: A request was to identify the correct sub-section in the Municipal Code
that defines the term "minor project". Staff has identified sub-section "i" of CVMC
19.14.582 as the correct reference. This editing change does not affect the
project description, impacts analysis and significance conclusions of the DEIR.
Proposal 5. For subdistr~cts other than Transit Focus Areas, utilize an
alternative minimum residential parking standard based on the number of
bedrooms, rather than a uniform standard of 1.5 parking spaces per
bedroom. This alternative was recommended by the Planning Commission.
Based on public comments and direction from the UCSP Advisory Committee at
their final meeting in March 2006 and prior to release of the Draft EIR for public
review, the proposed minimum residential parking standards were increased by
50%, from 1.0 to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit; and 0.5 to 1.0 spaces per dwelling
unit in the Transit Focus Areas. In addition, the Draft UCSP has always included
a "guest" parking standard of 1 space per 10 dwelling units, whereas currently in
other areas of the City there is no separate guest parking standard for residential
uses. These minimum residential parking standards included in the Draft UCSP
and DEIR EIR are nearly the same as existing citywide standards for multi-family
residential: slightly more for studio/1 bedroom units (1.5 spaces CVMC VS. 1.7
spaces UCSP) and slightly less for 2+ bedrooms (1.7 spaces UCSP vs. 2.0
spaces CVMC).
The Planning Commission recommended an alternative rnlnlmum residential
parking standard based on the number of bedrooms, rather than a uniform
standard of 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom, for subdistricts other than Transit
Focus Areas. The alternative standard would instead be 1 space per studio and
one bedroom units and 2 spaces for two+ bedroom units. The net effect of this
alternative would still average 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed
minimum parking standard alternative will not result in the reduction of parking
required and therefore would not change the impact analysis or significance
conclusions of the FEIR.
c1-31
Proposal 6. Allow Residential Use in Subdistricts C-1, C-2 and C-3 by right
instead of by CUP.
Within the Corridors subdistricts (C-1; C-2 and C-3), the Land Use Matrix would
be corrected to show residential uses as a permitted use rather than permitted
via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Residential uses were assumed by the 2005
General Plan and any GP-related analysis in the proportions reflected on the
revised zoning sheets. The DEIR for the UCSP (page 5-30 and 5-38) also
assumed that these residential uses would in fact occur in the Corridors. The
change from "conditional" to "permitted" is procedural in nature. Therefore, this
would not change the impact analysis or significance conclusions of the FEIR.
d-SR
Attachment 3
2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan
Report to Chula ~ta
..4ff!iJF'
Redevelopm _
~
Corporatio
~
April 26,2007
O1ula Vista Redevelq:xnent~
276 Foorth Avenue
O1ula Vista, G\ 91910
@ R~~'GENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INe.
309 WEST 4TH STREET
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
92701-4502
T 714 541 4585
F 714 5411175
E INFO@WEBRSG.COM
WEBRSG.COM
~~3r
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
Plan Amendment ......................................................................................................................4
Contents of this Report.....................................................:a..................................4
-
Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Sp~rojects Proposed and How
~~::~..~~~~~~.~..~.i.I.I..~::.~~:~..~~..~~~.~~~~~..~I.i.~.~.~~..~~.~.:..~~..~:~..~~~~~~
. v _
.A -=..
A Description of the Physical and EcoTditions Existin e Project Area.. 7
Five-Year Implementation Plan........~..................x....................... ..................8
, . ..t....... ~-
Why the Elimination of Blight and Rede not be Accomplished by Private
Enterprise Acting Alone or b the Agency inancing Alternatives Other Than
Tax Increment.................. - .....................................................9
The Method of Financing ......
...........................................10
pact Report ..................................................................................... 18
A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies .................... 19
Q)RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
-2 -
d-.-~j
..
Introduction'
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ("Ager#i~ steps leading to the
adoption of an amendment to the Town re I Rede.ment Project Area
("2007 Amendment"). The proposed 2 endment wilr.iii . t the Agency in
implementing the Redevelopment PI an or Redevelop Ian") for the
Town Centre I Redevelopment Proje roject") a roject Area 'ect Area").
The Project Area encompasses appro acres in the of Chula
Vista ("City"). The Project Area is home Diego South County Superior
-and Municipal Court Compl orman Par lor Center, and Memorial Park, as
well as a variety qf comm . es, retai service commercial uses, and
residential units.
-.
......
The Agency was ,the Chula Vista City Council
("City Counci 425. Agency is responsible for
implementi identified in the Redevelopment Plan. The
Redevelo ted by the City Council by Ordinance No.
1691 on J this . n, the Redevelopment Plan has been
amended on I~ . July 17, 1979, the City Council adopted
(lll~ 1)/0. at merge~financial provisions of the Redevelopment
.....withll. -'yfr<Jltiedevelopment Plan. On April 22, 1986, the City Council
opted Ordi_ N'Oa:l.46 that amended the Redevelopment Plan for a second
- -
e by enactin_w ti~mits to enact eminent domain and incur debt and
lished a cumtlive ta'1'increment limit. Amendment NO.3 was adopted by
the Council January 4, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2585, when the City
Coun ended tax increment and bonded indebtedness Ii mits for the Project.
The fou' nt to the Redevelopment Plan occurred on November 8, 1994,
when the uncil adopted Ordinance No. 2609 that established a time limit
on the collecl'lbn of tax increment. Amendment No.5 was adopted by the City
Council on June 23, 1998 by Ordinance No. 2735 extending the time limits that
the Agency can utilize eminent domain to acquire property, incur Project Area
indebtedness, collect tax increment revenue, and effectuate the Redevelopment
Plan.
This document is the Agency's Report to the City Council ("Report") on the
proposed 2007 Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1
and 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL H), Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law,
@ the Agency is required to submit a Report containing specific documentation
RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.3.
~-1-1
regarding the proposed 2007 Amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide
the information, documentation and evidence required to support the adoption of
the proposed 2007 Amendment. This information, documentation and evidence
are provided to assist the City Council in its consideration of the proposed 2007
Amendment and in making the various determinations in connection with its
adoption.
With respect to the proposed 2007 Amendment, this Report supplements the
documentation and evidence contained in the Report to the City Council ("Original
Report"), prepared in connection with the adoption .., original Plan and is
incorporated herein by reference. "S'
~
Plan Amendment
The proposed 2007 Amendment would a the existing ~opment Plan to
bring design guidelines and land use nations in conforman~th the Urban
Core Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). pecific A refines andiiliBements the
vision for downtown Chula Vista as ex d i City's updated General Plan.
-
Exhibit A presents a map of the Project Are". roposed 2007 Amendment will
not enlarge .or in any way e boundariiiot the Project Area. The Bayfront
Redevelopment Project Ar t be ~d by the proposed 2007
Amendment. The 2007 Ame en e~^o~~bring the Redevelopment
Plan into conformance with the ~'s G ~.""
Section 334S the' dicta~';:~uir:~^'2tA9Ponents of this Report. More
specificall~ion 334&1 of th.L states that the reports and information
required b~ion 333 re only t1IIIl,reports and information warranted by the
proposed 20~e h oBe information normally required for the
se . a Re~ .~ .aining . "';; of a redevelopment plan was previously
ted in the Original Report prepared for the adoption of the
n.~ also important to note that pursuant to Section 33368 of
-
~e CRL, the A 's a.on of the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan
"W,nal and con 've, a-'it is now conclusively presumed and beyond legal
c~ge that the lBiect Area is a blighted area as defined by Sections 33030 and
330" "f the CR;ad that all prior proceedings have been duly and regularly
taken. "=ws, itional "blight findings" are required for adoption of the
_.
proposed ndment.
Content' oj thi, Report
The contents of this Report are presented in 14 sections, which generally
correspond to the subdivisions presented in Section 333S2 of the Law. The
sections are as follows:
Section A
Reasons for the Proposed Amendment and a Description of Specific
Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or
Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.4.
eJ-f~
Section B
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in
the Project Area
Section C
Five-Year Implementation Plan
Section D
Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be
Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Agency's
Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment
At
,
~
.... ....
$1~,...!~lm.
. ~
Analysis of the Preliminary pJ,~
Report and RecommenLf the Planning Co
_ A
.. . ,";:
Report of the Project Are
ion
-
-
~
~
Section E
The Method of Financing
Section F
The Relocation Plan
Section G
Section H
Section I
Section J
Section K
Section l
--
ultation with Affected Taxing Agencies
-~
'"
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.5.
~-f3
the Amendm
Specfic Pr
and How These proj ects Vi
Alleviate Blighting CoS:L'tion
the Project Area ~
Reasons for
Description of
-
-
~
~
-J__
~~
---
~
~'
'"
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
)-"11
Section 33352(b) of the Law requires a
conditions that cause the Projed Area to
provided in the Original Report to Co
in 1976 at which time the Project Area w
the .ical
Exic,' ]Ilg in
~~
~ ~
... -- ~
~ -..-
-
tion of the p~1 and economic
ted. This descripti~ evidence was
t the time Project Art~.~ established
med €d. "'Ill""
and
the
A Description of
Economic Condi tions
Project Area
Given the language in bot
description is not appropriat
Amendment will not change
changes to the Plan that would r
Pursuant to Se
is final and c
a blighted
proceed i n
OptlO e ordinance adopting the Plan
nelusively presumed that the Project Area is
30 and 33031 of the Law and that all prior
en.
"~'_.~^-,.. :'
-
~~
~
~.
~
~
~
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.7.
e1-16
Five-Year
The Agency adopted the Implementation Plan for
Redevelopment Project Area for fiscal years
Implementation Plan was prepared pursua
Law and contains specific goals and
BayfrontIT own Centre I Redevelop
expenditures for the five-year period, an
and expenditures will eliminate blight. T
_modifications to the existing I ementation
in Section 33352(c) of the C plicable
Implementation Plan is incorpo refere
-
t"'~
1 II
,1:.1i'
-,
'=-
~
,~ ~
~~
- .-......-. --
.....
v
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2DD7 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.8.
d-~~
Why the Elimination ight and
Redevelopment Cannot be plished by
Private Enterprise Actin9 ~ or by the
Agency's Use of Fina~ng ~rnatives
Other Than Tax Incre~ ~\~
....... A ~
Section 33352(d) of the CRL requires qqtexpl of why the emnination of
blight in the Project Area cannot be acco ~ private enterprise alone, or by
the Agency's use of financi ernatives ot an tax-increment financing. This
information was previously .n the sup . g documentation prepared and
provided at the time of the e exis roject Area. The proposed
2007 Amendment will not ma h -- affect the validity of the
previously prepar~QCument ... need for tax increment;
therefore, this ~ appli
~. .~ ~
"'= ~
== --.
~A~ '\
~ ~
....".
~
-.
'w.:::;;~","
~
-
"
-
-
-
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.9.
~-17
The Method of Financing ~
~.
Section 33352(e) of the CRL requires inclusion~..;~d method of financing
the Project which was provided in the Origin port n the existing Project
Area was adopted. Because the propos~ 7 Amen t will not alter the
Project Area boundaries, affect the base y~ue of the Proj e. a or change the
proposed method of financing the Pro~e proposed 2007 A ent does not
warrant that this section be prepared. ..... . A ~~l>,
- -
..
~
~
-
-
-
'-~
.- . ....
~.
'~
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
-10.
c:(-~R
The Relocation Plan ~
A:I/Iff1'
-
-
Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the CRL require t~o(M".!:t to prepare a method or
plan for the relocation of families and pers:wh~y be temporarily or
permanently displaced from housing facilitiQcated witli e Project Area, and
nonprofit local community institutions to mporarilyor nently displaced
from facilities actually used for institu . purposes in said Pr Area. At the
time the Original Plan was adop the Age'lQ(, approved ethod of
Relocation for the Project Area ("Me~of R~lili ~llon") which is~corporated
herein by reference and is on file with t~~y of the Agency. Because no
specific projects requiring reltD:;ation can be1"""'l'ified at this time, it is not feasible
to identify specific business . nces, or" community institutions which
may need to be relocated a m uring~mplementation process. If
relocation activities are undert_, th wil~dle those relocation cases
that result from ..activities- . sE;:by-case basis. As a public
agency formed"".. ~ovisio ate law~ Agency is required to adhere
to State RelB'On La overnn'llml Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and
follow thCalifornia cation istance and Real Property Acquisition
Guidelines ~ Gui "s esta ed in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, ~hap'" '___ ocation Law was amended by Assembly
~~~: I.~ L~_jng sr- ""~1Zelocation LcfWin conformance with federal regulations. The
Jl~e Gui~ an~cation Law comply with the requirements of CRL Section
~411.1.
'- .........
-~ ~
~ to comme;>>"ent 0 any acquisition activity that will cause substantial
d~ment of '~"ents, the Agency will adopt a specific relocation plan in
confo:r~e wi State Guidelines. To the extent appropriate, the Agency may
supplem' h ovisions provided in the State Guidelines to meet particular
relocation f a specific project. Such supplemental policies will not involve
reduction, bdl'instead enhancement of the relocation benefits requirecJby State
Law.
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
- 11 -
c?-~1
~
~
---
-
-
~
,
-
-. --
-::""tL ._:=
~~ ~.
.--
--
y.......u.......
~.
W'
orting documentation
o Section 33457.1 of
the same and is
is not required.
An analysis of the Preliminary Plan was provided i
prepared at the time the Project Area was adopt urs-
the CRL and because the analysis of the Prel.7Y Plan re
not affected by the proposed 2007 Am~ additional an
-
-
~
"~'~liI'
-
-
'?
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.12 -
d{ -:57)
Report and Recommendation of~e Planning
, . -
Cormusslon ~'
~.~
Section 33352(h) of the CRL requires inclusiqa ~ rep~ recommendation of
the Chula Vista Planning Commission (H Ing Commr "), The Planning
Commission of the City of Chula Vista ed a report and mendation on
March 28, 2007, as part of the supp documenlation prepa r the Urban
Core Specific Plan. ~ ......
---.. ~
_._....^~
new report ~mmendation for the proposed_
osed 200' endment is bringing the existing
Plan an s previously determined that
e General Plan of the City;
ng Commission to make
The Agency did not request
2007 Amendment, because
Plan into conformance with t
the existing Plan was in conf
therefore, it was n t necessar
additional findi
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.13.
~-S/
4JJ,.
Report of the Project Area~ttee
Pursuant to Sedion 33352 (i) of the CRL, a red~l;;p~ ency shall call upon
the property owners, residents, busine"nants an isting community
organizations in a redevelopment proj a, or amend area, to form a
projed area committee ("PAC) if: (1) g the authority to th cy to acquire
by eminent domain property on whi rsons resi~in a projed'llllll'll.in which a
substantial number of low- and modera ome -ns reside; or (2F1ldd territory
in which a substantial number of low- a ate-income persons reside and
grant the authority to the a~ire inent domain property on which
persons reside in the added " "-
There no longer is an adive 'ect mi&associated with the Town
Center I Projed d the n 0 e1i'dment does not necessitate
formation of a ,_ _ Comm report is required.
~
4lfI? = ~
,~~
...,~'..., "~".".,."....-~ -~,
- -..
~'I,.'~.
.~ .~.~
~ ~
''''''
--- :=
~ .........
~ -
--- ~
...-
T
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.14.
c:f( - S~
=r-
-
- ,..
~"
",m.,"..".m"_",,;"., ~' "_."~_
---. ....... -..
........ ~....
'",' ~--~
"~
~ -
'~"m~ .t!!!'t!!1!!
- -
..-
-
T
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.15 -
c:< -S3
Environmental Documentation
Section 33352(k) of the Law requires environmental
pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resour.
adoption of the Original Plan, the Agency un ok
. ~ -
documentation as necessary. .,...... ~
An Environmental Impact Report was p . d and certified i~ction with the
adoption and approval of the Urban Specific P1;m. This Envir"'=lli:ntal Impact
Report included, as a related action, nee amend the TOW"n Centre I
Redevelopment Plan to conform to n Core Specific Plan. The
Environmental Impact ReplAofor the Spe n was completed and made
available for review and co~
-
-
,-~
~ ..:..;;1'
_'_'_'_~_n__~
-
-
~
,
'!"
---~
mentation to be prepared
. Concurrent with the
priate environmental
-
. ---,---'
~.
-
-
-
" "
~ =
-
- -
~.. ~
~ ~
~
...-
~---- "~
~ ......
~ =
,~,
:..-....._---,_..."~,
-
-
~
~
~,-"
-
....
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
J/~51
Report of the County Fiscal ~icer
The proposed 2007 Amendment will not enlarg
not necessary for the Agency to request a base rep m the County of San
Diego pursuant to CRL Section 33328. .ject Area information was
provided in the supporting documentati~ared and pro at the time the
Project Area was adopted. Because t~posed 2007 Amen will not alter
the boundaries of the Project Area, th;. oort is n~ded or requ
~
;- ,
,~~
~ ~~'
~----:----------
~- ~-
~- -~ ~ .
- - -
~ = '"
~il--'
~~~_ __'""_"'h"_'~_~ ._~^
~- .~~
--~. ~
- -
-
~
-
-=
-
.#
r ~.
-~-
-
....,-
~
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
-17 -
ot-sS-
,.6
Neighborhood Impact Report __
Section 33352(m) of the CRL requires the inclusion of a "~d Impact Report. This
information was provided in the supporting docum.;'; that wr ared and provided
at the time existing Project Area was adopted. ~se the propos 07 Amendment
will not enlarge the Project Area; pursuant lfJIIJISon 33457.1 of the no additional
analysis would be appropriate or required..... A, -
'~~.:~ii V
....-,J-
~
-
-
"'llBl..
"-
~
""."
.~
-
-
,
==
-
~M~
~-
~
"="
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
.18.
c:; -;5&
...
A Summary of the Agency Co~tation with
Affected Taxing Agencies .. ~
...'T ~
...... ~
Because the proposed 2007 Amendment will not ea to the p~Area, submission
of a request to the County of San Diego to pre report pursuant ction 33328 01
the CRL was neither, required, or appropriat erelore, a summary 0 report is not
included. ....... .4 --=-
~ -
All taxing entities within the Projes;.tArea were 1 the joint public hearing in
accordance with the requirements . n 33349(d1W:.e CRL. No taxing entities have
requested a consultation. ~
.... ......
.... -
- ...
~.Ll.J:.,
'W"~
'&
-
"
-
'I'"
--'?~
-
~
-,-~"....,
-J.:.J
...................
.-....-.....-,0._.
-
.~.~-
-~
- -
'.-=- ~-
" ,...
-~---- =
'",_.:-. -~-
~- ~
~-
-
V
@RSG
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2007 AMENDMENT TO TOWN CENTRE I
-19 -
c1-S'l
EXHIBIT A - BAYFRONTfTOWN CENTRE I
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
D
BA YFRONTfTOWN CENTRE I
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Note: Larger scale maps of the Redevelopment Area are available
at the Community Development Department Offices at
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista CA 91910
N
. --
w.... .._.E//
_...."-,,...-
S
.-,,,--
.,'
f-
ATTACHMENT 4
u
.
,
I
.
'tell
qo
\i iltpwd~ ~g,Wf~t;l', .~~:,q
k",-~ ~JI, 'Of "i ; ;.'. ,I.'; 'i~ ""1 --. ,'f", -f
"-, .~ ~_ '~~,h ..r
' 1.""?,:~"", "'~mn.=~'''' ~''''' 'm~6,-Y
~!~f'~ [f~~~it~,,~~iD
., "'1~~:~;g_4~ j~~;'~ ~V ' ::1
I,
II
.
::1.
lI/!;:;
,
~
~
"6
(aYSfDIO S L1NEj
Imi"
~y ,'-- "i~A.YSlDft(ff tTiEI
~,rl!::tJ='
ijff(_~l\;,;g~l!
--~-$
~'"'~~tl,~.~'t
r~W~"l!!bitJ,,!I!,'(J.'
~~'jJt3",.~'l ,~~'tt!!1111Wg
-= t.l\l ""_ 'l1IU1!1ll1
tu;;~~~45d ~m-~{~fr.~.
1.5 FREEWAY ~
ATTACHMENT 5
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The 2005 General Plan largely focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of the
western portion of the city. The broad policies and objectives described in the General
Plan have been refined and described at the neighborhood level in the Urban Core
Specific Plan (UCSP). The UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the General Plan as an
implementing regulatory document and thus serves as the primary source for policies,
guidelines and regulations that implement the community's vision for the Urban Core.
The General Plan is implemented via the Urban Core Specific Plan primarily through the
following 4 key chapters:
. Chapter V: Mobility
. Chapter VI: Land Use and Development Regulations
. Chapter VII: Development Design Guidelines
. Chapter VIII: Public Realm Design Guidelines
Chapter V - Mobility provides a variety of approaches and strategies to "get people from
here to there." Improvements for the main thoroughfares and other streets within the
Urban Core are identified and typically address pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobile
and parking opportunities. Traffic calming elements, pedestrian improvements and
paseos are introduced to slow traffic and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
Recommendations for new and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both
recreational and commuting users are also included. Three transit focus areas within the
Urban Core provide multi-modal opportunities for both local and regional transit and a
new shuttle loop system serving the Urban Core and Bayfront is proposed. Various
roadway network and capacity improvements are proposed, especially in areas where the
street grid has been interrupted over time and off-street public parking strategies are also
proposed within the Urban Core.
Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Regulations establish three different Specific
Plan Districts - Village, Urban Core and Corridors which are further defined into twenty-
six sub-districts, each with customized regulations and standards. Subdistrict regulations
shape the building form and intensity, allowable land uses, and parking requirements.
Land uses are proposed to encourage a mix of pedestrian-oriented commercial uses with
higher density residential uses. Development and parking standards encourage locating
buildings closer to the street (i.e. with parking behind or tucked under the building). The
regulations also stress flexibility and provision of urban amenities such as streetscape
improvements, parks, plazas, transit, cultural arts and mixed use. The tallest buildings are
allowed at the transit focus areas at I-SIR Street and I-5/E Street where support by
alternative modes of transportation is readily available. Neighborhood Transition
Combining Districts have been created for subdistricts adjacent to R-l and R-2 zoning
areas to protect and buffer existing residential neighborhoods and ensure compatible,
stepped-back building heights and setbacks. Special provisions address live/work units,
--< - C, tJ
ATTACHMENTS
mixed-uses and parking structures. Zoning incentives are provided to encourage
development to provide high performance buildings and urban amenities such as parks
and plazas beyond required levels.
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines provide comprehensive design
guidelines for development within the three Specific Plan Districts, as well as special
guidelines for hotels, mixed-use projects, multi-family residential projects, and
sustainability. The form-based guidelines supplement the Specific Plan development
regulations to create a more attractive, well-designed urban environment. These
guidelines apply to construction, conservation, adaptive reuse, and enhancement of
buildings and street scenes. Although no specific architectural style is prescribed, the
quality of design is guided by policies addressing site planning, building
height/form/mass, building materials/colors, storefront design, landscaping, lighting,
parking, circulation, signs and other development considerations. The goal of the
guidelines is to create a positive image for the Urban Core and frame the streets and
sidewalks with inviting buildings, entrances, awnings and outdoor dining areas.
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines focuses on ways to create more
attractive and pedestrian-friendly public environments and gathering places. Street
furniture, landscaping, sidewalks; crosswalks, lighting, paseos, public art, parks and plaza
concepts are defined. Two main themes emerge within the Specific Plan: an art-deco
inspired design theme is proposed along Third Avenue, building upon the era when much
of the development along the street occurred, and a more contemporary theme is
proposed for the remaining public realm areas in the Urban Core, inl:ticative of a fOrWard-
looking Chula Vista. Gateway treatments are proposed at six locations to welcome people
to the Urban Core and to reinforce the identity of the Urban Core.
The following table references where each of the applicable General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Objectives are implemented through the various chapters Urban Core
Specific Plan.
.d -(pI
ATTACHk ,T 5
Urban Core Specific Plan
2005 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY TABLE
Development Public Realm
Development Design Design
Title Description Mobility Regulations Guidelines Guidelines
LUT 1 Provide a balance of development to meet
present and future needs and enhance character
of the Ci X X
LUT2 Limit location of highest development intensity to
TFAs X
LUT3 Development that blends with and enhances
h sical and social character X X X
LUT4 Minimize blighting influences and maintain
inte ri of stable residential nei hborhoods X X
~ LUT5 Designate mixed-use areas with higher density
housing near shopping, jobs and transit X
~ LUT6 Ensure com atibili of ad" acent land uses X X
LUT7 Provide appropriate transitions between land
uses X X
LUT 8 Create physical features that distinguish
neighborhoods, communities and public spaces
and enhance image as a pedestrian oriented and
livable communit X X X X
LUT9 Create enhanced gateway features for entry
oints and other im ortant areas X X
LUT 10 Create attractive street environments and public
ri hts-of-wa X X X X
LUT 11 Ensure well-designed buildings and site
improvements that are compatible with
surround in ro ertles and districts X X X
LUT 12 Protect im ortant Historic Resources X
LUT13 Preserve scenic resources, maintain open space
network and romote beautification X X X
Title
LUT15
LUT16
LUT17
LUT18
LUT19
LUT 20
~
I
~
C>J
LUT21
Description
Improve transit and transportation connections...
between ma.or activi centers
Integrate land use and transportation planning
and facilities
Plan and coordinate transit compatible and
su ortive develo ment
Reduce traffic demand through TOM, increased
use of transit, bicycles, walking and other trip
reduction means
Coordinate state of the art transit s stem
Make transit friendly roads a top consideration in
land use and development design
Maintain a safe and efficient roadway system
with sufficient roadway capacity while preserving
character and integrity of communities
LUT 22 Continue planning for enhancements to LRT
service alon west side of Ci
LUT 23 Promote use of alternative mobility modes
throu h s stem of bike and edestrian aths
LUT 26 Establish an Urban Core Improvements
Pro ram'
LUT 27 Establish program to provide affordable housing,
public amenities and community services
necessary to support urban development
LUT 28 Consider lot consolidation where a ro riate
LUT 29 Allow clustering of residential development to
im rove amenities for residents
LUT 30 Better utilize parking facilities to reduce parking
demand before using public expenditures to add
arkin
Mobility
ATTACHl\. 3T 5
Development
Regulations
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Development
Design
Guidelines
X
X
x
X
X
Public Realm
Design
Guidelines
x
X
x
x
x
ATTACH~.. .H 5
1m lementin Mechanism
Development Public Realm
Development Design Design
Title Description Mobility Regulations Guidelines Guidelines
LUT31 Provide parking that is integrated with land uses,
efficient, accommodates alternative vehicles and
red uces arkin im acts X X X X
LUT 32 Evaluate use and applicability of various
strategies to provide parking X X X X
LUT 33 Ensure parking facilities are appropriately sited
and well-desi ned X X X X
LUT 46 Establish linkages between Urban Core and
Sa ront for edestrians, bic cles and transit X X
~ LUT 47 Establish roadway classifications in the Urban
~ Core Subarea that respond to more urbanized
environment, accommodate slower speeds in
~ ped-oriented areas and faciliate multi-modal
desi n and amenities X X
LUT 48 Increase mobility for residents and visitors in the
Urban Core X X X
LUT 49 Encourage balanced and complementary
redevelopment, infill, and new development
within the Urban Core X X X
LUT 50 Provide for redevelopment and enhancement of
Downtown Third Avenue District X X X
LUT51 Maintain Downtown Third Avenue as focal point
forCi X X X
LUT 52 Encourage redevelopment of the Chula Vista
Center and north of H Street to reinforce transit
and gateway corridor and establish significant
public gathering space and mixed-use area X X X X
LUT 53 Encourage mixed-use redevelopment along H
Street between Third and Fourth Ave. X X
ATTACH1\n~1-U 5
Development Public Realm
Development Design Design
Title Description Mobility Regulations Guidelines Guidelines
LUT 54 Encourage redevelopment of North Broadway
Focus Area to establish ped-oriented commercial
corridor with housing and local serving
commercial X X
LUT 55 Encourage redevelopment of E Street between 1-
5 and Broadway with Mixed-Use especially near
the E Street Trolley Station with emphasis on
visitor-serving uses, office and multi-family
residential X X
~ LUT 56 Encourage redevelopment of area between 1-5,
Broadway, F and G Streets with high-density
residential supported by mixed-use on Broadway
~ X X
LUT 57 Encourage redevelopment of area between 1-5,
Broadway, G and H Streets with transit-oriented
mixed-use reinforcing gateway and transit
boulevard on H Street X X X X
LUT 58 Encourage redevelopment between 1-5,
Broadway, H and I Streets as transit focus mixed
use area X X X X
LUT 59 Encourage redevelopment of Mid-Broadway
District as pedestrian oriented commercial
corridor with housing opportunities and
nei hborhood servin commercial X X X X
LUT 60 Encourage existing land use pattern in Mid-Third
Avenue District X X X X
'Established in UCSP Chp. X: Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program
ATTACHMENT 6
Public Comment Letters received on the
Public Review Draft Urban Core Specific Plan
(April 2006)
J-tJ~
C!.-~; (Ilqar
~
z.:..
Apri13,2006
Mayor Stephen Padilla
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
Dear Mayor Padilla:
Drg~rgU'IJ~~
APR 0.6 200~ ~
_ ~~~~'L OFFices
VISTA. CA
Following up on my suggestion made at the Urban Core Committee meeting last
Wednesday afternoon for the city to come up with a plan for all of Broadway, I am
forwarding two papers with some additional infOlmation on this suggestion. The first is a
sheet of "Recommendations" which I developed for Patty Chavez, with whQm I met
recently. My ideas re: Broadway are marked in red on the second page. The second
paper is a more detailed explanation for one suggestion for Broadway: designating it
"Restaurant Row",
Sincerely,
'~7f'~'~
David A. Wood
d-?7
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE PRESENT "URBAN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN"
(1) Abandon the "Promenade" Dart of the "Plan":
. The area presently proposed for the Promenade contains over 2,300 units of
housing for moderate-income residents. (Over 500 ofthese units are re~tricted
to residents 55 and older.) This area has the largest concentration of moderate
income housing ill the city. Chula Vista has !1Q plan for relocating the present
+/- 7,500 people who would be displaced by Promenade in similarly priced
housing, convenient to transit facilities that are now available to them. San
Diego County has an affordable housing crisis. Only 5.4% of present County
residents can afford to purchase a median-priced home. Chula Vista should
be working to increase the number of affordable housing units in the city, not
decrease this number as obviously is proposed in the Promenade Plan.
o The center of the proposed Promenade (the middle of the area between F and
G Streets) presently is occupied by a community of 196 manufactured homes
restricted to elders. The owner ofthis property says he will not sell so the
property so it only could be taken by eminent domain. Such action potentially
could be enormously controversial.
o Traffic on the north-south streets proposed under the Plan largely would be
beneficial to residents and others using it to avoid congestion on Interstate 5.
Building busy north-south streets in the area would increase the danger
dramatically to school children who attend the Vista Square Elementary
School and the Chula Vista Middle School, which are located just east of the
Promenade area.
o The park envisaged for the area probably would be little used when the nearby
bayfront park is in place. Also the area targeted for the park is located close
to noisy Interstate 5, further decreasing the likelihood of its being used.
2) Continue olannine: the the H Street "Boulevard":
. As part ofthis plan, consider the redevelopment and expansion ofthe Chula Vista
Mall. It is an important revenue source for the city and it has little impact on city
traffic and rush hour Interstate 5 traffic as the Mall is located close to Interstate 5
and most people using the Mall do so at times other than weekday rush hours.
. Try to attract housing complexes along tile Boulevard which could be homes for
people working in nearby institutions - Scripps Chula Vista Hospital, the nearby
elementary and middle schools, the four banks, and the Mall. Investigate
obtaining construction funding from these institution or unions with members in
these institutions.
3) Continue ohinnine: for 3rd Avenue:
o Proceed with on-going efforts to attract business to the historic area bounded by E
and H streets which will maintain the character and heritage ofthe area.
~-tff
. Develop plan for the area between H Street and Palomar. Fully realize potential
of this area which already is well served by supermarkets, drug stores, a number
of restaurants and small shops by adding housing over or near these facilities so
that people can live near these useful services.
4) Develop ulan for Palomar from 3rd to the Palomar Trollev Stop:
. It makes little sense to target the E street and H Street trolley stops for "Transit
Focused Mixed Use" high rise commercial and residential development while
neglecting to designate the Palomar Trolley Stop, equivalently close to Interstate
5. for similar development. Moreover. the Palomar trolley stop is surrounded by
little used or unused land and almost no housing, unlike the area near the E Street
and H Street Trolley stops.
1<
5) Develop a plan for all ofBroadwav from E Street (or C Street) to Palomar (or beyOnd).
not iust one side of the blocks between E Street and H Street as is proposed in the "Urban
Core Specific Plan".
Broadway is special in several respects:
. It is a wide avenue - the widest on the west side - which could be reconfigured to
have a center green space or in some other manner to make it more attractive and
useful.
. It is not an integral part of the city's public transit system, so that it could be
reconfigured without significantly disrupting public transportation.
. It already has numerous stretches of mature palm trees, which the city is planting
in other areas of the city for beautification
. It formerly was part of historic Califomia 101 and possibly most importantly
. It has the greatest concentration of full-scale restaurants in San Diego County
outside of the Gas Lamp Quarter. In all, there are 26 full-scale restaurants on or
near Broadway. It could be designated and promoted as "Restaurant Row" to take
advantage of the heavy commercial traffic at its north end coming from the Mile
of Cars and Wal-Mart; at its center, from the Chula Vista Mall; and at its southern
end, from Costco, Wal-Mart. and Target as well as other businesses along
Broadway.
Construction in recent years along Broadway shows the results of a lack of a
comprehensive plan:
. A check-cashing outlet at the comer ofE Street
. A housing complex near K street, buill without any setback
. A huge gas station near Naples and
. The rears of new commercial outlets (where garbage is usually placed) between
Naples and Oxford
In Conclusion. recognize that the area bounded by H Street. 3rd Avenue. Palomar. and
Broadway reallv is Chula Vista's "Urban Core". Almost all the major urban or business
~ -t.f
activity of the westside is located on or bordering this area - three supermarkets, Costco,
two Wal-Marts, Henry's, the Chula Vista Mall, over 50 full-scale restaurants and fast
food outlets, numerous automotive services, and several hundred small shops and
services while the area presently labeled "Urban Core" is largely residential.
'--
~-1/)
/j-f-hi.c.?u>U1-Vt f- 1!L.
"RESTAURANT ROW"
The following full-scale ,'estaurants are located on or very near Broadway:
I. Fillippi's Pizza Grotto (Italian)
2. Zorba's (Greek)
3. Marisco's Marisol (Mexican Seafood)*
4.. Royal Garden (Chinese)
5. Sushi Loco (Korean & Japanese)
6. Coco's (American)
7. Parisi's (Italian)
8. Pho Vinh (Vietnamese)
9. Flamingo Cafe (American)
10. EI Patio (Mexican)
11. Merkyl's (American)
12. Jade Garden (Chinese)
13. Carrow's (American)
14. VIP Oriental Buffet (Asi3n)
15. EI Comal (Mexican)"
16. Roberto de Fillipi Butcher Shop"
17. Palacio (k Ora (Chinese)
1 S. Olive Gai'd~n (Italian)
19. Tango Grille (A.rg"l1tinian)
:W. ,\ Las Tort"s \:vfexican)
'2l. Golden Pagoda (Chine$c)
T~. I. a NI;11:i (M.cxican)
2'1. :<.rrirJa's (J'vfc,:ican f:k:f:lfocd)
.H. Oc~an el!} Buffet (MI:m Scati)odi
i:5. La Costa Azul (Mexican Se;;J{jcd)
"S, 1:hja '_ob;!rer (~,1cxi(:an Seafocr.lj*
,~7 - ~!ft:.ris\~os i-f.ecuJrs (Vr(~::kan Sf;~1.t:)(~(L) ~~3pi-.:S & O:\fc.r'd
'i rht..~G n.:~T;:ll:r:iJ)1:S ::11:;-/) !1;;;."C w.:r:kt:l;') .mklt.~;i1I,.,.;~nr
:-.lAME
~OCATION BETWEEN
C&D
D&E
..
..
E&F
F&G
..
..
.,
G&H
"
"
H&!
..
"
.,
1&1
J&K
L&M ass
,.
~..fOEr&;.Tap1e~:;
:\1 ~.:_\~.:~i"(:qJ1~ l.h~~n~ ":'J": 1t l(~~..:..it :::3 ~~"~~it i:(.)('d oj,oil:.;t.; i'::0t~_:'"e';;.1 ,"~. ::'i~'.l f'(f!om~fi.'
~nl(; f~:;Ilt)\..-ing aft.: .~dlSllr:'i~\;S co r!t.:s:gnatlHg Bro~.dn,:;li .Hc:;tauranf Rt)~/':
'.'it)I..i.ld bui!d ~n l;ommmcr I'raftic coming (0 rhe ;ll'.;a tor liC;.wby attrac[ions 'Sur.:h
as ,he \file ofCnrs, C SIre,;! WnlMalt, Chula Visr.a Cenr<:r. CO$ICO. 5nd T:,rgt:l
".'..ouid gh e e po;;iri'..; 11i~:if.C t,; f:l1 Cln:::t n,')w I.,tkn onl) :.issociatu:1 wiih 1.I::(,;d car
lOTS :-).nd it~t:xpt:nsi'l,f~ rnotds
)-1/
.could be implemented immediately without the costly infrastructure
improvements (roads, schools, etc.) required by some changes (e.g., new
housing) proposed for the area. Some or all ofthe costs of promoting
"Restaurant Row" at some point might be assumed by the restaurant owners
themselves
. would be a method to encourage offices and businesses to locate on the West
Side because one attribute that commercial operations consider in choosing a
location is its access to nearby facilities to entertain customers and provide
lunchtime dining opportunities for employees
.would be way to alert East Chula Vista residents to attributes of the West Side
(By "pulling" East Side residents through the West Side, it will expose them to
the Downtown and Third Avenue businesses.)
.would not increase lUsh hour traffic on Freeways 5 and 805 as will occur with
the proposed new housing since most people patronizing restaurants do so at
times other than rush hours
.could encourage other restaurants to locate along Broadway hecause businesses
often try to locate near similar operations
The following are some of the steps which might be undertaken to implement a
"Restaurant Row" on Broadway:
.contact present restaurant owners and obtain their suggestions on how the
"Row" might be instituted and promoted
.erect small "Restaurant Row" flags along Broadway (much of the equipment
for these flags is already in place and is used occasionally to publicize city
functions)
.create a website with "Row" restaurant addresses, hours. and menus
.publish a pamphlet with the above infonnation which could be distributed at the
Visitor C~~lter. in restaurants and shops, and other locations in the city and
beyond
.possibly have periodic weekend food festivals along Broadway where existing
restaurants could set up tables outside their restaurants for dining and other food
vendors could set up operations at designated locations along Broadway
.have a weekly "Restaurant Row" advertisement in the Union Tribune, ,enlacJ1
the Star News. and other media outlets where restaurants could advertise
specials
cJ -1)
.and possibly eventually erect "Restaurant Row" gateway signs at the northern
extremity (C street?) and southern extremity (Palomar?. .Main?) of the "Row"
cJ.-13
~
MOUNTAINWEST
REAL ESTATE
333 H Slnlel. Suite 6000
Chula Vlsla. CA 91910
T: 619.422.8400
F: 619.422.8100
May 10, 2006
Ms. Dana Smith
Community Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~~
[ MAr IJ Z006 J
.. .........
Re: Comments to draft Urban Core Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Smith:
MountainWest Real Estate has been an aclive member of the community for over 25
years. Our top priority has always been to develop quality projects that reflect Chula
Vista's unique spirit and character. After a thorough review of the Urban Core Specific
Plan (UCSP), which we believe is a critical blueprint for the future success and viability
of westem Chula Vista, we have several concems about how this document may impact
future development in the City's urban core.
Per our discussion, we are submitting this letter for your consideration, outlining
potential issues we see in the document, as well as our recommendations for
improvement. As you will note, we believe several of these issues are inconsistent and
incompatible with the recently approved General Plan. We are hopeful that we can
work collectively with you and your team to satisfactorily address these inconsistencies.
I. I. BUILDING HEIGHTS
Issue: Limiting building heights to a maximum of 84 feet (as proposed in the UCSP)
would make it virtually impossible to build a conventional seven-story building as
allowed for in mid-rise developments in the General Plan. In fact, section 4.8.3 of the
General Plan allows for additional height beyond the seven-story threshold so long as
"the predominant height character is maintained" (see attachment A).
However, even building a seven-story project in the mid-rise areas of the UCSP is not
achievable in typical commercial or residential projects because of the assumption that
all floors would be 12 feet in height (7 stories x 12 feet = 84 feet). This is a faulty
assumption because most commercial and residential buildings utilize a 16-foot ground
floor for several reasons, such as to accommodate retail uses, dramatic entryways and
Fire Department access related to parking structures.
Subsequent floors in commercial buildings use 13-foot heights and subsequent floors in
residential buildings use 12-foot heights. Under this scenario, a typical seven-story
cJ.-11
commercial building would rise to 94 feet, and a typical seven-story residential building
would rise to 88 feet (see attachment B "Typical Development Patterns").
As the UCSP is currently drafted, only E Street Trolley and E Street Gateway sub-
districts allow for heights greater than 84 feet.
Proposed Resolution: Limit building heights to a maximum 100 feet measuring grade
floor area to top floor excluding rooftop structures such as HV AC equipment as
sundecks, pools, spas or cabanas. This would accommodate typical seven-story
commercial and residential structures, and provide some amount of flexibility as set
forth in the General Plan. This change should apply to the following sub-districts: UC1-
6; UC9; and C1.
n. II. SETBACKS
Issue: Setback requirements in the UCSP appear to be inconsistent with existing
building setbacks, and inconsistent with areas immediately adjoining the UCSP zone.
For example, consider the four comers at Third Avenue and H Street. (See Attachment
C, "Inconsistent Setback Example.") The existing Gateway building on the northwest.
comer has a 14-foot setback. The adjacent parcel immediately to the south would have
a 24-foot setback requirement. The three other comers are proposed to have no
setbacks. This ty!ye of inconsistency would interrupt the natural flow of the urban
landscape.
Proposed Resolution: Develop a consistent set of building setbacks that conform to
the setback method as defined in Figure 6.45 of UC-15 sub-district (E Street Trolley-
Transit Focus Area). This change would apply only to the following sub-districts: UC1,
2,4,5,6,9 and 12, and C1.
m. III. FLOOR-AREA-RATIO (FAR)
Issue: We believe the FAR standard of 2.0 in sub-districts UC4, 5, 6, 9, 12, and C1 are
set too low. This standard does not allow for a density appropriate to an urban
development zone, therefore restricting the highest and best use for each parcel. A
sufficient critical mass is needed to bring "life" to a redeveloping urban area in the form
of residents, workers, shoppers and other vi~ors on a 24-hour basis. This improves the
local economy, reduces crime and infuses the area with a vibrancy that otherwise would
be unachievable.
Proposed Resolution: Consider increasing the maximum FAR to 4.0 in the above-
referenced sub-districts to allow for the flexibility of developments that are beneficial to
the community and economically viable for builders.
A -16"
IV. IV. PARKING RATIOS: minimum but acceptable.
V. V. OPEN-5PACE REQUIREMENTS
Issue: Open-space requirements in the UCSP are proposed at 200 square-feet per
dwelling unit. This prevents any reasonable development from occurring, considering
proposed FAR and lot coverage maximums.
The following is an example of why this is true:
Consider a hypothetical residential project planned on a 50,OOo-square-foot parcel. The
Lot Coverage Maximum is 70 percent, meaning that 35,000 square feet of the site is
buildable. With an FAR of 3.0, that translates into a maximum 150,000-square-foot
project. Now assume that the average unit size is 1,100 square feet. That means the
project could accommodate at most 136 units. If the open space requirement is 200
square feet per dwelling unit, that would require 27,200 square feet of total open space,
or more than half of the 50,000 square-foot ~ite. Even if every unit had a 75-square-foot
balcony, that would leave 125 square feet of open space needed for each unit, or
17,000 square feet total. This example does not even' include the space required for
driveways, curbs, sidewalks and guest parking; allm which can not be counted as open
space. As you can see, this requirement renders develafJment impossible.
Proposed Resolution: Set open-space reqUirements on a sliding scale based on lot
size ,and number of dwelling units. This method is used by t\1e City of San Diego in its
Planned District Ordinance for downtown (see Attachment D). Arbitrarily choosing any
one number suggests a .one-size-frts-al" approach that doesn't allow for unique
architectural characteristics from project to project.
VI. VI. SITE.SPECIFiC VARIANCES
We believe that any planning document must be flexible enough to address certain
special circumstances that would otherwise require the city to go through a lengthy and
expensive General Plan amendment process. In this case, we request that the city add
a "site-specific variance" clause to the UCSP to accommodate projects with special or
unique circumstances, such as major employers, govemment entitles or projects with
significant community benefits. These special circumstances, if they exceed stated
development guidelines in the General Plan or UCSP, would not require an amendment
to these documents, but would require City Council approval.
VII. VII. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
We believe that to attract the highest quality and volume of redevelopment activity
within the area govemed by this UCSP, it is important for the City of Chula Vista to
seriously consider waiving all Development Impact Fees ("DIF") for new projects for a
~-1?
period of 10 years. In discussing this issue with Centre City Development Corporation
(CCDC), we leamed that waiving the DIF was a major incentive for developers to invest
within the City of San Diego's urban core. Nearly 7,500 new condominium units were
built and sold between 1999 and 2005. According to Frank Alessi, chief financial officer
for CCDC, the tax increment received from these redevelopment projects more than
compensated for the loss ofDIF.
vm. VIII. EXCLUSION OF RESIDENTIAL USES IN SUBDISTRICT UC5.
Issue: The UCSP as drafted excludes residential uses from sub-district UC5 (Soho).
We believe it is not in the best interest of the city to exclude residential uses from UC5
along the H Street transit corridor. Thriving neighborhoods rely on 24-hour activity and
the ability to have a "live-work-play" environment.
Proposed Resolution: Primary Land Use mix within this sub-district should allow
residential uses.
IX. IX. EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL OFFICE USES IN SUBDISTRICT C1.
Issue: Excluding medical office use prevents the best and highest use of the parcels
and is inconsistent with existing medical office buildings within the sub district (Center
Medical Plaza at 865 Third Avenue).
Proposed Resolution: Add medical office uses within this sub-district.
X. X. CONCLUSION
Thank you in advance for your consideration and review of our comments and proposed
rev' . ns. We look forward to working with the City to develop the best possible UCSP
hat will a Vista and its residents for many years to come.
"'-,
Sincerely,
James . Pieri
President & CEO
Mountain West Real Estate
Jvp/cd
CC: Dave Rowlands, City Manager
File
c1-11
Exhibit A
@Chula
Vista
Vision
2020
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
. Parcel size
. Height limits
. Lot coverage allowed
. Requirements for setbacks. landscaping, and open space
. Provision of required pedestrlan-ortented and translt-ortented amenities
. Development standards and design guidelines
. ,ype of parking provided: surface, below grade, or structured
. Adjacency to sensiWe land uses. such as single-family neighborhoods
Actual FARs on a parcel by parcel basis may val)l from the area-wide FARs referenced by policies
for various Focus Areas. provided that the predominant building height Intents are not exceeded,
There are also opportunities for property owners/developers to achieve Increased densliy and/or
FAR within a particular General Plan range through use of an incentive program that would be
Implemented by the Oiy. This topic Is further discussed In Seellon 1.13, Relationship of
Densily/1ntenslly to Amenities, of this element
. ...__.._.. .....___ ...__~_..,__.__._ .~___...~ ,_,___'_.___"___'_" ___._.__~-..__ ..~~.._ _'_ .~._N_
4.8.3 Height
__ .,.,. _'_._,"" '. _ __ h_'" '.' .... ._..' _ ._.. ......m ~._.~............_ __ ..._,.__,_.........h.......... -'" ...M..... .". . .................-..-
This General Plan uses three terms to define basic categories of building heigh1s:
.
Low-rise: Ho 3 stones
Mid-rtse: 4 to 7 stortes
High-rise: 8 or more stortes
.
.
These height ranges identify the general building heights Intended within a particular area. As
presented through polldes In the Area Plans In Sections 8.0 - 10.0 of this element one categol)l,
such as low-rtse, may be stated to be the predominant Intended building height with another
categol)l, such as mld-rtse, allowed for some of the buildings. The categortes are generalized In
this manner to allow some discretion In the establishment of more detailed zoning regulations In'
a particular context
Height vartations of one to two stortes may occur within a particular area's Identified height
range, provided the predominant height character is maintained. WIthin areas Identifled as
allowing for some 'hlgh-rtse' buildIng heights, extra care and conslderaUon shall be given to
allowing for such structures as further discussed In LUT Section 7.2. Urban Design and Form.
Hlgh-rtse building heights are not considered to be unlimited. but rather are Intended to be
evaluated and moderated through the crtterta presented In Section 72
,Consistent with these General Plan Intentions. actual allowable building heights and the extent
of any vartatlons wltllln particular areas will be governed by the applicable zoning regulations
and/or design guidelines for such areas.
Page LUT-42 CIty of Chula VIsta General Plan
.J. -1 !
~
I
~
TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT PAlTERNS
13'
FLOOR 7 12'
13' FLOOR 6 i 12'
13' FLOOR 5 12'
13' ~-
94' FLOOR .4 12' 88'
13' flOOR 3 12'
13' FLOOR 2 12' i
16' FLOOR 1 16'
~
b-
.....
rt
t>l
COMMERICAL
BUILDING
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
Exhibit (;
of-et)
N
I
U
::>
Exhibit D
SaIl Dlelo Maak:lpll Code
(S-2006)
CllaPter 15: .~ J)iotrlcb
public parkland sballllgrec to execute a deed
tnIJlsfcrring ownersbipt>f the site to the
Redevelopment Agem;y.
(E) Approval fJr Development. When the use of TDR is
necesS'V'Y for the, approval of a building permit for a
project on a receiving site, the City shall not issue any
building permits unless the CCDe Presirklll has
issued a written verification that the owner of the
rreriving site is entitled to the amount of GF A for the
projectbasedon a recorded Certificate of Transfer.
(Added 4-3-2006 by 0-19471 N.S; effective 5-3-2006.)
!i\1'~~~!~t;t~~ll:m~t;"_~.'
(a) Minimum Lot Size and Coverage: no requirements.
(b) Miriimum Building Setbacks. None, except "'there specified in Section
151,0310(c)and(d); and the CCDe President may require up to a 10-
foot interior property line setback where a project is adjoining an
existing residential project to mafutain minimum provisions for light
and air.
(c) Building Heig\1ts. The ovend1 h~gbt of a building shaIfbe measured
from the average of the highest-and lowest grades of the site to the top
of the parapet of the higbcst habitablefloor. Uninhabited roof structures
that conceal mechanical equipment and elevator and stair overruns are
exempt from this requirement, provided that they do not project above a
45-degree plane inc1i1l.ed inwardftom the top of the parapet(s) of the
nearest building wall(s), up to a maximum height of 30 feet. The
IlUlXimum heights of buildings are illustrated In Figure F. Building
H~ght and Sun Access. with the following additional restrictions:
(1)
For sites within the Little Italy Sun Access Overlay, a
maximum buildingheiglttlimit of 150 feet applies. A
maximum building height envelope shall be further defined as
follows and as Ulusti'attd in Figure N:
(A) On blocks north of Cedar Street, all street frontages
shall be defi1l.ed by a maximum SO-foot street wall
along all stred frontagcs..Above the 50-foot Itrlllt
wall, the maximum building envelope is defined by:
along the east and west frontage$of a block facing
C\ Art. /)/P..
~
o1.-~1
Sall Dl_ MIJIItd1laICode Cllallter15:PIaIlaed Dlstrlda
(S-2006)
(F) Upper Tuwer
The upper tower is defined as the upper 20 perccntof
~ tower, m~ above tho base or mtd-zone to the
top of the ~ding including mechanical penthouses.
The Ilppertower shall be designed to avoid a cut-off,
flat top appearance as described in Section
151.0311(gX5) oftbis Division.
(e) Ground Floor Heights
The minimum grouncljloor height for buildings, measured from the average grade of
the acljoiiring public sidewalk. in iIicrements of no mote than 100 feet along a project
frontage; to the rmishfloor elevation of the sccondjloor, shall be:
(1) Average of 12 feet for buildings containing groundjloor
residential uses;
(2) Average of 15 feet, butnotless than 13 feet, for buildings
. containing ground jloor non-residenlial uses; and
(3) Average 0(20 feet, but not less than 18 feet. for bm1dings
Cl'ntAiml1g groundjloor active cO/1f1llerctal,uses within
Neighborhood CeTlfersor along .Main Streets.
(f) Commercial Space Depth
The minimum depths of commercial, groundjloor spaces shall be:
(I) 25 feet along 75 percent of the commercial space
frontage along a public street; or
(2) 40 feet along 75 percent of the commercial space
frontage along a designated .MDin Street; and'
(3) ISfeet along the I"'mAiniTlg 25 percent of the
commercial frontage ifneeded to accommodate other
internal functions of the building.
~~~~~~'\~~!Jm~~"~;~',;};;fp,;;i
C/r. ArL Db.
1191113'"
~-f:2.
San Di4l2oMilalcIpal Code Qapter 1$: PIaIIIled Dislricll
('-2006)
(1) The following s1mIdards apply to residential projects
that contain 50 or more dwelling units:
(A) COmmJJn Outdoor Open Space. Each project
shall provide COmmJJn ofltdoor apen space
either at grade. podimn level. or roof level.
COmmJJn ouUkJor operl space areas sbal1 have
a mil.'limum dimension of 30 feet, or 40 feet
when bordered by three building waUs
exceeding a height oftS feet, and may contain
lIl:tive and/or passiv.e areas and a combination
of hardscape and landscape features. but a
minimwn of 10 percent of the common
outdoor open space must be planting area. All
common outdoor open space must be
accessible to all residents of the project
through a common conidor. Projectssball
provide common outdoor open spaces as a
percentage of the lot area based on the
following: -
SIO,OOOst'
10,001 - 30,000 sf '
:>30,000
(B) COlf/lMn Indoor Space. Each project shall
provide at least ODO community room of at
least 500 square feet for use by all residents of
the project. The area is recommended to be
located adjacent to, and aCCCSSlble from,
common outdoor open space, This area may
contain active or passive re<:reational
facilities, meeting space, computer terminRl~,
or other activity space, but must be aecessible
through a common conidor.
(C) PrivoJe Open SfK1C#1. At least SO percent of all
dwelling units shall provide private open space,
CII. An. DIP.
IJITIIID
.)-t3
SUDlco III""""""" Code
(~)
Cbaatlr.15: 1'tIued DIIaiclI
on a bldcony, patio, 01' ro<)ftemtee, with-a
mmimumarea of 40 sqwue feet each 8Dd an
average hori2Onta1 diJnension or 6 feet.-
Balconies should be proportionaIely disiributed
1hroughoat the proj~ in reIaIionsliipto floor
levels 8Dd sizes of w:Uts; Living U1iiI projects
_exempt-from this mpdrement.
(2) Pet Open Space. Each project shall provide a
minimwn area of 100 square feet improved for use by
_ pets clearly marked for sucb ex.eJusive use.
(Adlkd 4-3-2006 by 0-1.9471 NS; eJfectM S-J-2Q06.)
g151.0311 Urban Design RegulatiODs
Focusing on how buildings and the
spaces between them are consciously
designed and integrated, the following
urban design standards are iatended. to
create a distinct urban character for the
Centre City Planned District; ensure that
development is designed with a
pedestrian-orieJi.tation; and, foster a vital
and active street life.
(a) Building Orientation
All buildings located on a public street shall be oriented toward, and have their
. primary entrances facing on or toward, the public sP'eet.
(b) Facade Articulation
The street W(ill f~e along public rlghi~.of-way in all districts shall be
architeCtUrally .tnodu1atedby volumes that are 100 feet in width or less, and:
(I) Smallermodulalions may be incorporated within larger -
volumes;
(2) Volumes along the street wall must be defined by structural
bays and/or substantiRI teVCIIls or offilets in the wall plane,
a. .Art 01..
~
I
~-91
Douglas WIlson Companies
450 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, California 92101
phone: 619.641.1141 fax: 619.641.1150
www.douglaswilson.com
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
JUN 1 2 2006
June 9, 2006
CYRC Members
276 Fourth Avenue, MS C-400
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4'
Dear Members of the CYRC,
Douglas Wilson Companies (OWe) has actively followed the development of Chula
Vista's Urban Core Specific Plan and would like to offer constructive feedback based on
time taken to review the most recent draft of the plan. In reviewing the UCSP we have had
several discussions with industry professionals to provide feedback. The following
constructive review is based on perspectives from the DWC internal team, architects and
contractors input.
As discussed with councilman Rindone during a May CVRC meeting we have identified
that our main point of feedback is with respect to the nuances of height limits in various
districts throughout the UCSP. We felt it important to raise these issues so Chula Vista can
consider adjustments pending their re-development expectations. In each case our
feedback is intended to shed light on the relationship between construction codes aml three
of the proposed height limits. :m addition we believe it is critical for the'City to understand
how prospective investors and their own expectations for re-development might be
impacted.
The following are points of information regarding the 45 foot, 60 foot and 84 foot height
limits that occur within the UCSP. The caveat to all this discussion is the fact that all
builders may not try to build to the max height allowable based on cost constraints and
other variables, but the intent ofletter is to show that slight adjustments in height will keep
policy from eliminating design considerations for desired floor to ceiling heights and the
4th, 5lh, 7lh or 8th story of prospective buildings.
45 Foot Heieht Limit
If the expectation of the City in all sub districts with the 45 ft height limit is 3 story
buildings or less, then the 45 ft height limit will not impact this expectation
If the expectation of the city is to achieve up to 4 story residential buildings in the sub
districts that are currently designated with a 45 foot height limit then the expectation of a
fourth story could be difficult and in some cases unrealistic.
The point of bringing attention to the 45 ft height limit is to point out that construction
code for a four story type V (wood) building dictates a height maximum of 50 ft from
finished grade to the mid point of the roof line or to the top of parapet. In most cases the
top of the fourth story (not including parapet or sloped roof) will be right at or just below
the 45 ft mark. In the case where additional height on the fust floor is included for
-2-1::;-
San Diego San Francisco D~nver Atlanta
Servinl!: clients throup;hout the United States
June 9, 2006
Page 2
retail use then the top of the fourth story (not including parapet or sloped roof) may require
the top of the fourth story to be at 46, 47, 48 or even 49 feet.
Compressing these buildings is a potential solution but this would lead to less desirable
living conditions on certain floors of the building and may force the design to lose the
fourth story all together. There are only minor differences between building code and
proposed policy, which would suggest a need for slight adjustments to policy only if the
city would like to see more four story buildings in these sub districts. Likewise, if the city
does not want to impact desirable floor to ceiling areas, then policy should make sure that
buildings have the flexibility for the top of the fourth story to be slightly higher than the 45
ft mark.
**Although other construction methods do not have the same height restrictions as type V
they will be held to the same design constraints as a type V with respect to a needfor a few
more feet in height. **
60 Foot Heil!ht Limit
Similar to the 45 foot height limit the 60 foot height limit creates a 5 ft variance between
building code and policy. Building code for a five story type III (wood) building dictates a
maximum height of 65 feet. Beyond type III there are several construction type
combinations that could provide a sinllle or mixed.use five story building. However, for
all of the same reasons as above the 60 foot height limit can put the fifth story of a design
in jeopardy unless lower floors are compressed below desirable floor to ceiling heights. If
the City desires five story buildings in these locations, while limiting building
compression, then slight adjustments to the height limit should be considered. If
successful five stories projects are desired in these sub districts then the building would
need the flexibility to have the top of the fifth story somewhere between 60 and 65 feet.
84 Foot Heil!ht Limit
The 84 foot height limit presents similar issues with the feasibility of a 7th or 8th story
depending on design. The impact of the building code in these sub districts are the
building code requirements that require significant additional cost considerations if the
floor level of the top story is above 75 feet. The City's desired scale in these sub districts
is perfectly acceptable and we believe the desire in these sub districts is to have up to 7 and
8 story structures. In this case the City should understand the strong likelihood that all
designs in these sub districts will not allow the floor level of the top story to exceed the 75
foot mark. With an eighty-four foot height limit the top story would only have 9 feet floor
to ceiling if a design brought the floor of the top level close to 75 foot mark. It is
obviously feasible to compress the building, or take out a floor, but this example
demonstrates that an additiona13-4 feet of height limit would permit a potentially desired
additional story while maintaining the exact scale that matches the city's desire. In this
case the design with a few more feet of height latitude would better serve the ultimate end
user and permit more flexibility in programming successful projects.
eJ.-t c;
June 9, 2006
Page 3
Summarv
Building design naturally gravitates to the design constraints of construction codes and
municipal codes. When both codes are in tune the result is ease of coordination between
city staff, design teams and most importantly public/civic review boards. The above
presentation demonstrates the subtle difference between the impacts of the current height
limits as it relates to construction code and the ultimate project design. In each case the
end conclusion is that slight variation to the height parameters will prevent undesirable
design with respect to floor to ceiling heights and prevent the loss of potentially desired top
floors of structures. Additionally it is important to understand that the ultimate scale and
presentation of finished projects will be virtually the same if a 3-5 foot height variation is
introduced. Through all of this we hope to have conveyed that slight height adjustments
would be importai"lt to consider and ultimately will allow the flexibility to d<lsign t'xcellent
projects to best serve the residents of Chula Vista.
In the event any member of the City would like to visit on any of the aforementioned
information we would be pleased to do so. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
DOUGLAS WILSON COMPANIES
~~
r-~ ..."",...'.- _~
/><.;:::--" e:-
;//
.?/ 15avid Kieffer
Managing Director
.),- f1
I.;OMMl.fJ~~X~frXgk~PMENT
..
1111
JUL 0 3 2006
GLEN R. GOOGINS. ATTORNEY AT LAw
VIA EMAIL: HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US MAIL
June 29, 2006
Mr. Brian Sheehan, Senior Conununity Development Specialist
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Request by Walt Schanuel for Conforming Modifications to the City ofChula
Vista's Draft UCSP
Dear Mr. Sheehan:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me last week.
As a follow up to that meeting, the purpose of this letter is to formally request that the
City revise the C- 3 zoning district regulations in the pending draft Urban Core Specific
Plan CUCSP") so that they better implement the applicable land use visions, policies and
objectives set forth in the City's recently approved General Plan Update ("GPU").
As you know, I am working with Walt Schanuel to explore the development potential of
approximately 1.5 acres of his property located at and around 590 Flower Street and 169
Broadway in Chula Vista (the "Property"). Towards this end, I recently analyzed the
existing and proposed land use regulations that govern the development of the Property.
My analysis focused on the goals, objectives and policies in the recent GPU, the existing
underlying zoning for the Property, and the proposed regulations within the pending draft
UCSP.
In my analysis, I found some inconsistencies. We talked about a number of these in our
meeting, but the main issue is this: the UCSP is proposing zoning regulations that
contemplate and encourage commercial development at and around the Property while
the approved GPU contains land use designations that contemplate and encourage mixed
use/multi-family residential development at and around the Property.
In order to remedy these inconsistencies and to better implement the GPU's vision for the
area we are reconunending the following changes to the C- 3 district regulations in the
draft UCSP:
I. Include Residential as a Primary Land Use. The C-3 Broadway North
"zoning sheet" should be revised to include "Residential" as a "Primary Land Use". We
,,1-%8'
CHU 1910
TEL: 619.421.. nu/ ~-m"U..; "',,"uL^w@COX.NET
Mr. Brian Sheehan
June 29, 2006
Page 2 of 4
would suggest 70% as the district "Max" for residential uses on Broadway; however,
100% residential projects should be permitted off Broadway. Reasonable residential
parking regulations, open space requirements and other appropriate residential standards
would also need to be added. (The UC-13 Mid Broadway district may be a good place to
look for appropriate versions of these standards.) Development standards for mixed use
projects should also be added per GPU policy LUT 54.6.
2. Revise the Land Use Matrix so that Multi-Familv Residential and Mixed
Use Proiects are Permitted without a CUP. Within the current draft of the C-3 zoning
regulations the following land uses would require a CUP (efficiency apartments,
townhouses, multi-family dwellings, mixed commercial/residential projects and
shopkeeper units). However, these types of projects appear to be exactly the type of
development contemplated and encouraged by the GPU for this area. [See, for example,
the North Broadway Focus Area "Vision" set forth at Page LUT -193 and the Policies
under Objective LUT 54.] These same uses are "Permitted Uses" (that do not require a
CUP) within other UCSP districts with similar GPU land use designations, goals and
objectives (for example, UC-I, UC-2, UC-IO, UC-13 and UC-15). Accordingly, we
request that these development types also be treated as "Permitted" uses within the C-3
district. The need for this modification is especially acute within the areas of the C-3
district that have a land use designation of Medium Residential, and an underlying zoning
designation ofR-3 (for example, the portions ofMr. Schanuel's Property that abut
Flower Street). Unless these changes are made, an area that has been historically
residential--and that abuts similar residential land uses--would all of a sudden need a
CUP to develop a residential project.
3. Increase Maximum Development Intensities. The North Broadway Focus
Area ofthe GPU--which encompasses the C-3 Broadway North zoning district--
contemplates a zone wide average density of 40 dwelling units per acre with building
heights on Broadway ranging from low-rise (1 to 3 stories) to mid-rise (4 to 7 stories)
[See LUT 54.3 and 54.4]. However, the current C-3 development standards would not
allow this density or scale of development. The current C-3 FAR is 1.0 and the
maximum building height is 45 feet. If built to these maximums--using today's building
standards, typical unit sizes and applicable set backs--Mr. Schanuel's 1.5 acre Property
could only support in the range of 20 to 25 residential units. This is contrary to the
specific regulations and intent of the GPU's North Broadway Focus Area that expressly
envisions the addition of "higher-density residential units" in the area.
The properties with the C-3 zoning district along Broadway south of D Street
(including Mr. Schanuel's Property) are also located within the GPU's E Street Visitor
Focus Area. Encouraging higher residential densities near-and with good access to--
transit hubs is a core objective of both the GPU and the UCSP. Accordingly, the vision,
objectives and policies for this planning area also suggest that higher development
intensities should be encouraged at and around the Property. Applicable policies in the
GPU contemplate 40 units per acre within the Mixed Use Residential designation [LUT
55.7]. The commercial/retail component (alone) of mixed use projects proposes an
01- 1'9
Mr. Brian Sheehan
June 29, 2006
Page 3 of 4
aggregate FAR of 1.0 [LUT 55.9]. And, building heights range from low to mid-rise
[LUT 55.9]. The Schanuel Property is located less than half a mile from the E Street
station. Similarly situated "Mixed Use with Residential" planning areas about a half mile
away from the H Street transit hub contain substantially higher maximum intensity levels.
(See for example the Mixed Use with Residential land use designated areas within the
UC-12 H Street Trolley zoning district.) As a compromise between the pure transit-
oriented areas within the UCSP and the existing C-3 standards, we believe that the UC-13
zoning district may provide a good model of mid-range development standards and
intensities.
If a reasonable increase in development intensity were to be made at and around
the Property, such an increase would be well buffered by the surrounding R-3 zoning
designations. Such designations already allow for low to medium density residential
development. The current R-3 zoning extends all the way down Flower Street, on both
sides, for a full block in either direction: to 5th A venue to the east, and to Woodlawn to
the west. These existing low to medium density zones could continue to serve as an
effective transition between a somewhat higher development intensity near Broadway
and the single family densities, blocks away, within the area's internal neighborhoods.
This area of the City has not received the highest profile attention in the City's
recent land use planning efforts. However, it is an important "gateway area" that is very
much in need of a high quality project to jump start its revitalization..-W.e believe that
Mr. Schanuel's Property could be just the site for such a project. Mr. Schanuel is already
talking with adjacent property owners regarding the possibility of joining forces to
assemble a larger development block. Even a high quality, multi-family stand alone
project off Broadway would be a great addition. Either path would be facilitated by
zoning rules that fully implement the GPU's vision for the area and that eliminate the
uncertainty and time requirements of a CUP process.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these requests. We believe that our
requests are based on good planning principles. We also believe that our requests are
consistent with and build upon the good work already built into the GPU, the draft UCSP
and the EIRs prepared in connection therewith.
After you have reviewed this letter, please call me with any questions. We can then set
up a follow up meeting. Ideally we would meet before the end of the public comment
period for the UCSP EIR which I understand to be July 13th.
,
,..1-1 tJ
Mr. Brian Sheehan
June 29, 2006
Page 4 of 4
cc: Steve Padilla, Mayor
Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager
Mary Ladiana, Environmental Planning Manager
Erik Crockett, Redevelopment Manager
Diem Do, Senior Community Development Specialist
Mr. Walt Schanuel
:< -1/
July 6, 2006
Mr. Brian Sheehan,
Senior Community Development Specialist
City ofChula Vista
276 FOW'th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
0: R......,or Ammd---t to tile 0"'1 Draft UCSP to add tile Prooertiel
l......- at 311 dlrau'" 325 G Street to the V-3 Welt VUlal!e 7Alllnl! DI.trI~
Dear Mr. Sheehan:
As you know, I own the residential properties located at 311 through 325 G Street in
Chula Vista. Per our recent conversations, I would like the City to consider adding these
properties to the Urban Core Specific Plan. The properties are 100000cd adjacent to the V.
3 "West Village" zoning district and are suitable for development per the draft V-3
development standards.
I would like to meet wilh you to discuss my proposal for inclusion in the UCSP, and to
dilCU$8 additional ways the City may be able to assist me in redeveloping the site. 1 will
contal;t you soon to set up such a meeting.
Sincerely L.!' n:k;
JoseA.Q~
d. -fA
d 69St881089 'oNnZ: 9 "lS/8z:9 900l S lOr (OlM)
WOH4
iJ:lIllI>i~~YO-"VElOPMeN1T
JUl I 2 l~
July 7, 2006
Mr. Brian Sheehan" Senior Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Mr. Sheehan,
Based on a review of the Urban Core Specific Plan, I recommend changing the proposed
zoning for 708 H Street from UC-I0 to UC-12. This property is located in the transit focus
area, directly across from the H Street trolley stop and is bounded on the west by Interstate
5 and on the south by an elementary schooL
UC-12 zoning will increase the allowable density which is consistent with the Plan's goal
to have the highest density zoning near the trolley/transit complex.
A zoning of UC-12 on the south side of H Street will recapture some of the density lost
when the Holiday Gardens condo development opted out of the rezoning plan. Also, the
MTDB trolley property is already proposed to be UC-12.
Finally, because 708 H Street is bounded on the south by a public school, the zoning of
UC-12 will not impact the City's strategy to gradually transition from high to low density.
Thank you for considering this recommendation.
Sincerely,
E~~
Bison Mobile Home Park
-1-'13
Emilie Stone
7161 Malta St.
San Diego, CA 92111
July n, 2006
HANb DEUVERY
City of Chula Vista
Mayor /!<tdilla, City Council, and Redevelopment Dept.
2761t~ Ave
ChulQ V!sta, CA 91910
JUL 1 1 2006
f, ,...."",~,.. .
,
I
-~",,'J
",.". .,__f""_'___"-"-""_"
RE: Urban Core design and General Plan
Parcels located H and Broadway St
502,510, and 520 Broadway, and adjoining 516 and 646 H St.
Dear t1pnorable Padilla and other City Representatives:
I am writing in response to the Urban Core Plan and it is my understanding this will limit our ability
to reqfvelop as we have been planning. I have been a big proponent of mixed use for quite
sometime. I believe Shopping Center such as the Ralph's/Trader Joes Center in Hillcrest, San
Diego if a great model of mixing commercial retail with residential. The way I am reading the plan
and ",,,PI the Chula Vista Shopping Center across the street, Residential use is being added. And I
would Ii~e the same consideration. We the smaller centers deserve the same rights and benefits of
the Iqrl/er landholders and projects, especially when they are in the same location.
We clfr~tly have apartments in the back of 510 and would like to redesign maintaining residential
use \Yjf~ apartments above some of the retail. Currently the 'Plan' to be only commercial is limiting
our f~tpre design, use and ultimately its benefit for Chula Vistas housing needs.
The City purports to want to be 'pedestrian-oriented: yet has designed the 'Beautification
Project' so pedestrians are weaving back and forth around plantings on a five foot sidewalk and
want~ t9 change H St from a 4 lane to a 6 lane road increasing traffic speed, and opposite
ped~", ',Ian friendly and retail in the area. For this recent project, not only land was acquired from
the a 'p'cent properties, over the years the City has acquired property from us in excess 12,000
s.f. sin , 1946 for various projects, this figure does not include utility easements.
I am r,rnally requesting the City do not limit our use to only commercial, but maintain our current
mix i di resid tial and allow us to build upward to provide much needed housing. Mid-rise
aportf'!",ts continue to allow our commercial tenants to live on site and would allow others the
same _,refit making use of the location between the Trolley and Regional Mall. Again, I
resPllwully request the Sauthwest corner of H St and Broadway be designated Mix Commercial
~ Residential use with Mid-rise desianation.
:;~~~
Emili, ,tone
OIIl"'l'Rrtd Property Manager
Las l'~flPas Shopping Center
S/W "rner of H and Broadway St., Chula Vista
, ~-1o
Jul 11 Q6._l~:18p harriee seone
'""-'I I I IA) Ul;', 'T t:.fl'1118 :stone
619-582
858
UNITY DEVELOP
DEPARTMENT
JUL 1 2 2006
fllllfict Slone
6566 Ridge Mauor A-.
San Diego. CA 92120
lllly 11,2006
:\ HANllDELlVER\'i
:, r-.-- '._.., ",_,,, :..
1,:,'"--," i
--<I ;i;;;
" 1,: JUL 11 2006 !.:1)1
:'1' I'l 'L.J
1 "L. '" . ,I
I PLPJ~h;
......_-......-'.."..."'.k'.......,"'_"
qJr ofChula VISta
l4aYQr PadiDa. City Council, lIlId Redevelopment Dept
~76..thAve
ClIuJa Vista. CA 91910
RE: Sweom... at H and BroBdway
Tilis CXlIIIIDIIni<:a is being sent to all of you regardiug the Land use in the North West portion of
= Core. My family and I have bccu OWlJaS oflmd in this area (SW comer of H St aDd
'. ) since 1946 and have redeveloped it severaf times since. Your current plan/proposals
IfFvaIues the area and our use of our land.
Chula VlS1a is having significant growth and is predicting this to continue. Y lit 81 !be same time
lllfr llSC is being limited to height potential. Tall buildings are being filvomI in certain areas while
~ are being IiIIIitcd to tine stories. The 0ruIa Visla MaD is directly acroa Broadway St from
\If apd they an: being changed to !\IIiy,"", use with R...nd..nt;.1.1 see DO rCllSOll. _ shouldn't have
tb!! - option. We may DOt have lICt'eS, but we cr:rtainly have large """"lgh pBR:els to aaIe a
'liF mixed usc of -~c;ial wi.. Resiclc:ntial mixed in and ~.
., IJlIS bccu au desire 10 redevelop the c:omer property at. 502, 510, 520 Broadway along with 516,
M6 H St into a med use of R:Sidential aparIments above the COlIIIDeIcial. We <:um:ntly bave
~, yet accoaIiu& to the map OIl LUT-1851bis will no longer be !be ClISe whiz> _
~. This is uojust and we wish to have the same rights as the Mall directly across the stIect.
Qw:r the years """ lave had to give the City quite a bit <<lXot-tY just to be able to exisL First it
Will forty feet the entire Ieqgth of 0lA' prope.l) 011 H Sl to expend cbe eatire ~ to Rolli: Co; then
.1Ive fOot easemeot for Madisou Ave to lYV1J1ect South; and theo the City "ecided to let the Sooth
"lif8Jtbon to eliminate their obligatioo 10 aafc Madison Ave. South.
r fathec dcve1ope:d tIJe comer for a Gas Company in 1952 aad also built a Markel He built ~
buildiogin 19S8; inorderto~_hadto doDate 190' by 12' OIlH Stforarigbt
and dooate 150' by 12' fOr a bus stop 011. Broadway; the last gift for a 2' wide for the H St
. . lific:ation' projecI. This bas been quite ~i~ and costly in lams of oct income aDd. has
ow poo' .':"1 for growth aod cIevcIopmeot. Now our use is injcopa.dy by being 1iIrtbr:r
. J would appm:irde your c:oosideration to see that the use be con:el:ted to remain the same
- . . . to better serve the commuuity
. . a mnd__ Iri.... rise. ThmIt you.
.)- 9?
Health Care Structures, LLC
621 Del Mar Ave - Chula Vista, CA 91910
Tel. 619-426-3114 - Fax. 619-426-670
0 ~NITY OEVE(
OEPARTMEN~PMENT
JUL 1 4 2006
I
JuJy 11, 2006
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 4th Ave. MS C0400
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: FAR's in the Urban Core Specific Plan
Attn.: Eric Crockett
As the owner of the 3,2 acre site at 835 Third Avenue, I would like to redevelop this property.
The UCSP has it within the C-I district and provides for a maximum FAR of 1.0.
The property to the north is a two-story wood framed and wood sided office building built in the
1970's. The property to the south is a Class A medical building about three years old. The FAR
of 1.0 would not allow the development of a similar Class A building.
I strongly advise staff to revisit the FAR of 1.0 in the three corridor districts and suggest raising
the FAR to 2.5 or even 3.0. A quality building with the interior and exterior amenities that we all
want for this community can not be paid for with the overly restrictive FAR in place.
The impact of a FAR of 1.0 is even more acute on smaller lots. Parking will have to be below
grade and the costs of that parking will require more lease space above. The economics of this
will leave these properties unable to be developed.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Cordially
AJ!~t:1V"~
M. Kevin O'Neill
Managing Partner
MKO:co
.J-11
Brian Sheehan
"rom:
;ant:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tom Mautner [mautner@cox.net]
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:55 PM
Brian Sheehan
mautner@cox.net
C.v. Downtown Planning
Mr. Sheehan,
The follow concerns the "Urban Core SpecificPlan" currently under
development and consideration by the City.
We all agree that the downtown area needs a face lift. However, it would be
irresponsible to destroy historic Chula Vista just to obtain presumably
profitable investment development for the City. Historic sites must be
retained so that the history of Chula Vista is not lost. Our heritage is
very important.
Concerned residents for 61 years,
The Mautner Family
Dr. Torn Mautner
Consultant, Technology Development
Micro/NanoSystems, Fluids Modeling, CFD
tommautner@cox.net rnautner@cox.net
Voice/FAX (619) 421-3855 Cell (619) 227-2650
d-rg
1
Courtney Piper Property Management, LLC
801 Broadway - Chula Vista, CA 91911
Tel. (619) 427-1869 - FaL (619) 420-1376
July 12,2006
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 4th Ave. MS C0400
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: FAR's in the Urban Core Specific Plan
Attn: Eric Crockett
As the owners of the 3.3-acre site at the comer of801 Broadway and K Street we would
like to develop this property. However, the UCSP has it within the C-2 district and is
calling for aP AR of 1.0 & a maximum height of 45 feet, with 50010 retail and 50010 office.
We would like to see these figures changed. This is a unique comer lot buffered by a
school, senior housing and a parking lot. We strongly advise your staff to raise the FAR
in the three corridor districts to 2.5 or even 3.0 and raise the maximum heights to 65 feet.
We would also like to see at least a 70010 residential component with the rest being office
and retail. Without these changes we would be unable to develop this property.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact us at any
time.
Sincerely,
Jim Courtney
Dan Courtney
David Piper
~ - tf7
; .
J.,.
{-':;.-:-..
"~i}~:~::~..i
.. c.:~r?/!;~>~.: .
.
~
~.
~.
s:.'W f'\ E~a 1!:'}"d"-"
"':i~(ss."'PS ,,\p .
~~_......__ __....'T
.. I/J(/ .
?(
.~
~
~.
I
. ':'
I . ..r.-~SH AVE.
~
K
..;;:o,'i ....
..
''''1'''$:';':''
-.':'
.
::
.,
@
i~o.,"" .
QSEe.
PM.i
'1
.
'-
CII.
'.
PM-"-
~
GJi\-"""
~ ~.
.;'>-.... ."
. -~;.;. ~. .
. ;..
-
Q .
.~
. -~
. I;:)
.Q
. : .61'11
-r zoo -----~-
o. . ~
~ '~.J4 $"
.
D'
P4/1. J
~ ~>.
.., \.~......
-~.
~.
12S
20
.,'5
l Gl J
. ';-/ <IeEACH
izs,,;'
........,
......~;;,.
,
.-
.
h
146 ~
~
~,
,
'.
.' ,
@: ~
~
1 O.83AC j
,
,
;{
@
C"
o
o
- ;-~ "
..../2S....,
; CD~
8
;','. .
,@
2.82 'AC.
1211 71 .L11 "2.
_u_....__.____. .33.1--------
"
0}
...
Q ..
't 't
'0 '
06~
'.
ST OP.~
( EAST PARK 130 J
. LN. I.
SIER RA
r
~ BEACH
'\
ASH AVE'7
_,r;".
o
"I
l\j
~)
'.
,v. 7/0 3'$'3".61
j.
~
) f
J1.
" . .. ..;>.
. AVE "
. .' ,
..~
, " I
..~
~
. I,
..~
:-....:
.ct
~
,,) . ..' . ~~,,; .
,",C ... ,.. ';' :.?"'.-
411"= ~ "
I. I I .
:) I; I; I i-,
v " ,.
1~lh I~ .
en ~ It ~
w I . I .
(!) III ~ ,
Z ~
Z 9 ..
ct "I ~ I .. , I:
0 , , ?'
:x: J., -100 ....
~
- U ...
.. .
.' . .t.. -
~...
"
Emilie Stone
7161 Malta St.
San Diego, CA 92111
VIA EMAIL
July 14, 2006
City of Chula Vista
Mayor Padilla, City Council, and Redevelopment Dept.
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Draft Specific Plan of Urban Core design and General
Plan
S/w Corner of H and Broadway St
Dear Honorable Padilla, City Council, Planning and the
Redevelopment team etc:
I have done some review of the Draft EIR and Draft Specific Plan
for the Urban Core and I have some concern and comments I would
like considered. I am pleased to see the City taking the effort
to try to bring positive changes. I am a proponent of mixed use.
That has been a goal of mine to redevelop our parcels with mixed
use. The proximity to the Mall and Trolley make it ideal to have
residential mixed with Retail. Some of our current apartment
tenants already work in our adjacent shopping center and hardly
use their car.
I find the use proposed for UC-l0 far too low for Residential at
only 20% maximum and thus severely under valuing our the
location and our property. I see 60-70% residential as very
practical for the area as Retail and offices would be on the
lower two floors, and Residential on top. The Floor Area Ratio
is only at 1.0 max. and the trolley is 6.0 maximum. I believe
that being within easy walking distance to the Mall and Trolley
we should have a FAR of at least 2 and 3 certainly would give us
greater flexibility to address the market needs at the time. I
am not looking to have a skyscraper but would like to be able to
access the market at the time and design accordingly with a bit
higher density especially with need for housing and the
proximity to the trolleys and mass transit.
I have enormous issue with the City wanting to make H Street an
expressway. Six lanes increases traffic speed, noise and
0<-/0/
pollution. According to the EIR using all the mitigating
measures presented in Section 5.8 of the EIR this still won't be
enough to cure or mitigate these issues "however, these measures
would not reduce the cumulative traffic impacts to below a level
of significance.u Six lanes even without the impact of the Light
Rail Transit affects accessibility to the local businesses in
the area therefore, everyone's livelihood on H St. between Hwy 5
and Broadway St. is in jeopardy and the LRT would just further
impact all the issues already stated.
The six lane concept also gives me heart burn because the City
will be essentially forcing the adjacent property owner to hand
over their property for this City Project. I know the City won't
approve any build out plans without first securing the taking of
the property running along the street. This is one of the main
reasons the area is currently in such decay. It is unfortunate
but the cost has been too great for redevelopment for most
properties along H St. between IS and Broadway St. Some of the
lots are so small they couldn't afford to lose any land and stay
in business, as a result there has been a stalemate and
improvements have been held up... I am also concerned that with
the median changes left turns will also be limited and again
hurting the local businesses. The design of an Express Way will
hurt the adjacent business in many ways and this isn't fair.
I have recent experience with the City on the-lBeautification
project' along H St. The City has just taken two feet along the
frontage of each parcel between Hwy 5 and Broadway along H St
for this project that was done in conjunction with the road
improvements. And even through we were told by the City it would
not be realistic for the City to be wanting to widen the road
after spending so much money to 'improve it,' this project of
widening H St. to 6 lanes certainly shows up as part of the
General Plan and the Draft of the Urban Core Specific Plan
Through out the Urban Core Specific Plan it is stated to have
walkable communities. Pedestrians already have a tough time
walking through the area new 5-foot zig zagging'sidewalks.
Increasing traffic speed would only impact their already
compromised comfort zone. I wonder if the City has considered
making some streets one way only to improve flow. This sure
beats having streets widened at the cost of the local owners and
businesses.
I am not too familiar with most of the trees selected to be used
within the Urban Core. But I am very familiar with the mess
Jacarandas make and there high pollen count. The tree itself may
not need much trimming but they will need a lot of maintenance
because they are exceptionally messy during their blooming
season.
ol-/tJ~
I certainly hope the City allows greater flexibility on the use
mix. Let the market tell us whether or not to have 20 or 70%
residential. Our center already has residential in the rear and
it makes sense to have the rear mostly residential while at the
street corner mostly if not all commercial. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Emilie Stone
Owner and Property Manager
Las Tiendas Shopping Center
S/W Corner of H and Broadway St.
)-~3
carrierjohnson
architecture for urbln envlronmentJ
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
July 14, 2006
Mrs. Mary Ladiana
Planning and Housing Manager
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
Chula Vista, CA
Dear Mrs. Mary Ladiana:
In response to the City of Chula Vista's request for public comment to the draft Chula Vista Urban
Core Specific Plan, dated April 2006, Carrier Johnson offers the following general and specific
comments associated with the draft plan based upon our planning investigations within several of
the proposed sub-districts.
Buililmg Heights:
We have found some issues related to maximum buiiding height that we believe could be revised
in relation to standard building practices. The 2002 California Building Code, table 5-B (see
attachment 1), identifies each construction type and the building height to top of roof for each
construction type. In several cases we have found that the building height restrictions set by the
draft Urban Core Plan are non-consistent with standard building practices. For example, several
primarily residential sub-dislricts limit building height to 45'. The standard industry practice for
low-rise multi-family and single family residential is Type V construction, which allows a maximum
building height of 50' to the top of roof. This sectional sandwich is typically comprised of one-
level of Type I construction above-grade parking (min 12' floor to floor for acceptable ceiling
heights) plus 3 to 4-levels of Type V residential above at minimum 10'-0" floor to floor (assumes
8'-6" ceiling height). The minimum building height for 4-levels of residential over one-level of
parking is 52' to top of roof. With minimal site grading, usually grading the parking to partially
sub-merge the parking podium, the building height may be calculated at 50'.
Similarly, the draft Urban Core Plan proposes a maximum building height within the mixed-use
sub-districts at 60'. The standard industry practice for low-rise multi-family mixed-use is Type V -
Modified and! or Type III wood and! or light gage metal framing over a Type I concrete podium
containing retail, office and! or parking. This sectional sandwich is typically comprised of one-
level of commercial space at-grade (min 15' floor to floor for acceptable retail ceiling heights) plus
4 to 5-levels of residential above at minimum 10'-0" floor to floor (assumes 8'-6" ceiling height) .
The minimum building height for 5-levels of residential over one-level of commercial is 65' to top
pdon r. carrier I michael c. johnson I frank a. wolden
1301 third avenue san ell. ca 92101 I phone 619.239.2353 I fax 619.239.6227 I www.earrierjohnson.com
P:\4790,QO\CorrespondencslGovt agency\Letters\Urtlan Core Plan.doc
~ -//)1
Mrs. Mary Ladiana
City of Chula Vista
July 14, 2006
Page 2 of3
of roof. With minimal site grading, usually grading the podium so as to partially sub-merge the
podium the developer may increase the residential ceiling heights to 9'-0" clear (an increasingly
more common marketable ceiling height).
With respect to high-rise construction, the building code identifies any building over 75' to the
highest occupied floor as a high-rise construction. Most high-rise residential will be classified as
Type I construction. The code does not limit the height of high-rise construction types, but fire
and life safety systems and structural codes increase in cost with project height. With that said, it
should be noted that there are economic break points for developing high-rise construction. The
first break point is at an occupied floor exceeding 75', which induces high-rise fire and life safety
codes and high-rise structural upgrades, and as such, developers generally push structures well
above the high-rise threshold and as close as possible to the second break point. The second
threshold is the redundant lateral structures requirement for a building exceeding 240' to the
highest occupied floor. This is an extremely costiy threshold, and as such, few residential towers
in San Diego County have supported project a pro forma above 240'.
In addition to the construction type building code issues identified above, local ordinances and fire
access issues can further impact the developable area. For instance, if drive-through fire truck
access is required at the ground level of a parking structure, additional building height may have
to be allowed for within the city ordinance. But, solely addressing the ordinance may not be
sufficient, as the induced height increase may also affect the building construction type.
FAR, Lot Coverage, Setbacks and Mixed-use:
Carrier Johnson has noted a general discrepancy between the draft Urban Core Plan allowable
FAR and the maximum allowable building heights. For example, the FAR in the C-l sub-district
is 1.0, and the maximum building height restriction in the area allows for a 60' building. If the site
were 10,000 sf, the allowable FAR would be 10,000 sf. If a developer proposed a multi-story
mixed-use commercial office! retail structure with a maximum 60' building height (a sectional
sandwich including one-level retail atlS' floor to floor and three levels of office at 13' floor to
floor), only 25% of the lot would be used and the building would have a very small and highly
inefficient floorplate, only 2,500 sf per floor. Assuming that parking is provided at 5 spaces per
1,000 sf, 50 parking spaces would be required at 350 sf per space or 17,500 sf of parking area.
With the FAR absorbed by the building program, parking would have to be provided at-grade and
below grade. The remaining site area less building footprint of 2,500 sf is 7,500 sf. Assuming
that 70% of the remaining 7,500 sf could be assigned to parking (providing for pedestrian
circulation and landscape requirements), the available surface parking would be 5,250 sf or 15
cars. The balance of the parking, 35 cars would have to be located subterranean within the
maximum allowable site coverage of 70%, or 7,000 sf. Therefore, a below-grade parking facility
of 2 leveis would be required to satisfy the balance of the parking. This example sights several
shortfalls of the draft Urban Core for the C-1 district, (1) Building Height will not be efficiently
achievable within the allowable FAR, (2) Large expanses of developable land (minimum 30% to
maximum 75%) will remain undeveloped parking lots. Other sub-districts have similar land
development issues.
~-/().6
Mrs. Mary Ladiana
City of Chula Vista
July 14, 2006
Page 3 of3
Typically within urban areas density is not governed by lot coverage, as it would be in a suburban
model, but rather by FAR. By limiting lot coverage, the draft Urban Core Plan is attempting to
preserve open space. By looking at a traditional model used for low-rise infill projects, a 4-story,
Type-V construction over a 1-level Type-I parking podium, one would find that the lot coverage is
high, close to 80 or 90%. Open space for the project would include the roof of the podium which
can be utilized by the occupants and public as an amenity deck, and smaller pocket parks and! or
plaza opportunities located at grade.
By examining existing buildings in the Third Street area, we have noticed a discrepancy in the
allowable FAR compared to the proposed FAR in the draft Urban Core Plan. (see attachment 2)
The existing context has several buildings along Third Avenue that have an FAR well above the
1.0 proposed for the C-1 zone. Even with the incentives of affordable housing, Leed-certified
buildings, and the dedication of public parks, these FARs are impossible to achieve. This would
lead to a disconnected urban plan with a large variety of scale. If new projects were allowed to
achieve similar FAR allowances to the existing buildings, the core would fill out and achieve a
greater population density in the city.
This brings us to another point, the residential component of the draft Urban Core Plan seems
limited by the proposed zoning. With no FAR incentive to build residential, and by requiring a
Conditional Use Permit to build residential within certain sub-districts, development of mixed-use
projects would be hindered severely. Perhaps an incentive similar to the Mid-Cities Planned
District of San Diego should be considered. The incentive to build residential is provided by
allowing for an additional 1 sf of residential for every 1 sf of commercial with a maximum increase
of 1.0 FAR.
On the issue of setbacks in an urban core, most ground level retail spaces are activated by their
relationship to the street. If ground floor retail is promoted in this plan, the front yard setback
should have an incentive to go to a 0' setback along main retailing streets. This allows for more
visibility for the retail and promotes pedestrian activity along the street. In contrast the wider,
more open street feels more suburban. A good urban planning rule of thumb for evaluating the
pedestrian comfort and viability of a low-density urban street is to evaluate the street section.
Generally speaking, the closer the street section is to a 1:1 street width to building height ratio,
the more comfortable the street experience. With that said, the building street setbacks
throughout the draft Urban Core Plan should be reviewed and revised as appropriate.
c!( -/tl4,
VI. Land Use and Development Regulations
A. Administration
B. Land Use Matrix
C. Development Standards
D. Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts
and Transit Focus Areas VI-40
E. Special Provisions VI-42
F. Urban Amenity Requirements and Incentives VI-48
G. Signs VI-52
H. Other Regulations VI-53
Public Review Draft
c< - //)7
~
"
"P
~
.
. -
::;
'"
..
Mid Block
Paseo
V-I I:ast Village
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Mln: 1.0 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Max: yP< 16%
3. Building Height:
Min: lB' Max: 45'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 0'
Street Max: N/ A
7. Open Space Requirement: 200sf/du
9.
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 100%
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Behind /SubterraneanjTuck Under
Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onsite Min: 50%
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all crIteria.
c1-/~ f
Public Review Draft
6.
Setbacks;
Street Min: 0'
Street Max: N/ A
V-2 Village
OK
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio;
Mln: 0.75 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 75% Max: 90%
3. Building Height;
Min: 18' Max: 45'
4. Building Stepback; Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage; 80% Min
7.
8.
Open Space Requirement; 200 sf/du
Primary Land Uses;
Residential: 40% Max (Not allowed on
Third Avenue on ground floor, except for
access)
Retail: 40% Max
Office: 20% Max (Not allowed on Third
Avenue on ground floor, except for
access)
t
.;;;
'"
.
~ ~
~
"'
.,
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations;
Behind/Subterranean/Tuck Under
~CtiOIl Vie"
2. Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du
Onsite Min: None
3. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: None
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Public Rel'lew Draft
d.-/tJ7
~-3 West Village
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
tJ\M II( \)1{ ""~bf,1t(
0" ~ <3-t. VI. 9f 4'.w 2.
'3\klU1-t> ~~ 4'6rLiO
~p.~ ,U)'I~ .",3.
~. . 1_ ~~ WSlaVJ
I\\~'/. ~. ~ ~. 4.
<;~lUiO -e~ &0' ..tv Ib
~~e. ~t'D\OtJ
11- Stepback f'V> f. 6.
Mid Block
Paseo
Urban Regulations
Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 2.0 Max: ~ 4-0
Lot Coverage:
Min: ry< SO~ Max: :p% ~7t>
Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 84'
5.
Building Stepback:
Min: 15' At Building Height: 35'
Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
Setbacks: ,/16'1~lotxn.~~fS~
Strg~( ,\1",."0 Street Max: N/A
Neighborhood Transition: See Section D. fo
additional setbacks for parcels adjacent
to R-l and R-2 districts
7.
8.
Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 100% Max (Not allowed on
ground floor of Third Avenue or E Street,
except for access)
Retail: 10% Max (North of E Street and wes
of Landis Avenue - retail only)
DffIce: 10% Max (Not allowed on ground
floor of Third Avenue or E Street. except
for access)
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Behind/Subterranean/Tuck Under
2. Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onslte Min: 50%
3. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: None
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
A -//~
Public Review Draft
V-4 Civic Center
~ ~ ~~~ 1Pl~~ti(9~
Urban Regulations (W~lU~ V!5f.)
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: NjA Max: 1.0
Lot Coverage:
Min: ~ 4'(f1, Max: ~ ftJ/'b
Building Height:
Min: lB' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
2.
3.
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
6.
Setbacks:
Street Min: 15' Street Max: N/A
7. Open Space Requirement: 100 sf/du
8.
t
~
~
C
<0
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 100% Max
Office: 100% Max
Public/Quasi-Public: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Behind/SubterraneanjTuck Under
Section Vie"
2.
Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onsite Min: 50%
3. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: None
'"
...
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Plan ~ ie"
Public Review Draft
c:i-///
'J
Street
Sidewalk
UC-) 5t. Rose
(Transit focus Mea)
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 2.0 Max: 4.0
2. Lot Cove~e:
Min: 45% Max: 80%
01\
3. BuildIng HeIght:
Min: 3D' Max: 84'
4. Building Stepbaclc
Min: 15' At Building Height: 35'
5. Street Wall Frontage: 80% Min
6.
Setbacks:
Street Min: 0'
Street Max: N/ A
:l'
.",
:l!
x
~
15' Mln Stepback
iT
7.
8.
Open Space Requirement: 10osf/du
ltmo rJl~~
ParkIng Locations:
Structure/Subterranean/Behind/T uck
Under
2. Residential Parking:
Min: 1 space/du
Guest: 1 space/lo du
Onsite Min: 50%
3. Non.Resldentlal Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,oOO sf
Onsite Min: None
Summary sheet does not reffect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remaInder of the chapter for all crIteria.
Public Review Omft
.J.. -1/ ~
2.
3.
UC-2 Ciateway
(Transit rocus Mea)
Urban Regulations
1.
Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 2.5 Max: y.C k.V
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 45% Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 45' Max: 84'
4. Building Stepback:
Min: 15' At Building Height: 35'
5. Street Wall Frontage: 80% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 8'* Street Max: N/A
(* Alonlt H Street only to provide total of 16'
Sicle~) -t 1!S1 ~~P6t, ~~md'.
Open Space Requirement: 100 sf/du
7.
8. J!lmary Land Uses: -
Reside,ntial: 70% Max (Not allowed on
I hlra JlVenue or H Street frontage on
ground floor, except for accessF
Retail: 10% Max
Office: 2JJ!f. Max
~
Parking Regulations
1.
Parking Locations:
Any location except in front of building
Residential Parking:
Min: 1 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onsite Min: 50%
Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: None
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Public Review Draft
d. -jj ~
tll~L~
~ IT
='!
1;
~ :~
:;; ='!
.. c
'" ':!
in
..
Section He~
l:
o
'"
o
':!
Co
I.
r:
i
"'
o
':!
Co
Street
-- ~ ----,,- ---..-
S;dewalk . I
Plan" ie"
t
~
.
~
(:) ~
'" ~
c
~
o
'"
UC-3 Roosevelt
~: (Mf;l~~ 1Pa~~I1{O~ ~~~t~w.(i flI5-r,)
Urban Regulations
~. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 1.0 Max: 3.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 30' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 15' Street Max: N/A
7. Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
8. Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
~.
Parking Locations:
Anywhere on-site, except in front of building
2. Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du
Dnsite Min: 100%
Street
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
d-/11
Public Review Draft
UC-4 nospltal
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: NjA Max: ~ ~.O
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 30' Max: 84'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6.
Setbacks:
Street Min: 8' Street Max: N/A
(*A1o!lg H ~rPt o.!)tr to provide total of 16'
slcJewa -t' lb fa/..~ ge;mfIeM..
"S lbe'vJ 1a-
Open Space ReqU/~n . NjA
7.
8. Primary Land Uses:
Office: 100% Max
\ 1l'7r11V~&iJ~l lCSO Ii~f
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any
2. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: 100%
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Public Reylew Draft
of - JJS-
~
~
"
~
"
'"
Section Vie~
o
'"
~
'"
l..
j-,
Street
--------
---"-"--']
'<
"
i
~
'"
Piau Vie\\'
UC-5 5000
~: (Na~~~ -11iI~W-C'~ll ~~UJ.uLli "P1<;1. J
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A
Max:...H1A 1D'lo
3. Building Height:
Min: 30' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 8' Street Max: N/A
(*Along H Street only to provide total of 16'
sicfewalk)
7. Open Space Requirement: NjA
8. Primary Land Uses:
Retail: ;?1'% Max ~z,
Office: 100% Max ~ ~A.LV
f.l~ ~ -ti,u..: Lc.;.Lfl'O 1"\ "r
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any location except in front of building
2. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/1,000 sf
Onsite Min: 50%
Summary sheet does not reffect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
d-//fp
Public: Review Draft
2. Lot Coverage:
UC-6 Chula Vista Center Residential
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: N/A Max: 2.0
Min: NjA
Max: ~ 10~
3. Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback:
Min: 15' At Building Height: 30'
5.
6.
Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
Setbacks:
Street Min: 15' Street Max: N/A
Nei~hbarhaad Transition: See Section
-n. for additional setbacks for parcels
adjacent to R-l and R-2 districts
Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
:}
;t(
15' Min Stepback
1;
:"
:l'
"
~
"
<0
7.
8. Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 100%
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Structured
Section Vie"
2.
Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onsite Min: 100%
'" ,
u
Jl'
JlI
s
::;.
;,,'
-<I
Street
Sidewalk
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Plan \' ic'W
Public RevIew Draft
:l..~/J1
UC-7 Chula Vista Center
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio: /'
Mln: N/A Max: J<<J '}.5
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 25% Min
6. Setbacks:
t
~
:;;
o
'"
4
Street Min: 8'* Street Max: N/A
(*~ to,2rovide total of 16'
-smewaIK) l' l5'!:7l- bGr . ~~'F.3
7. Open Space Requirement: N/A ~
~~
8. PrImary Land Uses:
,"~A.l: Retail: 100% Max
Office: 25% Max (Not allowed on ground
floor facade, except for access)
'.~
"
2.
Non-ResIdential ParkIn .
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf.
Onsite Min: 100%
Parkil!g Regulations
1. ParkIng Locations:
Anywhere on-site
Street
io
I.
r Sidewalk
11
~
ell
~
io
---------
---~-.--._-
,
-t.l2f*e>~ Z~ tJ,L'j. Clt ~I
1l6~~'ttJ...t, M-C ~J.-ll---
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
at-jig'
it: C9rlWNt> t>~D DN
ei-~~~ tM, ~
Public Rmew Draft
UC-8 otis
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: N/A Max: ~.O
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
(]\Z
3. Building Height:
Min: ~8' Max: 45'
4. BUilding Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: ~5' Street Max: N/A
7.
8.
Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: ~OO% Max
"
".
:1!
~
"'
..
Parking RegUlations
1. Parking Locations:
Anywhere on-site except in front of building
2. Residential Parking:
Min: ~.5 space/du
Guest: ~ space/~O du
Onsite Min: ~OO%
Sel:l ion He>;
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Street
Sidewalk
Plan ,je~
Public Review I)raft
d. -110/
UC-9 Il1ld n Street
1.
:E
.",
:l! 2.
~
::;
3.
4.
5.
6.
~
~~
"""
---~.fr
Street
--------
._~M_..__
t5:i!:
. ~
f3 ~
~~
~~
51ll! I
"'~ I .
... ~
. . I .
._______..::.1
;.
1E
~
51
'"
~
West of Broadway
Street
r
'"
-}- -::- =.-::- .--=-=- -=-.-=-=.-
-n
~
.
'"
~
51
'"
I
:s
IE
~
Urban Regulations
Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: N/A
Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 72'
Bul/dlng Stepback: Not mandatory
Street Wall Frontage: 70% Min
Setbacks:
H Street East of 8roadway
Street Min: 8' Street Max: N/A
H Street West of Broadway
Street Min: 16' Street Max: N/A
roa :y
Street Min: 0' Street Max: N/A _
7. Open Space Requirement: N/A
8. Primary Land Uses:
Retail: 1~ Max 1db
Office: ~ Max \OO~~_
'V1!&Lh&orl M.-" '1 V {(I NI.-l4
Parking Regu"iiitlons
1. Parking Locations:
Any, except in front of building
2. Non-Resldentlal Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: 50%
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
cA - / /J.P
Public Review Draft
UC-10 Chula Vista Center West
Urban Regulations
F/~or Area Ratio: /'"
Mm: NjA Max: ~ 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: NjA Max: 80%
1.
3. Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 72'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5.
6.
Street Wall Frontage: 50% Mln
Setbacks: I CJ..~'t!;~\ft(,~~L-
H Street.- \f> flVWl ~~\ - '(. ~\)'I
Street Min: 16' Street Max: NjA
Broadway
Street Mln: 0' Street Max: NjA
Open Space Requirement: NjA
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 20% Max (Not allowed on
Broadway or H Street frontage on
ground floor, except for access)
Retail: 100% Max
Office: 30% Max (Not allowed on ground
floor facade, except for access)
7.
8.
Parking Regulations
1.
Parking Locations:
Any, except in front of building
2. Residential ParkIng:
Mln: 1.5 spacejdu
Guest: 0 spaces
Onsite Min: 100%
3. Non-ResIdential ParkIng:
Mln: 2 spacesjl,OOO sf
Onsite Min: 100%
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Public Review Draft
~W ~.?,
IN .;~~
~!
PIW ~1'ee.1~
'MV~~6 .
~ f6L~t1
~~.. OW
"
0;
:x:
~
"
~
t
~
~
io
...
Section l iew
Street
PlanVi('"
d. --loll
UC-ll Chula Vista Center West Residential
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
~ (!J)KH(;f.I{S ~U ~
~~Hl WDtI~~.
-
t~ ue,...U,~
~ ~~~ ~v
,
<<<
~
~
:x:
~
,.
Street
Sidewalk
--y-- --..,
in
...
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
2.
Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
Building Height:
Min: IB' Max: 45'
Building Stepback: Not mandatory
Street Wall Frontage: Nj A
Setbacks:
Street Mln: 15' Street Max: NjA
Neighborhood Transition: See Section D. for
additional setbacks for parcels adjacent
to R-l and R-2 districts
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Open Space Requirement: 200sfjdu
8.- . Primary I..and Uses:
Residential: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any. except in front of building
2.
Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 spacejdu
Guest: 1 spacejl0 du
Onsite Min: 100%
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all crIteria.
d. -I ~~
Public Review Draft
Min: 45%
UC-12 n Street Trolley
(Transit focus ..vea)
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 4.0 Max: 6.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Max: 60%
3. Building Height:
Min: 45' Max: 210'
4.
5.
6.
Building Stepback: Not mandatory
Street Wall Frontage: Nj A
Setbacks: .( 61 '81t"(',t~~"
H Street /' \ ~ f'
Street Min: 16' Street Max: NjA
.,.L~~
~p6
""'l
I
I !
U.'t
~ I
c
;;: :l; ,-,~
'" I
:l'
0 I
:;
'"
..
7. Open Space Requirement: 100 sf/du
8. Primary Land Uses:
1. Residential:-90% Max
to. etai/: 1 " ~ 10% Max
Office: ~ Maxl"""
-
ospitali : 1% Mi 10% Max
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any
Section Vie"
2.
Residential Parking:
Min: 1 spacejdu
Guest: 0 spaces
Onsite Min: 100%
--------
---------
Street
3.
Non-Residential Parking;
Min: 1 spacej1,OOO sf
Onsite Min: None
i3:!5:
H
<n<n
.5-
:!OS
.12
"'."
"'0
~
Summary sheet does not reflect all reguiations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Pion 'He,""
Public Review Draft
d-/c:2.3
UC-13 I"Ild Broadway
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
'1
~
.~
J:
~ 7.
:!1
0 8.
<0
-..,
~
I ~
J3
~ 3.
~
:!1
o
"
Urban Regulations
Floor Area Ratio:
Min: N/A Max: 2.0
. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 60'
Building Stepback: Not mandatory
Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
Setbacks:
Street Min: 0' Street Max: 20'
Neighborhood Transition: See Section D. for
additional setbacks for parcels adjacent
to R-l and R-2 districts
Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 70% Max (Not allowed on
BroadW/1)l or H Street frontage on
ground floor, except for access)
Office: 50% Max -'1f!lo
Retail/Hospitality: ~Max
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Anywhere except in front of buifding
2.
Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onslte Miri: 50%
Non~esldentla/Parklng:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onslte Min: 50%
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please oonsult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Public Review Draft
2.
UC-14 narborvlew
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area RatIo:
Min: 1.5 Max: 3.0
3.
Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: ~ 1tllo
BuildIng HeIght:
Min: 30' Max: 84'
4. BuildIng Stepback:
Min: 15' At Building Height: 35'
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 15' Street Max: N/ A
7. Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
8. Primary Land Uses:
Residential 100% Max
:c
'"
~
.
~
~ ~
~
-"
::;
b
'"
15' Mln Stepback
14
Parking Regulations
1. ParkIng LocatIons:
Any, except in front of building
2.
Section Vie\>
ResIdential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du
Onsite Min: 100%
~t7 ~petI.'~ ~VL~
Y-B\'l ~~~-ti~ ~i,tWC\
~~'5"
Street
Sidewalk
Plaza
;'"
....
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
. I
..--..-.....-....-........:-.
Plan lie~
Public Review Draft
UC-15 I:: Street Trolley
(Transh rocus Mea)
p.w~~AL-
~\J\~~ ?P'
tl%~p~-t(~ ~l~
.10 1>~(~LW OW')
t
~ ~
S: ~
" .
~
'"
"
-4
!
'""1
,
I
l..,
m"} i
)J& ~
"'if I
mIl' ! ,y~"
U
11' Mln Setback
111m
Street
Sidewalkj
r Parkway
t5 m~'
i ~i I'
V) Ie
~ ~~.
'--t ~.
... ~ I
Vl
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Mln: 4.0 Max: 6.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 45% Max: 60%
3. Building Height:
Mln: 45' Max: 210'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
6. Setbacks:
Street Mln: 11'* Street Max: N/A
(* Applies on{Y along E Street between 1-5
and 300 east of 1-5)
7. Open Space Requirement: 100sf/du
8. Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 90% Max
~ CRetail: 1% Mii)~ 10% Max
Office: ~aJltf:joTallowed on ground
ffoortacade,exceptforaccess)
(1r>spltality: 1% MI'f ~~
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any, except In front of building
2. Resldentlai Parking:
Min: 1 space/du
Guest: 0 spaces
Onsite Min: 100%
3. Non-ResIdentIal ParkIng:
Min: 1 space/1,000 sf
Onslte Min: None
Summary sheet does not reffect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
d!.-/~~
Public Review Draft
UC-16 Broadway nospltallty
~~6~
"!l
o
:t
~
"
D
<0
;f
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: NjA Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6.
Setbacks:
Street Min: 11'* Street Max: 20'
(*(i~)~~~;~-~3~~~
O~n Space Requlremeni: NjA
7.
8.
Primary Land Uses:
Retail: 50%Max
~~: Wa~~~~-hM--
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any, except in front of building
Section Vie"
2. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Dnsite Min: 50%
SummaI)' sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Plan He"
Public Review Draft
a - //).1
UC-17 narborvlew lllIorth
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18'
Max: 45'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/ A
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 10' Street Max: 20'
~
..
~
.
~
"'
..
7.
8.
Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
Primary Land Uses:
Residential: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Any
2. Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/l0 du
Onsite Min: 100%
~
'iiI
..
"'.
~.
~I
~I
.
.
Ii
.~
'<0
I~
o
....
~~e.elu'?I<<llJ \W*\~ I
~v.. ~I~-KU. ~
fIll'K 1'!)"
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria_
d.-/~F
Public Review Dl'Blft
UC-18 I: Street Gateway,
j
~
.
~
~ ~
'" ~
o
:;;
'"
.,.
.....tp,
I
L,
,
i
I
,
u
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 1.5 Max: 3.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 45' Max: 120'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
S. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 11'* Street Max: N/A
(* Applies onr along E Street between ,-
and 300 east of /-5)
7. Open Space Requirement: Nj A
8. Primary Land Uses:
Retail: 20% Max
Hospitality: 100% Max
A\1Y MS Ill€,fHiftV
Parking Regu}iitlons
1. Parking Locations:
Any
2. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spacesj1,000 sf
Onsite Min: 100%
Section Vie"
~ ~eilli- ~\)\~~
~ ~l~M. ,Si) ~11
1>0'
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Plan V ic"
Public Review Draft
cJ.- /~ 1
UC-19 reaster School
O\V
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area RatIo:
Mln: N/A Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Mln: N/A Max: 70%
3. BuildIng HeIght:
Min: 18' Max: 45'
4. BuildIng Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 15' Street Max: N/A
7. Open Space ~equlrement: N/A
8. PrImary Land Uses:
Public/Quasi-Public: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
1. ParkIng LocatIons:
Anywhere on-site
2. Non-Resldent/al ParkIng:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: 100%
Street
Sidewalk
f
~ '
Q,
~I
c
:!'
~i
,
-------....-....-
Summary sheet does not reflect al/ regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for al/ criteria.
ot-j30
Public Review Draft
C-) Third Avenue South
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
:j.-
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area RatIo:
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: NjA Max: 70%
3. BuildIng HeIght:
Min: 18' Max: 60'
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 10' Street Max: 20'
Neighborhood Transition: See Section
1). for additional setbacks for parcels
adjacent to R-l and R-2 districts
7.
Open Space Requirement: N/A
1-
.J>V-'\ .
/
E
'"
:1'
~
o
'"
8.
Primary Land Uses:
Retail: 100% Max est of Third Avenue)
Office: 100% Ma ast of Third Avenu
~..d\.~ ~~ ~~i"!"-
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Anywhere on-site
'"
...
/;eetioll Vi""
2.
Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spacesjl,OOO sf
Onsite Min: 50%
Street
Sidewalk
('""f-
"Ii
~
~
o
01
Summary sheet does not reffect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Plan \ ii,,,
Public Review Draft
d-/3/
l:
~
J:
~ ~
to
.. :Ii
~
'"
"
C-2 Broadway South DlZ
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 35% Max: 75%
3. BuildIng HeIght:
Min: 18' Max: 45'
4. BuildIng Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 10' Street Max: 20'
7. Open Space Requirement: N/A
8. Primary Land Uses:
Retail: 50% Max
Office: 50% Max
e-a~ ~,~
Parking RegUlations
1. Parking Locations:
Anywhere on-site
2. Non-ResIdential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Dnsite Min: 50%
Street
. -1
).
.t;
~
~
~
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
c1-/~
Public Re\'lew Draft
C-3 Broadway North
t
..
:t:
~ :c
to '"'
... ~
:t:
.~
:;
io
...
Urban Regulations
4.
5.
Floor Area Ratio:
Min: NjA Max: 1.0
Lot Coverage: . ~ ~ '.
Min: 35% Max: 75% tW' lWt~ # ~,L,,",
:~~:d~~~ Height: Max: p ~I ~ If .~;~;sO~\~
~ .&~'"
BUilding Stepback: Not mandatory ~v.'0Vc-
Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
1.
2.
3.
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 10' Street Max: 20'
7. Open Space Requirement: N/A
8. Primary Land Uses:
Retaii: 50% Max
Office;.50% Max
Parking RegUlations
1. Parking Locations:
Anywhere on-site
Section View
2. Non-Resldentlal Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/l,OOO sf
Onsite Min: 50%
Street
Sidewalk
(I
~ :
~I
~
o
'"
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations
that may apply to each property. Please consult
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
Plan lie"
Public Review Draft
02.-/33
VII. Development Design 6uidelines
A. Introduction and Background
B. What is Urban Design?
C. How to Use the Design Guidelines
D. Vii/age District
E. Urban Cor/!! District
F. Corridors District
G. Special Guidelines
VII-1
VII-4
VII-4
VI/-5
VII-51
VI/-79
VI/-111
PUblic Review Draft
c2.-/3f
~~
~'\> ef
f/\ ~
~J(,
G~
~~~
~\V\ ~~.~1) . CII
.~ (JI>' ~- ,.~tlo
'9~' t1-\11 tfI''''
\ VI ,...:'(
~r.;~. J....
Core, the guidelines for the Village stress pedest 'an-oriented site planning and
building design, including requiring upper floors 0 step back to allow sunlight
to reach the streets below, The section also co entrates on preserving the
historic fabric of the area, including providing gui nee for those who wish to
renovate or add on to existing buildings and pro ting design compatibifity
between infill structures and surrounding buildings.
d. Special Guidelines
b. Urban Core District
The Urban Core District will serve as the primary busi ess, commercial, and
regional center of Chula Vista. This section focuses on accommodating mid-
to high-rise development while encouraging an active treet life. Specifically,
the design guidelines support the development of ground floor
retail uses along i."l/iiUlt'/lJ)' B.ld H Stree uch guidelines help ensure that the
U 'ns a comfortable ronment for pedestrians to shop, dine,
and recreate, In light of the intensity of land uses and need for parking in the
area, this section contains a special section devoted to the design of parking
structures.
c. Corridors District
In contrast with the Urban Core and the Village Districts, the Corridors District
is oriented towards the automobile rather than pedestrian traffic. Sections of
. Broadway and Third Avenue are characterized by minimum ten-foot setbacks,
one or two-story structures, and a h~ percentage or retail, service, and office
development. The guidelines in this section focus on promoting quality and
diversity in new commercial and residential development and safe and efficient
parking and circulation,
This section provides supplemental guidelines for hotels and motels, mixed-
use projects, and multi-family residential projects to provide further site
design considerations based on their individual uses. Sustainable design
recommendations for all project ~ es are also discussed,
.,1 ~ eVo
~!t) ~/~'<J I
~,,~.
~
Public Review Draft
c1-/.3C
Public Review Draft 2.20.08
d-/3t>
D. Village District
1. IntroductIon -
The purpose of this section is to .
d~ve!Opment and rehabilitation of '::t~:ent deSign guidelines for new private
d/St~/Ct The guidelines seek to promote; :mmerCial structures In the Village
~:,.thhj~h quality residential and commercial :~~
.. In a sma/Hown atm .
include groundfl osphere. Guidelines
~~:f~~~~~~ ~bOVZ~~:~/~~~~~~:~~~:C:::'~
.. DCUS Is on entl}'Ways acces
pedestrian orientation G ' s, and
guider . eneral architectural
intern~~~~:.hOUld be followed regardless of the
" Avenue IS the heart of Clwla
\I<;,ttl
-1~J ~ON (iHAA\iItf:l lJi~I4\(;i') q,~w..O
-HJtVJ be, ~ <?(J~"'7/.:'.r ON ~ N ~ -1loH IZ-D
H1@Jut '~I(),It~ @tz-V ~~WN ( ~ G7 ')
~\~~ ~ <3f~M-- \.t1StoV.-lV A~D D&S'II9tN
tJ~?I-\1 '\~" Of ~{> ;nl'1't \ N- +IDS s\JB....
SW-tlOt1 1I1~ to 11~ ~-r V ~o J ~p::j
~O~& ~~ ?t~i#Pi(A) 10 ON f' 1J]1.....3.
2. Design Principles
a. Promote Sound Architectural Practices
New infill development and renovation to
existing structures must respect sound
architectural design practices in order to
create a positive ambiance within the Village.
The standards contained in this section do not
dictate the use of any specific architectural
style.
!fchitectural standa~ u e the designer in
massing, proportion, scale, texture, pattern and
line. New creative interpretations of traditional
design variables are particUlarly encouraged.
b. Retain or Repeat Traditional Facade
Components
c. Develop a Steady Rhythm of Facade
WIdths
The traditional commerciaVmercantile lot
width in the Village area has given rise to
buildings of relatively uniform width that create
a familiar rhythm. This is particularly visible
on Third Avenue. This pattern helps to tie
the street together visually and provides the
pedestrian with a standard measurement of his
progress. Reinforcement of this facade rhythm
is encouraged, in all new buildings, even if a
singular structure.
),-/31
Public Review Draft:
Public Review Draft
d. Create a Comfortable Scale of Structures
All buifdings must convey a scale appropriate for
pedestrian activity. Human-scaled buildings are
comfortabie and create a friendly atmosphere
that respects the traditional scale of the Village
while also enhancing its marketability as a retail
and office area. For the most part, this means
two- to three-story development at the back of
the sidewalk, particularly along Third Avenue.
e. Support Pedestrlan-Orlented Activity at
the Sidewalk and Amenity Areas
The activities that occur immediateiy inside
the storefront and along the building frontage,
particularly along Third Avenue, are an
important design consideration. Structures
can provide visuai interest to pedestrians
through goods and outdoor activities. Therefore,
building design elements shouid be iocated
in a way that enhances pedestrian visibility of
goods and activities, and they should be kept
free of advertising and- non-product related
clutter (e.g. backs of display cases, etc.), to
the greatest extent possible. ,\1. !l!lJ:jI'la\!in88"3tt>\"'I.e:f~~ \IIllll-t
J;lf'"clear, transparent glass also instills a sense
of safety for pedestrians since they sense that
employees and patrons are monitoring the
sidewalk. In contrast, storefronts with blank or
solid opaque walls degrade the quality of the
pedestrian experience and are not permitted.
~ - J.3~
_1)
.).. - /.31
3. Site Planning
a. Introduction
New infill buildings should reinforce the
pedestrian-orientation of the Village by providing
storefronts next to the sidewalk and locating
parking areas away from the street.
b. Building Siting
The first floor of any new building should be
built at (or very close to) the front property
line, particularly on Third Avenue. The front
building facade should be oriented parallel
to the street. BUildings should also be
placed on the setback line along alleys.
Building indentations that create small
pedestrian plazas along the streetwall,
particularly along Third Avenue, are
encouraged.
Front setbacks should accommodate active
public uses s.uch as outdoor dining and
therefore should use hardscape and limited
landscaping, such as potted plants and
flower beds. Provide additional setbacks at
public plaza areas.
Buildings on corners should include &
storefront design features on at least ~ "1.5'"70
of the side street elevation wall.
Entries that face onto an outdoor dining
opportunity are encouraged.
Retain existing paseos when possible. Create
additional pedestrian paseos and linkages
to parking lots, activity areas, or alleys
within the middle one-third of a block. In no
case should historic structures be modified
to achieve this particular guideline.
BUildings situated facing a plaza, paseo, or
other public space are encouraged.
Public Review Draft
8) Loading and storage facilities should be
located at the rear or side of buildings and
screened from public view.
c. Street Orientation
1) Storefronts and major building entries
should orient to Third Avenue, F Street,
courtyards, or plazas, although minor side
or rear entries may be desirable.
2) Provide corner 'cut-offs" for buildings on
prominent intersections.
3) Create continuous pedestrian activity
along public sidewalks in an uninterrupted
sequence by minimizing gaps between
buildings.
15"1
4) Any building with more than;L25" of street
frontage should have at least one primary
building entry.
f~&~i
d. Parking Orientation
1) Locating parking lots between the front
.-property line and the building storefront is
l~lreRtfly g.'Beel:l.-a~d. Instead, parking lots
should be located to the rear of buildings,
subterranean, or in parking structures.
2) Rear parking lots should be designed and
located contiguously so vehicles can travel
from one private parking lot to the other
without having to enter the street. This
may be achieved with reciprocal access
agreements.
3) Locate rear parking lot and structure entries
on side streets or alleys in order to minimize
pedestrian/vehicular confficts along Third
Avenue and F Street.
4) Create wide, well-lit pedestrian walkways
from parking lots to building entries that
utilize directional signs.
Public Review Draft
J-N/J
Rear parklll~ lots should be
contlguolJs
Lmlf. jJdrklnJ, an as to major bill/dIn;;
rear entrances IfSIflj;. textured pa'Vl/)j'.
B) Allmechanicalequipment, whether mounted
on the roof, side of a structure, or on the
ground shall be screened from view (CVMC
15.16.030). Utility meters and equipment
should be placed in locations which are not
exposed to view from the street or should
be suitably screened. All screening devices
are to be compatible with the architecture,
material and color of adjacent structures.
f. Site Amenities
Site amenities help establish the identity of
a commercial area and provide comfort and
interest to its users. Individual site amenities
within a commercial setting should have
common features, such as color, material, and
design to provide a cohesive environment and a
more identifiable character.
1) Plazas and CourtYards
a) Plazas and
enCouraged
developments ove t
are strongly
c al
tJ~t
b) Physical access should be provided from
shops, restaurants, offices and other
pedestrian uses to plazas.
C) A majority of the ~ross area of thf> o/az'!.
~hould have access to sunli~ht for the
duration of daylight hours.
d) Shade trees or other elements providing
relief from me sun should be Incorporated
wll1Tlll fJ15zas. -
e) EntrieS to the plaza and storefront entries
within the plaza should be well lighted.
f) Architecture, landscapIng elements, and
publiC art should be Incorporated into the
plaza design.
Publle Review Draft 2.20.06 c1- / yl
e. BuildIng MaterIals and Colors
The complexity of building materials should be
based on the complexity of the building design.
More complex materials should be used on
simpler building designs and vice versa. In all
cases, storefront materials should be consistent
with the materials used on the applicable
building and adjacent buildings. The number of
different wall materials used on anyone building
.. should be kept to a minimum, ideally two. The
foJ/owing materials, including but not limited to,
are considered appropriate for buildings within
the Village:
1) Approved Exterior Materials
.<J
. ~a~ (smooth or textured)
. . Smooth block
. Granite
. Marble
. New or used face-brick
. Terra Cotta
&
~V .
If" ,,'J
~~
, 'I"{,
"C'llAc'
I,p'.n "q.,
\iJoOW---
Accent Materials
Accent materials should be used to highlight
building features and provide visual Interest.
Accent materials may include one of the
following:
([ WO~
. Glass
. Glass block (storefront only)
. Tile (bulkhead)
. New or used face-brick
. Concrete
. Stone
. Copper
. Cloth Awnings
. Plaster (smooth or textured)
Painted Metal
. Wrought Iron
. Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone)
. Terra cotta
'LJ Public Review Draft 2.20.86
~- /7~
q<
;Y
I{J 0 r
V;,.,IV
Rooftops
. Standing seam metal roofs
. Class "A" composition roof shingles
(residential application only)
. Crushed stone
. Built up roof system
. Tile
. Green roofs
2) Prohibited Exterior Materials
Walls Io:~ ~ VII't-t6oIA\..S_
. Reflective or opaque glass at ground floor
. Imitation stone (fiberglass or plastic)
. "Lumpy" stucco
. Rough sawn or "natural" (unfinished) wood
. Pecky cedar
. Used brick with no fired face (salvaged from
interior walls)
. Imitation wood siding
. Plastic panels
-IM~~I-tEt;:,
3) '~GBblriiged xterior Materials
. Heavily tinted glass
. Vinyl siding
4) Exterior Color
a) It is not the intent of these guidelines to
control color, however several general
guidelines should be applied:
. use sUbtle/muted colors on larger and
plainer buildings;
. use added colors and more intense
colors on small buildings or those with
elaborate detailing;
. encourage contrasting colors that accent
architectural details;
. encourage colors that accent
entrances;
. in general, no more than three colors
should be used on any given facade,
including "natural" cola!) such as .
unpainted brick or ston,e."1 WS" ~Uftlc;>tJ
~p.Jtftl~ ~'Vdc '6\)ll-tlt~GtS.
Public Review Draft ~-J1-3
f,'I1wP. @
, ~
c,fI~ 'r.>~ ~
. ~ using more than one vivid color
per building; and
. avoidusingcolorsthatarenotharmonious
with colors found on adjacent buildings.
Light colored base walls of buildings and
other large expanses are encouraged. Soft
toneUl!f}S!Q$ trom white to very light pastels
are ~~fJ8als such as off-white,
beige and sand are also acceptable colors.
PRRK (!9LCAS €...LU Iile ApfH'P--i
Finish material with "natural" colors such
as brick, stone, copper, etc., should be used
where practicable.
d) Exposure to the amount of sunlight can
change the appearance of a paint color;
therefore, paint chips should be checked on
both sunny and cloudy or foggy days.
e) The orientation of a building (north, east,
south, west) affects the appearance of
colors. Colors on south and .west facades
appear warmerthan if placed on north or
east sides.
f. ~ ~(!.f>t~e5MJt> aL.L'tHI6
1) .'.mtfit' ~';~de a dramatic architectural
element on many buildings in the Village,
particularly in the Civic Center area. Arches
should be semi-circular or slightly flat.
Parabolic arches are discouraged.
A~e.s
Care must be taken that ArilRS. appear
authentic. The integrity of an arch is lost
when its mass is not proportional to its size.
Columns must relate in scale to that portion
of the building that they visually support.
Columns should be square, rectangular or
round, and appear massive in thickness.
The use of capitals and column bands are
strongly encouraged. f~ <!PW14~S
~~17 ~G A'401~C.
Public Re"lew Draft
Public Review Draft 2.20.08 ~ -/15:
Not aooeptabJe
4) A base should be incorporated at the bottom
of the column. The column height should be
four to five times the width of the column.
5) To enhance the pedestrian realm, arcades,
arches, and canopies are encouraged along ~f?
west and south facing facades.
g. Roofs and Upper-Story Details
1) No roatl/ne ridge or parapet should run
unbroken for more than 75 feet. Vertical or
horizontal articulation is required.
2) The visible portion of sloped roofs should
be sheathed with a roofing material
complementary to the architectural style
of the building and other surrounding
buildings.
3) Radical roof pitches that create overly
prominent or out-of-<;haracter buildings l~iir~'a'lr = ~ = = = i " .. ifiii
such as A-frames, geodesic domes, or '~all r.Qj~D,' 'llal~
chalet-style buildings are ,n.:" _:1. ,-"-}!.j't,,,='!n. _. . ... ...
Dls...":UJV ~€:/). ~r~r, " f\;'fr-'r:',.,.;-::FirilijoTlj 11
'LJ;J..... '1..........11' _.#l'_.JI__J. ..IIL_J
4) Access to roofs should be restricted to +- ... .... -+-
interior access only.
5) Rooftops can provide usable outdoor
space in both residential and commercial
developments.
6) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment
should be screened by a parapet wall or
similar structural feature that is an integral
part of the building's architectural design.
7) Building vertIcal focal elements are
"encouraged, especially at key Intersections
iO such as Third Avenue and E Street, which
are pnmary entrances to the Vilfai!e District.
TOwers, soires. or dnmp~ hplYlme landmarks
and serve as focaVorientation Doints forthe
ciir;munity.
Public Review Draft
2) C%r and Lilthtinlt
The color(s) used by franchise/corporate
buildings should be considered carefully since
they may be inappropriate within the Village.
Below are standards that should be considered
when addressing appropriate c%r(s) and
lighting:
a) Use colors that complement colors found
on adjacent buildings or in the Village area.
b) Franchise/corporate colors should be
consistent with the architectural style or
period of the building.
c) Bright or intense colors are strongly
discouraged, unless used on appropriate
architectural styles and reserved for more
refined detailing and transient features.
d) The use of symbols and logos can be utilized
in place of bright or intense corporate
sglors.
e) Lighting of logos should be compatible with
the primary building and respect adjacent
buildings. Bright and intense lighting is
strongiy discouraged.
f) Neon outlining should be consistent with the
architectural style or period of the building
and should be reserved for detailing and
transient features. The use of bright and
intense neon outlining of windows is strongly
discouraged.
~) ~~~{ko..t NW~, ~~~~{l.~ \~ ~\Gl~ ON ~
/f ~tz.t> ~~IUt€- ~ 1)wht>ItJA-11 ~~W-t> ie ?1'l85e'- 'oj.
d. - F!-4
The storefront is only one of the architectural
components of the commercial facade, but it is
the most important visual element for a building
in the Village. It traditionally experiences the
greatest degree of change during a building's
lifetime and further holds the greatest potential
for creative orpooralterationsaffectlngboth the
': character of the building and the streetscape.
i Traditional storefronts are comprised of a few
I
.. --J decoratIve elements other than simple details
that repeat across the face of the building (e.g.,
structural bays containing window and door
openings, continuous cornice line, transoms,
bulkheads) and integrate the storefront into
the entire building facade. Windows and
facades that are open to the publicrealm are
also encouraged to take advantage of the nice
climate.
~ .(\ \1
~:t!'o 'Q.> ~'\l.. \/.1 '.
~'I' I\. 1fJ 'V/'0
~ V''' //./ ,ilylf' hi
'U >(JI:(P \ F.,V. j (r
... Q t-'{~v') \~tj'\f ,
\'J t/'. ".\)\ t/:J
9. ~~MfI\ "\i' ~0f(; >fil\
?~\(f~ ,p. I:i
~\vt~ is
~
-~-==
I, . J]1
II ie'
I r"-r-+-j I.
j I , 1 ; ~Cornice
I I
~-=--~ .....
~i ~1!] ~...~.....=... '.,1.' ransom WindOW
I '~" _c," ,_,
ii' : ,~~ Fri: Dispfaywindow
_.~--" -~ -~, If ! Ii '11
1 .. 'I~-" I,
...:: -..... P ! j; ~ Bulkhead
-.... ,I~""
Pier .... ... ~,.,,",.
Recessed entry door
5. Storefront Design Guidelines
a. Introduction
b. Storefront Composition
1) Entries and Doorways
a) The main entry to buildings in the Village
should be emphasized by utilizing one or
more of the followIng design elements or
concepts:
. Flanked columns, decorative fixtures
or other details, including a recessed
entryway within a larger arched or cased
decorative openIng. The recessed
entryway should be continuously and
thoroughly Illuminated.
. Entryways should be covered by a portico
(formal porch) projecting from or set into
the building face, and distinguished by a
change in roofline, a tower, or a break in
the surface of the Subject wall.
,01L---
b) Height exceptions may be allowed consistent
with CVMC 19.16.040.
c) Ail entryways should be equipped with
a lighting device providing a minimum
~-/11
Public Review Draft 2.20.08
6. BuildIng AddItIons and RenovatIon
GuIdelines
a. Introduction
The renovation/restoration of older commercial
structures provides an excellent means of
maintaining and reinforcing the traditional
character of the Village. Renovation and
expansion not only increases property values
in the area but also serves as an inspiration to
other property owners and designers to make
similar efforts.
When an applicant proposes a renovation of
or addition to an existing structure, the work
should respect the original design character of
the structure. The appropriate design guidelines
in this section are to be implemented whenever
a structure is to be renovated or expanded. In
addition, renovation of all structures of historic
ignificance should follow The Secretary of
e Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
G idelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
pu lished by the U.S. Department of the
Inte 'or, National Park Service (Available on the
web at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/taxj
rhb) he City I'..e. ~ Iv becom~a Certified Local
... Government, the implementation procedures
should be applied as appropriate to new in fill
development in the Village.
b. Preserve Traditional Features and
Decoration
C>J'.1 G.L1IIU.
c'''_.'..g materials, details, proportions, as well
as patterns of materials and openings should
be considered when any additions or building
renovations would affect the appearance of an
existing building's exterior.
Public Review Draft:
Public Review Draft
Bmi
Original Not aCCeptable. ... NOt ._bIe .
alunilh:um,caseineot tJIoCked.lip
4) If the original window openings have been
altered, the openings to their original
configuration and detail should be restored.
Blocking or filling window openings that
contribute to the overall facade design
should be avoided.
5) When replacing windows, consideration
should be given to the original size and
shape detailing and framing materials.
Replacement windows should be the same
operating type and materials as the original
window.
J
f t:c..-::: /~~J /' </:
f. Door Replacement
1)
2)
g. Awnings
1) Originai awning hardware should be used if
it is in working order or is repairable.
2) The traditional canvas, slanted awning is
most appropriate for older storefronts and
is encouraged over contemporary hooped
or box styles.
h. Painting
Painting can be one of the simplest and most
dramatic improvements that can be made to a
facade. It gives the facade a well-maintained
appearance and is essential to the long life of
many traditional materials.
1) All the facade materials to be painted
should be catalogued. Materials of different
properties may require different paints
or procedures. Consult a local expert for
advice.
J. SeIsmIc RetrofittIng
Where structural improvements for seismic
retrofitting affect the building exterior, such
improvements should be done with care and
consideration for the impact on appearance of
the building. Where possible, such work should
be concealed. Where this is not possible, the
improvements should be planned to carefully
integrate into the existing building design.
Seismic improvements should receive the same
care and forethought as any other building
modification. An exterior building elevation may
be required with seismic retrofit submittals,
showing the location and appearance of all
such improvements.
~~ VJ,~~fltf~~~ \l-Ism-ic.>. "\3\.HI-D~\L(,6, ."
o ~J.lf <Slf \N.~\~tz- :5toUl.t>,L.R.p$.
~~IZ- ~ ~ ~, I
Public I!evlew Draft
~ - /60
3. Site Planning
B. Introduction
Siting Involves a project's relationship to the
property, the street, and adjacent buildings. In
the Urban Core, buildings should be sited In ways
that provide a comfortable and safe environment
for pedestrians while accommodating vehicles.
b. Building SIting
1) Most ofthe building .streetwall. should meet
the front setback lines, except for special
entry features, architectural articulation,
and plaza areas or other pUblic spaces.
2) Setbacks should be dedicated to plazas that
focus on hardscape rather than landscaping
and should be of sufficient size to increase
function and accessibility.
3) Locate loading and storage facilities away
from the street and screen from public
view.
4) Walls and fences should be integrated with
the overall bUilding design.
c. Street Orientation
1) Storefronts and major buildingentriesshould
orient to Broadway, H Street, courtyards, or
plazas, although minor side or rear entries
may be desirable.
2) Any building with more than 125 feet of
street frontage should have at least one
primary building entry.
3) All iill:'t":8 fJC.dtdll~ses with street level,
exterior exposure should provide at least
one direct pedestrian entry from the street.
4) Any dro(HJff areas along Broadway and H
Street should be limited.
-
Preferred building siting in the Urban
Carr::
BLj(.
tf~
/
-
Publle Review Draft 2.20.08 02 -/5'"/
1.) Plazas and Courtvards
a) Plazas and courtyards within commercial
developments over ~ acref afe strongly
encouraged. e'fYJ l7
b) Physical access should be provided from
retail shops, restaurants, offices and other
pedestrian activity generating uses to
plazas.
c) A majority of the gross area of the plaza
should have access to sunlight for the
duration of daylight hours.
d) Shade trees or other elements providing
relief from the sun should be incorporated
within plazas.
e) Entries to the plaza and storefront entries
within the plaza should be well lighted.
f) Architecture, landscaping elements, and
publiC art should be incorporated into the
plaza design.
g) Plazas and courtYards should include a focal
element of sculpture and/or water feature,
simple plants and simple sitting niches.
h) Seating should be provided in plazas. Where
applicable, plaza users should be provided
with a choice between active and passive
seating.
i) CourtyardS should be designed to provide
both visibility and separation from the street,
parking areas, or drive aisles.
j) Common open space should be provided
in large, meaningful areas and should not
be fragmented or consist of "left overn land.
Large areas can be imaginatively developed
and economically maintained.
o<-Iocfl... Public Review Draft 2,20."6
c. Facades
1) The physical design of buildings facades
should vary at least every 200 linear feet
(half block). This can be achieved through
such techniques as:
. division Into multiple buildings,
. break or articulation of the far;ade,
. significant change In facade design,
. placement of window and door openings,
or
. position of awnings and canopies.
2) Bay windows and balconies that provide
usable and accessible outdoor space for
residential uses are strongly encouraged
and may project beyond building setback
lines.
3) Awnings and overhangs shOuld be used
In conjunction with street trees to provide
shade for pedestrians.
4) The predominant difference between upper
story openings and street level storefront
openings (windows and doors) should
be maintained. Typically, there Is a much
greater window area at the storefront level
while upper stories have smaller window
openings.
Residential buildings should have entrances
. to facilitate
pedestrian activity and Increase security
through more "eyes on the street. .
Building Materials and Colors
1.) Bui/dinE! Materials
Building materials will Incorporate two aspects:
color and texture. If the building's exterior
design Is complicated with many "Ins and outs"
(extensions of wall far;ade, etc.), columns, and
design features, the wall texture should be
Public Rel'lew Draft 2.20.08
c2.-/LJ3
Desirable bUildIng maSSing has both
horIZontal and vertical artIculatIon
Smaller architectural elements on
large buildIngs acid pedestrIan scale
Design projects to facilitate social
support and effective surveillance
simple and subdued. However. if the building
design Is simple, a finely textured material, such
as patterned masonry, should be used to enrich
the building's overall character.
The following lists suggest those materials that
are "encouraged" and "discouraged" for use in
the Urban Core:
a) Approved Exterior Materials
o Masonry, including granite, marble,
brick, terra cotta, and cast stone
o Glass, which must be transparent on
ground floors
o Archit tural Is, including metal
panel s metal sheets with
expressed s, and cut, stamped or
cast, or mental etal panels.
o New or used face-brick
o Copper
o Painted Metal
o Wrought Iron
tiJl
Discouraged Exterior Materials
o Imitation stone (fiberglass or plastic)
o Textured, treated, decorative concrete
o "Lumpy" stucco
o Rough sawn or "natural' (unfinished)
wood
o Used brIck with no fired face (salvaged
from Interior walls)
o Imitation wood siding
o Plastic panels
2) Exterior Color
The type of color depends on the size of
the building and level of detail. Larger and
plainer buildings should have subtle/muted
colors while smaller buildings or those
with elaborate detailing should have more
Intense colors.
Stronger colors should emphasize
architectural details and entrances.
Public Review Draft 2.20.06
5. Storefront Des;~n
a. IntroductIon
Ground floors have typically been designed to
be what is now referred to as a "tradItional"
storefront and sales floor. Upperfloors commonly
were used for office space, residential units,
or storage. If retail uses are not approprIate
for a particular building, ground floors should
contain other active uses such as a health club,
community center, orresidentialcommon areas.
The ground floor should have transparent and
open facades and avoid blank walls wherever
possible.
b. Storefront CompositIon
.1) Entries and DoolWavs
a) The -main entry to buildings should be
emphasized through flanked columns,
decorative fixtures, a recessed entryway
within a larger arched or cased decorative
opening, or a portico (formal porch).
b) Buildings situated at a corner along
. __ Broadway and H Street should provide a
G1 ')V prominent corner entrance to street level
shops or lobby space.
2) Awnimls an~ CanQP!We S
a) AWnings;$hou~e provided aiong south
and west facing buildings to enhance the
pedestrian experience.
b) Where the facade is divided into distinct
structural bays, awnings should be placed
between the vertical elements rather than
overlapping them. The awning design
should respond to the scale, proportIon,
and rhythm created by the structural bay
elements and should "nestle" into the space
created by the structural bay.
Awnmgs should nestle mto the space
created by a structural ""lY
Public Review Draft 2.20.060< - J~
5) Parking structures below or above ground
level retail or commercial uses are
encouraged since they allow for pedestrian
activity along the street while providing
parking convenient to destinations within
the Urban Core.
c. Access and Entries
1) Locate parking lot and structure entries on
side streets or alleys to minimize pedestrian/
vehicular conflicts along Broadway and H
Street. If this is not possible, use patterned
concrete or pavers to differentiate the
primary site entry from the sidewalk. Effects
on adjacent residential neighborhoods also
need to be considered in site access and
entries.
2) Parking lots and structures adjacent to a
pUblic street should provide pedestrians
with a point of entry and clear and safe
access from the sidewalk to the entrance of
the building(s).
3) Pedestrian and vehicular entrances must
be clearly identified and easily accessible
to create a sense of arrival. The use
of enhanced paving, landscaping, and
special architectural features and details is
required.
SpecIal architectural features should
help identity vehicular entrances
4) Where possible, use alleys or side streets
for access to parking areas.~ ~'\Nl:>Jt:/1 t!\X(f<\'<; Ojl
alleys for parking access must be balanced ~. I .. .l-\ 1L "'l~j
with .other ~?~mon uses ~f alleys, inClud~ng O\~ ~\)\~~t~ \7l(4A~ .
servIce, utilitIes, and loadmg and unloadmg 1\11. 'f 1\'\YlfiiVl',f>-( musT
\ \0-1lJ\fl(llIVru;lJ-'
areas. ((1\
B~ (!M~iltPivu'
d. Ughtlng
LIghting for parking lots and structures should
be evenly distributed and should provide
pedestrians and drivers with adequate visibility
at night.
PUblic Rel'iew Draft 2.20.06 cJ.- JSI,.
9. Signs
B. Introduction
Design, color, materials, and placement
are all important in creating signs that are
architecturally attractive and integrated into the
overall site design. SIgns that are compatible
with the surroundings and which effectively
communicate a message promote a quality
visual environment.
The guidelines that follow address these issues
: ,\ and others, and are intended to help business
I \\ owners provide quality signs that add to and
;J\V u ort th cter ofthe Urban Core DIstrict.
/::. :.J They are not intended to superse e any ex s mg
.; i i 1 City sign ordinances. All signs must comp w
""'. <Kill .liJ t e regu a 10 contained in the Chula Vista
,l(' / ,\ / Municipal Code unless as indicated within the
LX '. specific plan, in which case the specific alan will
Lake precedence.
b. General Design Guldelines-'
Goodsigns communicate their message well, are
easily seen by people, and relate harmoniously
to the building they are placed on or near. The
following guidelines gIve criteria for creating
well-<:Jesigned signs.
1) Sign colorshould be compatible with buildIng
colors. A light background matching the
building with dark lettering is best visually.
While no more than two primary colors
should be used on a sign, a thIrd color can
be used for accent or shadow detail.
2) SIgns should be consIstent wIth the
proportion and scale of building elements
withIn the faQade. The placement of sIgns
prOVides vIsual clues to business location
and affects the design integrIty of the entire
buildIng.
Public Review Draft 2.20.06
. /)
\ I j
\~\W~~I
ThiS highly effective sign IJses OJ light
background with dark lettering.
Extemaf fixtures are.w effectne
method for IlIummatmg signs
c1.-/S'7
such as A-frames, geodesic domes, or
chalet~tyle buildings are not permitted.
7) Roots with large overhangs featuring open
rafters/tails are encouraged.
8) The visible portion of sloped roots should
be sheathed with a roofing material
complementary to the architectural style
of the building and other surrounding
buildings.
9) Access to roots should be restricted to
interior access only.
10)Screening for roof-mounted mechanical
equipment should be an integral part of the
building's architectural design.
l1)Buildlng vertical focal elements are
encouraged. Towers, spires, or domes
become landmarks and serve as focaV
--Orientation points for the community.
e. Walls and Fences
1) Walls and fences should be kept as low as
possible while performing their functional
purpose to avoid the appearance of being a
'fortress'.
Vented
screen wa/J
An appealing roof design should be
used to screen mechanical eQHfpment
Vert.cal elements such as a towc:r arc
encouraged
2) Colors, materials and appearance of
waifs and fences should be compatible
with surrounding development. Opaque
materials, such as plywood bo~rds, and '" ,. ii ' ,,' A4?t
sheet metal, are not permitted. FO.,;;OI G~AI/. VliIJ" f4U(:135
~ ~ err \:Q, tJ-l1fW'
3) Perimeter waifs should be constructed
of decorative masonry block or similar
material. The use of chain link fenCing is not
permitted.
4) Landscaping, partIcularly vines, should be
used to soften otherwise blank waif surfaces
and to help reduce graffiti.
Public Review Draft 2.20.06
c2-/S?
with little or no parking; and then parking
aisles for direct access to parking spaces.
7) Parking areas should be separated from
buildings by a landscaped strip. Conditions
where parking stalls directly abut buildings
should never be permitted.
8) Lighting, landscaping, hardscape, fencing,
parking layout and pedestrian paths should
all contribute to the strength and clarity of
the parking lot.
9) Bicycle parking should be provided at each
development and should be easily accessible
and integrated into the overall site design.
c. Access and Entries
1) Locate parking lot entries on side streets
to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts
along Broadway and Third Avenue.
2) Parking lots adjacent t/r-a public street
should provide pedestrians with a point of
entry and clear and safe access from the
sidewalk on Broadway, Third Avenue, or side
street to the entrance of the bullding(s).
3) Pedestrian and vehicular entrances must
be clearly identified and easily accessible
to create a sense of arrival. The use
of enhanced paving, landscaping, and
special architectural features and details is
encouraged.
4) Developments should have shared entries
when the lot is less than 75 feet wide.
5) Where possible, use alleys or side streets
for access to parking areas. The use of
aileys for parking access must be balanced
with other common uses of alleys, including
service, utilities, and loading and unloading
areas.
()~
I~>f;, J\V'
fj\~;\~V}~-v0
1;/(\ 'f1 ,.t.,
101:\ t /VJVI
D~ 1 ' fIlY;
.~ " ~Jf.,nt'lfJ
~ \)\ >>.'6' \~'
j" . ,\f;l'\ ~I>>
\\i
't00
Enhanced paving provu!es a sense of
amval mto a parkmJ; area
Public Review Draft 2.20.08 cJ- J~
8. Signs
a. Introduction
These design guidelines are intended to ensure
that the Corridors District contains quality signs
that communicate their message in a clear
fashion and integrate into the surrounding area.
Unlike the Village District, signs along Broadway
should be dlre,Xted towards vehicles rather than
pedestrians. bLl1' ~e '3161 /.tS Il-~ It
j\UOWl;D '
The guidelines that follow address these issues
and others, and are Intended to help business
owners provide quality signs that add to and
support the character of the Corridors District.
They are not intended to supersede any existing
City sign ordinances. All signs must comply with
the regulations contained In the Chula Vista
Municipal Code unless as indicated within the
specific plan, In which case the specific plan will
take precedence.
General DesIgn Guidelines
Consider the need for signs and their
appropriate locations early in the design
process; and
~-
"
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
2) The location and size of signs on any building
should be proportioned to the scale and
relate to the architecture of that partiCUlar
structure.
J" 3) Oversized and out-of-scale signs are not
permitted.
/ 4) Sign colors and materials should be selected
( 5) to contribute to the sign's legibility.
Excessive use of colors is discouraged.
.w
------------X) 6) Placement ~",.
, a) Signs sJtefffd not project above the edge of
the roof/lnes.
~ -;(:.0
Public Review Draft 2.20.06
6) Public or semi-public spaces (lobbies,
restaurants, meeting rooms, and banquet-
facilities) sited at ground level adjacent
to a pedestrian walkway or a major street
should use glass and transparent materials
between the height of three feet (3') and
eight teet (8 ') above the walkway or street
grade.
7) Noise attenuation techniques should be ~
Included In the design of buildings near tJof 5
major noise generators (e.g., major streets I I ~b. ~
and 1-5 freeway). TeChnlq~ay Include: \fIlb :\01>1$ ..tI/tI{).
double pane glass, berms,~ tree groves ____ ~ t"l\j ~ "at!.... I <;1Vt>
over 35' in depr;.b or lowering the grade ,. c#0rli.l\ ~;W'IJJ 4"6
of the subject bur ing below the roadway -J'.{\~ "~i~ 0
elevation. ~l p:;\'IcO ~
'2~] \j'Je ~\JIA1'
.
~'H;I\~ ~J~
c. Building Design
1) Allsidesofabulldlngshouldbearchltecturally ~O
consistent.
2) At least 25% of the total exterior surface @Iff) D
area of the hotel or motel building should
be surfaced in masonry or natural stone.
3) Masonry or stone should be applied to
logical places on each of the building's
facades, and should begin and end at
logical breaks related to the structure of the
building. A single, OnE~-story high, horizontal
"banding" of masonry or stone is strongly
discouraged.
4) The remainder of the exterior may be
surfaced in stucco, water-managed Exterior
Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS), or
Integrally-dyed decorative concrete or
ceramic masonry units. Metal or vinyl siding
Is prohibited.
5 Significant departures from standardized
architectural "themes" intended to market
or brand a hotel or motel building, such as
Swiss chalets or castles, is prohibited.
Public: Review Draft 2.20.06 cX- /~/
3) Pedestrianconnectionsbetweencommercial
and residential developments should be
active and friendly.
4) Large blank walls should not fase illterl9r
'\<ellkWil:l'5. ~ ~.
d. Special Requirements
~) Neighborhooc:H;erving uses (such as
full-service grocery, drug, and hardware
stores) are encouraged in mixed-use
developments.
2) Loading areas and refuse storage facilities
should be located as far as possible from
residential units and should be completely
screenedfrom view from adjacent residential
portions of the project. The location and
design of trash enclosures should account
for potential nuisances from odors.
3) All roof-mounted equipment should- be
screened. Special consideration should be
gIven to the location and screening of noise
generating equipment such as refrigeration
units, air conditioning, and exhaust fans.
Noise reducing screens and insulation may
be requIred where such equipment has the
potential to impact residential uses.
4) Open space intended for use by "residents
only' may not be accessible from commercial
areas. Open space and courtyards in
commercial areas may be accessible to
residential occupants and visitors.
5) ParkIng lot lighting and securIty lighting for
the commercial uses should be appropriately
shielded so as not to spill over into the
residential area.
PUblic Re~lew Draft 2.20.06 c1-/~
~ MOUNTAINWEST
_..6>=- REAL ESTATE
AUQ -" 0008
August I, 2006
Ms. Dana Smith
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Smith,
Mountain West Real Estate has been an active member of the Chula Vista community for Over 25 years. Our top priority
is to continue developing signature projects that reflect Chula Vista's unique spirit and character. The City ofChula Vista
has worked diligently in developing the current Urban Core Specific Plan Draft (UCSP) that is the blueprint for Western
Chula Vista and more specifically the Third Avenue Village between E and G streets. This blueprint is a critical
document, which will secure the future success and viability of Western Chula Vista.
One of the important benefits of this plan is to allow versatility for development and not inhibit heights that would
exceedingly prevent creative and effective projects within the Village. In the professional view of Mountain West Real
Estate, it is reasonable to maintain the current proposed height limits, thereby allowing the development of future projects
<11pporting the quality and character we reserve. We, the city and its residents, must provide the latitude to attract
velopers to our core and also to insure the success of these projects. Many benefits of maintaining the UCSP East
village lleight limits, VI at 45', V2 at 45', V3 at 84', and V 4 at 60', include: allowing fourteen to sixteen-foot high
ground floor retail that will attract a greater spectrum of diversified retail uses; allowing for thirteen to fourteen-foot floor
to ceiling floor plans for residential applications such as a loft design, or live/work life styles; building fas:ade applications
to incorporate cultural design aspects; open area amenities and the like. As the cost of land within our core and the ever
increasing costs of demolishing, rehabilitating and/or constructing new buildings entirely continue to escalate, one of the
major mitigating measures is to allow for increased height.
Mountain West strongly feels that the increase in height can be done with no loss of community character or benefit, and
could add to the ability of a developer to integrate Chula Vista's individuality to any project. Limiting developments to a
three-story height limit will critically impact the options for sound development and discourage, rather than encourage,
both developers and new businesses to venture within our Village core.
It is the encouragement of Mountain West that we address this pressing issue in a timely and objective manner. The city
and its residents need to come together and analyze this issue from all viewpoints and develop a solution to ensure the
future of our Village.
r:r 7J
;- ~ -- {
,
IJames V. Pieri
'president & CEO
Mountain West Real Estate
3~ ,; Street, Suite 6000
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Phone 619.422.8400
Fax 619.422.8100
o1-/~.j
www.mountainwestre.com
f~ .
cllfJ
f
B/22/ov t>ublf C CcmmeJll
~"""~ -rMA
[lSlt I-\col-e~
cc. - Crl-t I-V;!r
u::.-/1\/c.c.
\\ .' '. :, ~'!:, I ,
'c' '-"'" "
- -::: ~
T !-1 ~ h [) :\ \ E :\ L E
~-
ij~~
,Ii It' if-I (\ ~
August IS, 2006
THIRD AVENUE VliAGE AsSOC1A TION
City of Chula Vista
Mayor and City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
272 Third A VOllue
ChuJa Vista, CA 91910
(619) 422-1982 Phone
(619) 422-1452 Facsimile
Dear Mayor and City Council,
www.chulavistadowntowncom
As you !<now the Third Avenue Village Association supports the
redevelopment of the City's "downtown" neighborhoods per the development
standards set forth in the current draft Urban Core Spe~ific Plan. In order to
encourage the redevelopment and renaissance of the Third Avenue Village,
we ask that the City also consider increasing the intensity of allowed
development along Third A venue and in the immediately adjacent
neighborhoods. This should be done in a way that respects the low-rise scale
immediately fronting Third A venue, requires high quality design and
materials, and buffers existing single family neighborhoods.
2006 Board of Directors
Lisa Moctezuma - President
David Hoffman - Vice President
Greg Mattson - Secretary
Carl Harry - Treasurer
Dr. Richard Freeman
Glen Googins
Michael Green
Stan Jasek
We have included our recommendation for the uses on the ground floor within
the core of the Village. We also ask that the uses in V-I be expanded to
include retall (small) with a CUP. We feel that these neighborhoods will be
idea for small coffee shops, flower businesses and other businesses that will
increase the traffic but may have limited hours of operation and the need for
smaller spaces,
Lynette Jones
Betsy Keller
Susan O'Shaughnessy
Greg Smyth
Stella Sutton
We have also included a copy of parking statements for the City staff and
consultant to use. We feellhat these are very important to the Village and
should be included in future plans for parking within the village. We look
forward to further conversation on how to implement the future parking
districts.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Jack Blakely
Attached are also copies of a citizen for redevelopment drive that we held at
the recent Lemon Festival. I think you will see that not only the 700 business
and property owner,! that we represent but citizens who also share our feelings
that want the Urban Core Specific Plan to continue in as quick as possible
manner so that the Village can continue redevelopment.
Thanks again.
SPECIAL EVENTS MANAGER
Beth Aodre
2006 Board of Directors
EVENTS & RETENTION SPECIALIST
Vanessa Barron
AoMINISTRATIVE AsSISTANT
Diana Fergus
c2?'t I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Village Parking District
District Management & Parking Study
Third Avenue Village Association (T A V A) is forwarding these parking statements to .-
the City for use in directing and assisting the selected Parking Consultant and to consider
our proposal for a management change. As you are aware, T A V A is very concerned
about the existing parking situation within the Third Avenue District and the lack of
benefits accruing to the property owners and merchants. The Urban Core Specific Plan
(UCSP) identifies the Third Avenue District as the "Village" and our statements below
relate to this geographic area only.
Below are some general parking and land use statements for the Village and inquiries
that we would like the City and the Parking Consultant to be aware of or to address in the
course of the study. The statements are not prioritized in the order of importance.
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES:
I) T A V A Board wants to consolidate the existing Parking District with T A V A in
order to create financial efficiencies and to provide management and progressive
leadership that will benefit the downtown.
2) The creation of the property-based Parking District was to benefit downtown
property owners and merchants, to increase sales and activity. The original intent are the
same goals promoted by TA VA.
3) The TAV A Board would be in the best position to be the overall "Parking
District Advisory Board" for the Village Parking District (VPD) and to provide the
lacking leadership, public outreach and education, as well as unique knowledge of the
property owners and their operations.
4) A restructuring of the revenue flow would allow TA V A to reinvest the revenues
back into improvements and maintenance within the Village Parking District. Initial
revenue sharing with the City on a percentage basis for a limited term or immediately
allowing the Village Parking District to retain 100% of meter and parking revenue for
district marketing, improvements, and maintenance, while allowing the City retains the
revenue from enforcement fees, tickets, etc.
5) It is extremely important that the current or expanded Village Parking District
remain as a single entity within the UCSP - Village District and T A VA's boundaries and
not be enlarged so that it overlaps with other development or parking areas. T A VA
=<-/t5'
would strongly prefer independent parking districts for the various westside improvement
areas and no revenue sharing among the individual parking districts.
6) Assuming the Village Parking District is incorporated and/or expanded into
TA V A operations and management the consultant should make recommendations that
would address the future responsibilities and functions of T A V A and the City and the
cost responsibilities or sharing for operations and maintenance.
PARKING STRATEGY ISSUES:
7) What is the acceptable target for on vs. off street parking demands based upon
the existing land uses, as well as the future projections?
8) Would "Performance Based Pricing" work in Chula Vista?
9) Analysis on "Charging the right price" for on-street parking considering that
parking garages may either be charging or will be constructed in the future?
10) Recommend and/or conduct a series of community parking educational seminar.
11) Develop marketing/parking strategies.. .. .. ..how can we handle this? Consultant
should give ideas and implementation techniques.
12) How can City and the TA VA entities develop a program(s) to educate and
promote a "Park once and shop twice" mentality.
13) The parking study should identify how the employees park now and develop
strategies for the future developments. Provide programs to reallocate employee parking,
education, and/or incentives to park in other convenient spaces. Consider providing bus
tokens or other monetary incentives to downtown employees to use alternative
transportation.
14) Provide analysis of the use of the current old antiquated meters vs. the newer
sophisticated meters, costs for operation, setting prices, maintenance, ownership, etc.
Also would there be a benefit to providing change machines at various locations?
15) It is assumed that there will be a couple of new parking structures proposed
within the Village. . . the study should recommend suitable sites for two small to medium
parking structures within the Village or one central larger parking structure. . . .offer
pros/cons for each scenario. The study should analyze maximum shopper walking
distance to and between the new structures.
16) Consultant should offer recommended timing for the meters, i.e. hour, two or
four hour increments by location within the Village. Meter times and prices may be
different in certain locations as they are now.
17) Explore "FAR Bonus for public parking" within the Village or the entire UCSP
area.
18) Realize and develop parking or storage programs for non-motorized means of
travel.....bicycles, ped-cabs, segways, etc.
d-/~t..
19) Review and determine which City policies or ordinances should be updated or
developed for minimum parking ratios for all existing and proposed land uses within the
Village.
20) Review the UCSP parking configurations proposed for on street parking.. ..i.e.
parallel or diagonal parking stalls.
21) Determine and analyze the projected use of the parking structures. Should they be
stand-alone behind or above mixed land uses or with commercial uses wrapped around
the ground floor?
22) Consider the use or function of a "Validation" program for parking
participants..... . shops, restaurants, etc.
23) Consider the implications and merits of a "Neighborhood" parking permit
program.
24) Review and analysis of the City's "In Lieu parking fee" program, how it is
constructed, how are the funds used? T A V A is requesting that funds generated within
the Village should be earmarked (placed in a separate account for the Village only) into a
special account for direct use in the Village on parking programs or implementation
techniques.
25) Consider the use of parking structures as a community element, in terms of
design, color, materials, etc. Consider using the walls or rails as art forms, entrances
with sculptures or art pieces,entrance identifications could use tile or color features.
Landscaping consideration for the screening or enhancements for the community
element.
26) The city to expend as much money on a consultant for the parking study as
needed so that the study can be done properly the very first time.
=<- It 1
Attached to the Third A venue Village Association letter were 88 public comment cards
written in support of redevelopment of Chula Vista's "west side", as described in the
Urban Core Specific Plan.
d.-It?
..
II-
GLEN R. GOOGINS. ATTORNEY AT LAW
VIA HAND DELIVERY
August 21, 2006
Ms. Mary Ladiana
Planning Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Request for Amendment to the City's Draft UCSP to add the Properties
Located at 311 throu!!:h 325 G Street to the V-3 West VilIa!!:e Zonin!!: District
Dear Ms. Ladiana:
As you know, I represent Jose Cortes, owner of the multi-family residential parcels
located at 311 through 325 G Street, just east of Third Avenue in Chula Vista (the "G
Street Properties"). On July 25th, we met with you and other City staff to discuss Mr.
Cortes' request that his G Street Properties be included within the "West Village" V-3
zoning district of the Urban Core Specific Plan. You and other City staff members gave
us positive feedback at that meeting that we found encouraging.
Last week, after some further analysis, you notified me that City staff was prepared to
recommend inclusion ofMr. Cortes' easternmost parcel within the V-3 District. This
would.have the effect of "squaring the block" and aligning the V - 3 District boundary
along its western edge. You also indicated that you were not prepared at this time to
recommend expanding the V-3 boundary to include Mr. Cortes' remaining parcels (one-
third of an acre) immediately to the west.
As a follow up to these discussions, the purpose of this letter is threefold: (1) to thank
you and other City staff for the time, effort and thoughtfulness you've contributed to our
proposal to date; (2) to summarize the arguments in favor of our request; and (3) to
encourage you to expand your thinking one third of an acre further to the west to include
all of the G Street Properties in your recommendation. Towards this end, please consider
the following.
1. The existing General Plan and General Plan Update Support Higher Density
Development at and around the Site.
For 20+ years Mr. Cortes' G Street Properties have been designated "high density
residential" per the General Plan. Adjacent properties on both sides of G Street and to
CH
TEL: 619.'.
~-/~ 9
10
91910
lV@COX.NET
Ms. Mary Ladiana
August 21,2006
Page 2 of 4
the west, while not yet developed to their full land use potential, have shared this "high
density" designation. As a result, under existing land use designations and zoning
standards, development at and around the property is already allowed up to a height of 45
feet (or three and a half stories), with an area wide density of up to 27 units per acre.
Depending upon the circumstances, individual parcels could even be developed at
densities above this level.
As you know, the General Plan Update approved by Council in December of 2005
("GPU") re-designated much of the property immediately to the east of the G Street
Properties on Third Avenue as "Mixed-use with Residential." This new designation
encourages even higher density residential development in the area by promoting mid-
rise development (between 4 and 7 stories) with an area wide average of 40 dwelling
units per acre (this is in addition to the allowed commercial square footage).
Encouraging a higher intensity ofresidential development on Mr. Cortes' G Street
Properties with UCSP zoning would be consistent with both the existing and updated
portions 6fthe General Plan. Because of this, Mr. Cortes' request could be
accommodated without amending the General Plan or the applicable ErRs.
2. The proposed Urban Core Specific Plan supports higher density multi-family
development at and around the Site.
The properties immediately to the east and north of the site are proposed for
inclusion within the V-3 "West Village" zoning district of the Urban Core Specific Plan.
V -3 development standards allow for multi-family and mixed use developments of up to
84 feet with F ARs of up to 4.0. Pursuant to an existing ENA with the City, one
developer, Intergulf, is already proposing a mixed use project immediately to the east of
the G Street Properties that would make full use of these higher-density development
standards. While Mr. Cortes is not currently contemplating a development of this
intensity for his site, the flexibility of the V - 3 zoning standards will allow him to
maximize the land use utility of the eastern portion of the site while at the same time
facilitate a gradual transition of massing downwards to the west so as not to overwhelm
existing structures.
Nearby UCSP zoning districts--within 2 to 3 blocks of the G Street Properties--
also contemplate higher density developments. These include UC-I (84 foot height limit
with a maximum 4.0 F A~), UC-2 (84 foot height limit with a maximum 5.0 FAR), and
UC-3 (60 foot height limit with a maximum 3.0 FAR).
We believe that it is important for the City to encourage higher density residential
development in and around the Village. Expanding the downtown population is a crucial
component in making the Village the vibrant and enduring downtown shopping and
entertainment district we are all hoping for. The stated vision for the Village zoning
districts contained in the UCSP is consistent with this idea. The clear purpose of these
=<-/1~
Ms. Mary Ladiana
August 21, 2006
Page 3 of4
provisions is to encourage the "smart growth" urbanization of the Chula Vista downtown,
bringing vitality to the area, while minimizing, whenever possible, traffic and other
adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Including the Properties in the UCSP makes it more likely that the Site will
be redeveloped in the near term either as a high-quality stand alone project
or in combination with the Intergulf development proposed for the Social
Security Building.
Mr. Cortes has a good relationship with lntergulf(the owners of the Social
Security site) and discussions regarding a possible sale or development partnership are
ongoing. If an agreement were to be reached, by including the G Street Properties within
the UCSP now, the City can eliminate the burden on that development of needing to go
"across the line" of the UCSP boundary and making an additional land use entitlement
process necessary in order to implement a comprehensive "full block" development at the
site. If discussions with Intergulf do not result in a partnership or sale, by including the
properties within UCSP now the City can also facilitate a nigh-quality stand alone
project.
If the City does not include the western half of the G Street Properties within the
V -3 District this would leave a competing set of deveJepment standards in place for half
of the G Street Properties: V - 3 to the east and R - 3 to the west. While the issues might
not be insurmountable, this artificial split down the center of the property will surely
create problematic design issues (for example, inconsistent set back standards) and is
likely to necessitate pursuit of a costly and uncertain rezone or variance process on a
small portion of the site in order to allow for a comprehensive "full site" development.
This problem can be avoided without endangering adjacent neighborhoods because even
if the V-3 standards are applied the City can control their application to avoid misuse.
The V -3 standards are "maximums" and the City should be able to regulate a project
height transition to the adjacent low-rise land uses under the general provisions of the
UCSP. Mr. Cortes' current "stand alone" project proposal at the site is respectful of the
need for a height transition to the west. As you can see from the attached concept
elevations, Mr. Cortes' is proposing a project with 5 stories of residential development on
the east end, stepping down to 3 stories at the west end. The westernmost portion of the
project is substantially consistent with the R-3 zone. This type of project will serve as a
classic "transitional project" consistent with the General Plan!UCSP principles of
harmonizing change, buffering between fully developed and underdeveloped parcels, and
high quality urban design.
In addition to being justified for planning purposes, the City's decision to include
all of Mr. Cortes' G Street Properties within a single development district would
prudently recognize existing ownership patterns as a factor to be considered when
seeking to encourage redevelopment. This is that much more important of a factor to
c1.-/7 )
Ms. Mary Ladiana
August 21,2006
Page 4 of 4
consider now that the Redevelopment Agency's powers of eminent domain have been
curtailed (or eliminated) by Proposition C.
Mr. Cortes is a long-term local resident and property owner. He has assembled a quality
team of experienced design and development professionals. If his G Street Properties can
be included in the UCSP he will make a compelling spokesperson in support of quality
west side redevelopment in accordance with the development heights and intensities
proposed in the UCSP.
Please let us know what other information you might need facilitate your analysis. Thank
you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to working with you on this
proj ect.
Very truly yours,
."~'
. . " '
<"'Zl . cl't- .
,Ore. ~<ro"r!rn l..1<-E=
Attorney at Law !
cc: Mayor and City Council
Directors of the CVRC
Jim Thompson, Interim City Manager
Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager
Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director
Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner
Erik Crockett, Redevelopment Manager /
Brain Sheehan, Senior Community Development Specialist V
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Map of the G Street Property
Exhibit B - Project Concept Elevations
c2 -J 1:2-
01
eo
~08
" ~
,,'
~
PM 4820
l'Iy,.n'%..L
.t..I."'1
PAR I
@
7.04AC
w
>
<0:
~
b~
>~
~
25
"''2:0.95
@ ~ sw COR LOT z> ST
a M.:~ __ PARK- ~..
- -'$W"~"i'I ~2~.5'Z- - -1- - -
Z I~ Ml923 C0
0 ~
u ~ .. .. "" ,. ~ " .~'::::~ 1: .'~~...
w .~
Ul .' :~5: :@TI1:_~
~ ~@i ~~i~f6\':(@2~
TCT A"........: ".,
. ':@j] : :@j]3:,
}~; @ @ @ @ @ @,..77. .......
I 215 :.....: ;~~:
" ~ '" ""'" ~ ~'l'''''l: ,,~1.I13016
~ :r ~ 53.~ I "~.4
f- ~ I @ 4 5 6 7 8 9
a: > @ @ @ @ @ e @
::> CONDM PEND)
0 f BU I
"- THE NINE
... D,84-470834
III
8" '''.'P-;::E MI1100/41.'"
,.",..ss'S~"' N7I"'Z()'
o
..
G
l
1$
C.~8D
clcI.
~~~s~JTY
BOOI( 568 PAGE 30
Exh"" A
g
a Al71.C
2,0.15
I
"
@ ,
,
O.73AC W
. I >
, I <0:
0
.
. ,
MEMORIAL
PARK
POR 26
tIt)
~I~
~\1
~ I~
~
't;
I
..
PM 4620 I
~ 0 ."
~ " \t
- - - - - - -t - - - - - - - - - - 4--t!.!!. - $71";-,..,- - - - WAY- - "? - ~- - - - -
I OP ~~
~ ~150 60 so so F'tollg~
W ....PAR ,....
>:G. :1:t::\:3
<:(0 1lIW1~'
III TCT B ~''''',. ....
@l @ t;~I~ @ @ @ @ @ ~i: ifrjj.
50 ~t!,., .... 50 50 ...... .....
53.7'0 so
~7'. ";S"E
5S(o.O:Z
~
,..
",.
~..,
~..
---!!..*...,
~
53.111
'0
@1
U~_..
@
O.6Q floC.
~
!,
,
II
, f- , 2 3 4 5 ULIS
f- (i) CD 0) 0 0
W ---!!.~M
R a: .
a: ~ us,~
<0:
..,
.. So
#7'"7'''
ST 2
~
53.71 I S.,\76
a
a::
:r
f-
568-
I
$
1~;100'
MADRONA ST
1008104 JGRQ
CHANGE"
BLK OLD NEW R CUT
"'0 1<' Z2.4oiI I"'"
3S 5 ;,Z,Il
~- \.4l .ca. ~~ \403
:M~~ 4-7 '3 '3
47 CONDO 98 517
16 CONDO 05 612
1_ CONDO
PARKWAY PLACE TOIlMiQt.lES
OOC9J-66~277
@
2- CONDO
PARKWAY 4
DOCO+-0847935
I
~~'mW~~~==SES~~~g
lIMY NOT COM'lY Willi LOCAl. SUBOMSION OR BUILDING ORDlIWfCES.
MAP 13016 - CHULA VISTA TCT NO 91-07-PARK WAY PLACE TOWNHOMES
MAP 11100 - CHULA VISTA TCT NO 84-6, THE NINE (CONDO)
MAP 1923 - HOWES SUB
MAP 505 - CHULA VISTA-POR 1/4 SEC 137
ROS 9783,17837
~
c..."h s
(8. Sf.. h-rwt'e s.
D r..tw~~
I.iat-
-
_ 1 'J.,....
"
-/ /
ATTACHMENT 7
CHAPTER VI. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Insert new Section" I. Development Exceptions" in Chapter VI following
H. Other Regulations:
I. Development Exceptions
The Land Use and Development Regulations encourage the siting of a variety of
land uses in an urban environment that is both pedestrian and environmentally
sensitive. Where used in combination with the Urban Amenities Incentives, as
provided for in this chapter, the development regulations and urban amenities
incentives will encourage innovative design. To further achieve this goal, it may
be necessary to be flexible in the application of certain development standards.
As such, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation or Planning Commission
may authorize exceptions to the land use and-development regulations included
within this chapter through the issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit, if
all of the following findings are made:
1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and
objectives of the Urban Core Specific Plan and General Plan.
2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the
Specific Plan.
3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban
Amenities Incentives in Chapter VI. F.
4.. The exception or exceptions is/are appropriate for this location and will
result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved
through strict conformance with the Specific Plan development
regulations.
Consideration of a development standard exception shall be concurrent with the
review of the Urban Core Development Permit, as outlined in Chapter XI.C.1 of
the Specific Plan.
~- /75
Attachment 8
Appendix E
UCSP
Public Facilities and Services Program
1. Introduction
2. Existing Conditions and Needs_Assessment
Chapter IX - Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Chapter X - Detailed Description of Improvements (Section E)
3. Long Term Implementation
Chapter X - Detailed Description of Improvements
Appendix D-
Projected Cost Estimates
Projected Timing
Projected Revenues (Development Impacts Fees and Tax
Increment)
Chapter XI - Application to Subsequent Development Projects
UCSP FEIR (06-01) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A..-- /1(0
Attachment 8
1 . INTRODUCTION
The City of Chula Vista's General Plan was updated in December 2005
and created a new vision for the city. A large part of that vision,
developed over a 5 year planning process, fo,used on the revitalization
and redevelopment of western Chula Vista. New growth is planned
around "smart growth" principles such as mixed use, and transit oriented
development that concentrates infill and redevelopment to select focus
areas and corridors to protect stable single family neighborhoods, better
utilize land resources, reduce environmental effects and make more
efficient use of existing infrastructure.
The General Plan calls for the preparation and adoption of specific plans
to carry out the vision of the GP in an organized and orderly fashion. The
UCSPnimplements the policies and objectives of the GPU to direct a
portion of the growth expected to occur in the City over the next 20 years
to the Urban Core Area, by providing zone changes, development
regulations and design guidelines.J:o accommodate future growth. Along
with the plan for new land uses, the UCSP also identifies the proposed
distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of
public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste
disposal, energy, and other essential facilities that would be located
within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses
described in the plan.
This Appendix has been compiled using the various existing chapters of
the UCSP and FEIR to provide a central location of the various
components of the UCSP Public Facilities and Services Program, prepared
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and
the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8,
Section 65451.
d-/'l1
Attachment 8
Background
In the late 1980s, a citizen's initiative, referred to as the "Cumming's
Initiative" was passed by a majority vote of the electorate and was
incorporated as Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.80 (Ord.
2309 Initiative 1988). The purpose and intent of the initiative was
generally to ensure the quality of life for the residents of Chula Vista
through a variety of measures such as:
. preserving the character of the community;
. protecting the open space of the city;
. ensuring the adequacy of city facilities, school facilities, recreation,
park facilities and services; fire and police and paramedic
protection; water and sanitary sewer systems;
. ensuring the balanced development of the city; and
. ensuring that the future traffic demands do not exceed the
capacity of streets.
The ordinance states that the intent is "not designed to halt quality
growth, but to ensure that rampant, unplanned development does not
overtax facilities and destroy the quality and home town character of
Chula Vista". In order to accomplish this, the Ordinance requires the
staged provision of public services and facilities commensurate with
growth through funding mechanisms such as a system of fees, collected
from developers at the time of new development. These fees are to be
spent by the city, in a timely manner, on public facilities and services to
ensure that new development will not have a negative impact on the
residents of Chula Vista.
The City has specifically met the provisions of CVMC Section 19.80.020
through the implementation of funding mechanisms such as
Development Impact Fees which are paid upon the issuance of a building
permit and determined according to land use category. Other fee
programs include the Transportation Development Impact Fee and Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee that provide financing for
~-11?
Attachment 8
transportation and recreation facility improvements based on population,
density and land use designation.
Since the passage of the Cummings Initiative in the late 1980's, many of
the quality of life issues described above are now routinely addressed
during the City's development review process. The City has established
quality of life "thresholds" that are evaluated as part of the environmental
review process for projects that are proposed and developed. The Growth
Management Ordinance and Development Impact Fee Ordinances have
been enacted to ensure that new development provides the timely
payment of fees for public facilities needed as a result of new growth.
Development Impact Fees (DIF) have been put in place to require new
development to provide their proportionate contribution to public
services and facilities. These include fees for sewer and storm drain
improvements, park acquisition and development, public facilities and
services, and traffic improvements. School impacts fees are required
pursuant to Government Code 65996.
Monitoring programs have been developed to track the rate and effect of
growth on an annual basis. For example, the City has established the
traffic monitoring program, which annually monitors the actual
performance of the street system by conducting roadway segment travel
time studies. A Growth Management Oversight Commission has been
established and annually reviews the growth management program. An
annual report is submitted to the planning commission and the city
council.
Public Facilities and Services Program for the UCSP
The UCSP includes an assessment of the proposed distribution, location,
and extent and intensity of major components of public and private
transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy,
and other essential facilities that would be located within the area
covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the
plan. In addition, the UCSP includes a program of implementation
c2111
Attachment 8
measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and
financing measures necessary to carry the plan.
Specifically, Chapters IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP and the UCSP
FEIR 06-01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), provide an assessment of the demands on public facilities and
infrastructure due to development that may occur as a result of the
specific plan, and the plan .and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and
services occur commensurate with subsequent development. Chapter V
(Mobility) and Chapter VIII (Public Realm Design Guidelines) provide an
expanded discussion and illustrations of some of the public facilities,
such as mobility improvements - traffic, pedestrian and bicycle-- and
other improvements such as parks and plazas).
As described in the UCSP and FEIR, subsequent new <levelopment would
be required to provide adequate public services and facilities
commensurate with their impact. Appendix D of the Urban Core Specific
Plan - Public Facilities Implementation Analysis (PFIA) provides projected
COst estimates, projected timing of facilities, and financing mechanisms
and revenues. The revenues are based on projected tax increment and
development impacts fees routinely collected as development occurs in
the City. These existing City-wide Development Impact Fees (DIF) related
to the provision of public facilities include:
. City-wide Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee
. Public Facilities (PF) DIF (police, fire, libraries, and
recreation facilities)
. Sewer fees
. Storm drain fees
. Traffic signal fees
. School impacts fees (collected pursuant to Government
Code 65996)
These fees would continue to be collected from new development as it
occurs in the urban core. Additionally, the Engineering Department will
c1. - ifj
Attachment 8
begin developing a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TO IF) within
the next year, to address additional funding for future long-term traffic
intersection impacts that may occur as a result of "worst case" maximum
buildout.
In addition, the UCSP FEIR, prepared as a Program EIR, includes an
evaluation of the City's growth management quality of life thresholds at a
programmatic level based on development projections over the course of
the next 20 years. The EIR identifies mitigation measures which would be
applied on a project-by-project basis during subsequent review of
individual development projects. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis
and/or mitigation measures for significant impacts that address provision
of public services and facilities. The MMRP ensures that subsequent new
development implements timely mitigation for impacts associated with
new development, which includes but is not limited to the installation of
infrastructure or payment of fees for needed public facilities as a result of
new growth. These requirements would be assurecLJ.hrough tlge
subsequent discretionary design review and approval of future project
specific Urban Core Development Permits.
Although the UCSP is intended to attract future development to the
Subdistricts Area, the timing, location and extent of subsequent
development projects are unpredictable because of the unique nature of
urban revitalization. To further ensure the timely provision of public
services and facilities, monitoring of on-going development activity
would be assessed through the City's existing annual growth
management monitoring and reporting. Monitoring programs, such as
the traffic monitoring program which monitors the actual performance of.
the street system by conducting real time roadway segment travel time
studies, would track the rate and effect of growth on an annual basis. In
addition to the annual GMO review, the bi-annual Budget/CIP cycle and a
five year status report would provide additional checks and balances of
future growth. The integrated system of growth management programs,
standards, regulations, facility master plans, funding systems and
~-/f/
Attachment 8
monitoring activities provide an effective system of checks and balances
to ensure that the provision of public services and facilities keeps in step
with new development.
The following is a flow chart which identifies the pertinent sections of the
UCSP and FEIR that contain information regarding the long term
implementation plan and process for the provision of public facilities and
services commensurate with new demand.
d.. - / I'd.,
Attachment 8
FACLlTIES
(PUBLIC IMPLEMENTATION]
Facility ListlRough CostslFund Source
Capacity [Utilities, Schools, etc]
Amenity [Streetscape, Parks, etc]
Mobility [Streets, Transit, etc]
Facilltv Priority List by Tv e
Parks Sidewalks Other ...
Location 1 Location 1 Location 1
Location 2 Location 2 Location 2
REGULA ON A."1> INCEIHIVE
[pRIVATE IMPLEMEl'<iATIO:\l
Regulatory Requirements
Design Standards
I\menity Standards and Bonuses
Mitigation Measures
Fundiu Resources
Imoact Fee TIlBonding Gen'l FlIItd
Location 1 Location 1 Location 1
Location 2 Location 2 Location 2
ONGOING REVIEW OF PERFOR'\:fA.'\'CE, PRIORITIES Al\1> FEES
CO:\1>UCTED AS A PART OF TIIE TWO-YEAR CITY CIP BI1>GET PROCESS
A_"1> FINA.'\'CING FEE PROGRAM UPDATES
cl-J'1:3
Attachment 8
2. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
Chapter IX - Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Chapter X - Detailed Description of Improvements (Section E)
~-J!1
IX. Infrastructure and Public facilities
A. Introduction IX-1
B. Growth Forecasts IX-2
C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste IX-3
D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services IX-13
E. Schools IX-19
F. Parks and Recreation IX-23
G. Energy and Telecommunications IX-3D
Public nearing Draft
~-/~o
Public Nearing Draft
c1- IgL
IX. Infrastructure and Public f'acUities
A. Introduction
The purpose ofthis chapter is to describe the infrastructure and public facilities
applicable to the Specific Plan, including water supply, sewer, drainage, solid
waste disposal, law enforcement and emergency services, schools, parks and
recreation facilities, and energy and telecommunications. As part of its overall
facilities planning and maintenance activities, the infrastructure related to the
Specific Plan area has been studied during the City's General Plan effort. Since
the Specific Plan implements the General Plan, these studies provide the basis
of utilities and services needed for the Urban Core. Information from these
studies and the corresponding city-wide implementation strategies are relied
upon in large part for this chapter and have been brought forward into the
Specific Plan for reference.
The Public Facilities and Services Element of the City's General Plan establishes
a comprehensive strategy to provide and maintain infrastructure and public
services for future growth without diminishing services to existing development.
Public facilities collectively refer to utilities such as water, sewer, drainage, power
and telecommunications services. Public services collectively refer to schools,
library, law enforcement and fire protection. The City of Chula Vista includes
public facilities and services in the General Plan that support and enrich the
community including parks and recreation centers, art and cultural facilities
and programs, chifdcare opportunities and health and human services. This
chapter of the Specific Plan focuses on the General Plan proposals and criteria
that have particular relevance to the Urban Core area.
B. 6rowth f'orecasts
Based on the City of Ch ula Vista's General Plan, the City's population is projected
to reach approximately 300,000 by the year 2030. The General Plan (2005)
includes intensification of retail, office and residential uses with relatively lower
emphasis on industrial uses in western Chula Vista, as compared to the previous
version. The General Plan also proposes the replacement of a significant
amount of existing lower density commercial and residential development in
western Chula Vista with mixed use and higher density residential types.
Within the Specific Plan area, the implementation of the General Plan will
result in a net increase of 7,100 dwelling units, an increase of commercial
retail development by 1,000,000 square feet, increase of commercial office
development by 1,300,000 square feet and the introduction of 1,300,000
square feet of visitor serving commercial use. The net increase in dwelling
units would result in a population increase for the plan area of 18,318 persons
(using a factor of 2.58 persons per household).
The foregoing calculation of population relies largely on historic family size
information. The changing form of western Chula Vista may alter these
forecasts significantly. The population projection will be affected by any change
in national and regional demographics brought about by rates of immigration,
aging in the population and alteration!? in birth rates. Moreover, the kind and
intensity of developmemproposed for the focus areas of the Specific Plan and
the pace of development within the Specific Plan area may result In changes to
the historically observed family size and makeup.
Historically, smaller attached dwellings in multi-family developments have
historically had lower family sizes than single family housing. Recent in fill
and urban core neighborhood developments in the San Diego region reflect
even lower household populations and fewer minors per dwelling, with many
developments predominantly occupied by childless couples of all ages.
Calculating and tracking trends in the occupancy of the planned multi-family
dwellings of the Urban Core will be critically important to correctly plan and
program for facilities such as parks and schools.
J- /~7
Public nearing Draft
Public Nearing Draft
d.-I ?f?'
c. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste
1. Water Supply
Chula Vista has historically received the majority of its water supply from the
San Diego County Water Authority (CWA). The CWA generally imports from
75 to 95 percent of this water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
of Southern California. The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to
western Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area. The Sweetwater Authority
assures conformance to the same quality and service standards established
by the State Department of Health Services (DHS) and the federal Clean Water
Act. In addition to providing water supplies, the Sweetwater Authority provides
emergency storage systems and implements conservation efforts.
Sweetwater Authority indicates approximately $5 million in incremental capital
costs for system improvements to serve western Chula Vista per General Plan
projections. Approximately $3 million of this amount will be for pipeline needs
and the remaining $2 million will go toward increasing treatment capacity at
the Perdue Treatment Plant. These amounts reflects capital costs in excess of
what is cu'rrently planned to accommodate growth under the 1989 General
Plan. These capital improvements are addressed by the Sweetwater Authority
through its development impact fee structure, which is subject to ongoing
review during the 30-year plan development period.
2. Sewer
Sewer services are essential for public health, safety and welfare. The City
maintains and operates sewer facifities in the form of wastewater/sewer
pipelines. These facilities feed into the larger regional system for treatment
and disposal.
The City is already engaged in planning and upgrading improvement projects
and will continue to do so in a phased manner under an adopted wastewater
master plan. Connection fees are the primary funding source for capital
improvement costs.
The City of Chula Vista purchases wastewater treatment capacity from the City
of San Diego's Metropolitan Wastewater System (METRO). This allows the City
to treat and dispose of wastewater flows at METRO facifities. The City's future
wastewater flows will exceed the current treatment capacity necessitating the
need to purchase additional capacity (in a phased manner). The City of Chula
Vista has purchased 19.8 million gallons per day (MGD) of capacity rights in
the METRO Sewage System. Based on existing conditions in 2004, the City
discharges approximately 16.6 MGD into the METRO Interceptor. Based on
flow analyses, it is estimated that by the year 2030, the City will generate
approximately 6.4 MGD of additional sewage. The General Plan (2005) projects
an additional treatment capacity need of 1.57 MGD at buildout in western
Chula Vista, which includes the projected demand of approximately 0.88 MGD
for the Specific Plan area. These needed improvements equate to a cost of
approximately $20.4 million.
It is important to note that these are broad and preliminary estimates and are
based largely on the wastewater generation rates stated in the Wastewater
Master Plan, which will be subject to periodic update and review throughout the
life of the Specific Plan. The City currently operates and maintains approximately
400 miles of sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 6 inches to 48 inches in
diameter, as well as an extensive network of manholes, metering stations, pump
lifts and lift stations (See Figure 9.1 Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater
Collection.)
The system is the subject of ongoing review and wastewater master pians. An
update of the plan has been prepared in support of the General Plan Update
(2005). In addition to maintaining the existing systems and replacing outdated
components, the City must also address system upgrades and expansions. to
accommodate new sewer connections, especially in the eastern portion of the
City. The costs of system upgrades, capacity and infrastructure management
and planning is reflected in connection fees and sewer rates.
3. Drainage Infrastructure
Drainage facilities are public improvements to control storm water runoff so that
peak runoff does not threaten public health or safety in the form of flooding and
erosion. The City maintains strict requirements for sediment control from water
runoff, which are reviewed and applied to new development on a project-by-
project basis. These requirements are found in various programs and policies,
including the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Manual,
Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual, development and
redevelopment projects and "best management practices" (BMP) requirements
for construction sites.
The condition of the overall drainage system is the subject of a Drainage Master
Plan, which is undertaken and continually monitored for any major deficiencies
or problems. (See Figure 9.2 Drainage Channels.) Within already urbanized
areas such as the Urban Core, most needed drainage facilities are already in
place, and since runoff is largely not changed by the redevelopment of one
land use into another, the system of facilities for storm water runoff are equally
largely in place. With the monitoring and review of construction and water
quality practices conducted for each development project, the City, working
through its Drainage Master Plan has a program in piace to control runoff and
meet appiicable water quality standards.
~- / t"'i
Public Nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
/""'........./"
~
.
City Boundary
Sewer Trunks
Pump Stations
Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater Collection (Source:
City of Chula Vista)
e::1.. - / 9' ~
~ City Boundary
, ,.. " · Drainage Channels
rg.9.:!
01.-/9/
Public Nearing Draft
,
I
,
Chula Vista is part of the San Diego watershed area. The San Diego watershed
area's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires
that all runoff be treated so that pollutant levels at the storm water outfalls
are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Subsequently, drainage
infrastructure may need to be constructed or modified to insure that "first flush"
pollutants are captured through the Chula Vista Storm Water Management
Unit. Typically, NPDES on-site detention/desiltation facilities will be required
on development projects. The City will maintain its ability to enforce adequate
maintenance of these facilities. The Environmental Element of the General
Plan (2005) also addresses drainage issues throughout the City as they relate
to water quality.
4. Solid Waste Infrastructure and Operations
The City of Chula Vista has established an exclusive franchise collection
agreement with Pacific Waste Services for the removal, conveyance, and
disposal of any non-recyclable waste. The agreement is in effect through June
2028 with extension clauses for both City and Pacific Waste Services. The
agreement includes a number of programs and incentives for the franchise and
. the public to maximize recycling and other forms of landfill diversion. Pacific
Waste's parent company, Allied, owns and operates both the Otay Landfill and
the Sycamore Canyon Landfill located further north in San Diego County. Most
of the solid waste generated in the City is disposed at the Otay Landfill.
The Otay Landfill is estimated to reach capacity in the year 2028. In south San
Diego County, an area in East Otay Mesa was previously identified by the County
as a tentative site. However, the County is no longer pursuing landfill siting at
this location and there are no private siting efforts currently proposed. Once the
Otay Landfill is closed, it is anticipated that a portion of the site could be used
for a trash transfer facility and/or a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) where
recyclables are prepared for secondary markets. The City has also acquired
rights to approximately 30 acres of space at the Otay Landfill for a composting
facility when the landfill closes. Therefore, continued efforts to expand recycling
and to accommodate compostable materials will reduce future waste transfer
costs.
The City has the ability to control waste production within its general plan area,
including the Urban Core. Current solid waste management strategies include
source reduction, recycling and composting to decrease the waste stream
impacting landfills.
Public nearing Draft
dL- /'Ij..,
5. Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing water, sewer and drainage facilities are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe an issue
or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan
through the General Plan policies. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Maintenance
Needs (Water, Sewer, Drainage) (PFS 1)
The City and its servicing districts strive to maintain existing water, sewer and
drainage facilities to meet current and future demand and to comply with federal,
state, and local requirements. The challenge posed by density increases in
older parts of the City system is to repair existing deficiencies and maintain and
possibly upsize older infrastructure. Over time, as the City continues to expand
and additional water, sewer and drainage facilities are added, the demand for
maintenance, along with associated fiscal impacts, will also grow.
Recent assessments have been completed to address water-supply, wastewater
and drainage facilities. The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the
Sweetwater Authority dated June 8, 2005 evaluates existing conditions and
future water needs for the Specific Plan. Existing average water demand for
the Specific Plan area is cited as 1.96 MGD with a projected average water
demand of 3.54 MGD at 2030 buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority are
implementing plans that include projects and programs to help ensure that the
existing and planned water users within Sweetwater Authority's service area
have an adequate supply. By using a variety of water supply sources, including
importation, the Sweetwater Reservoir, National City Wells, and Reynolds
Desalination, and by implementing conservation programs, sufficient water
supply will be available for anticipated development under the SpeCific Plan.
The Wastewater Master Plan, prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula Vista
and dated May 2005, provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the
City's wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment capacity requirements
under existing and ultimate buildout conditions. Specific recommendations
are made for the repair, upgrading, and buildout of wastewater collection and
pumping facilities. The City currently has capacity rights in the METRO system
(comprised of conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities) equal to 19.8
MGD and will soon be allocated additional capacity through a re-rating process
currently underway.
cJ..-J 93
Public nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
c2.-/9
Wastewater facility improvements recommended for the Specific Pian area
inciude:
. Colorado Street Sewer Main (repiace 1,314 feet of pipe between K Street
and J Street)
. Center Street Main (replace 630 feet of pipe between Fourth Avenue
and Garrett Avenue)
. Police Station Department (SPS-Ol) New Pump Station
. G Street (SPS-02) New Pump Station
The Wastewater Master Pian also provides sewer system design standards and
capital improvements program recommendation,s as well as a capacity fee
update and facilities financing plan for both METRO facilities and Chula Vista
pipelines, to ensure adequate wastewater facilities are provided for the Specific
Plan area.
The 2004 Drainage Master Plan prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula
Vista consists of a city-wide hydrologic analysis and an updated version of the
City's storm water conveyance system GIS database. The Drainage Master
Plan includes 21 stand-alone technical appendices, each one with hydraulic
calculations and accompanying 200-scale work maps. The hydraulic analyses
were prepared for the 50-year and, where required, 100-year storm events
for existing and projected conditions. Recommendations are provided for
replacement of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drain facilities as well as
other capital improvement strategies. Additional updates and recommendations
will be available upon the County of San Diego's completion of a calibration
study to supplement the existing Hydrology Manual.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) "For new development, require on-site detention of storm water flows
such that, where practical, existing downstream structures will not be
overloaded. Siow runoff and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff."
(PFS 1.4)
Development within the Urban Core will be reviewed within the context
of the drainage master pian and water quality rules applicable to the
deveiopment, on a project-by-project basis.
2) "To avoid recently improved streets from being torn up repeatedly,
maintain a comprehensive facility phasing and capital improvement
program. The program should be based on anticipated land development
and be conducted in coordination with all utilities." (PFS 1.6)
The Urban Core facilities program, summarized in the following
chapter, sets outtimeframes forthe improvement of streets, sidewaiks
and other improvements. These timeframes wiil be coordinated with
the master plans for sewer and drainage to minimize disruption of
public streets.
3) "Identify ways to obtain time/yfundingforpublicfacllityand service needs.
Upon request by community representatives, facilitate the possible
formation of assessment districts to finance public infrastructure,
upgrades and maintenance. n (PFS 1.7)
The criteria are largely applicable to eastern territories, where
master planned communities can facilitate the implementation of
such districts. The implementation program for the Urban Core will
act in a similar fashion to program and time facilities with need.
The above-described Water Supply Assessment, Wastewater Master
Plan and Drainage Master Plan analyze the existing and future
facilities needs for Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area. With
implementation of recommended improvements and programs,
adequate facilities wiil be provided to serve the Urban Core as relates
to water; wastewater and storm. water drainage.
b. General Plan DIscussIon: Meeting Demand Through AlternatIve
TechnologIes (PFS 2)
Growth will generate Increased demand for water delivery and for sewer and
drainage systems throughout the City. Water will continue to be a Iimt1Fcr
resource in semi-arid southern California. The ability to treat wastewater wiil be
affected by the limitations of the San Diego Metro system. Drainage facilities
will need to handle increased storm water runoff and potential pollutants in
the face of increased growth and diminishing supplies of land. Building more
infrastructure and acquiring more capacity can and should be offset by using
alternative technologies to handle demand both in the older established parts of
the City and in the newly developing areas. The foilowing objective and policies
address meeting resource and service demands through use of aiternative
technologies.
General Plan Policies Reiated to the Urban Core
1) "As part of project construction and design, assure that drainage facilities
in new development incorporate storm water runoff and sediment
control, including state-of-the-art technologies where appropriate. .. (PFS
2.2)
The City conducts and maintains a Storm Water Master Plan. It also
reviews new development in a manner consistent with the applicable
water quality standards.
d- /c;S-
Public "earing Draft
c. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Water Supplies (PFS 3)
The California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within the state to
prepare urban water management plan(s) and update them every five years,
in years ending in five or zero. The plans are to identify supply and demand,
infrastructure and funding. In accordance with the Act, the County Water
Authority (CWA) adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in 2000 and will
be updating it in 2005. The 2000 Plan forecasts total projected water demand
for the entire area served by the CWA as 813,000 acre-feel of water in the year
2020. This figure includes municipal, industrial and agricultural demand and
is adjusted for conservation savings. The report estimates total projected local
water supplies in the year 2020 as 223,500 acre-feet. Local water supplies
include surface water, water recycling, groundwater and seawater desalination.
Through a shortage contingency analysis, the report also concludes that the
CWA and its member agencies, through Emergency Response Plans (ERP)
and Emergency Storage Projects (ESP), are taking actions to prepare for and
appropriately handle a catastrophic interruption of water supplies.
While the CWA relies almost entirely on water imported from outside the region, .
the Sweetwater Authority'has historically imported less than half of its water
to meet demand. The Authority's remaining supply has been from two large
local surface water reservoirs, Sweetwater and Loveland, which store surface
runoff from the Sweetwater River. The Authority also adheres to development
of additional local resources such as groundwater pumping-flfld groundwater
desalination. As the City grows, the need to identify the long-term supply of
water continues.
The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Sweetwater Authority dated
June 8, 2005 evaluates existing conditions and future water needs for the
Specific Plan. Existing average water demand for the Specific Plan area is cited
as 1.96 million gallons per day (MGD) with a projected average water demand
0(3.54 MGD at 2030 buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority are
implementing plans that include projects and programs to help ensure that the
existing and planned water users within Sweetwater Authority's service area
have an adequate supply. By using a variety of water supply sources, including
importation, the Sweetwater Reservoir, National City Wells, and Reynolds
Desalination, and by implementing conservation programs, sufficient water
supply will be available for anticipated development under the SpeCific Plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) Assist the water agencies (Sweetwater Authority) in preparing and
maintaining Urban Water Management Plans that identify waterdemand
anticipated by existing and new development. (PFS 3.1)
This activity will largely occur through city-wide development
monitoring and reporting.
Public nearing Draft
02-/ r~
d. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Sewer Capacities (PFS 4)
The City maintains and regularly updates a Wastewater Management Plan to
evaluate the adequacy of the existing wastewater collection system to sustain
the long-term growth of the City. The Wastewater Management Plan helps the
City b.udget for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), allocate resources for the
acquisition of additional sewage capacity, and determine the short and long-
term sewer capacity needs of the City.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) "Continually monitor wastewater ffows and anticipate future wastewater
increases that may result from changes in adopted land use patterns."
(PFS 4.1)
As cited above, the City's Wastewater Master Plan is undertaken to
identify needed expansions, which are paid for by connection and
service fees.
e. General Plan Discussion: Providing for Solid Waste Disposal (PFS 24)
The following objective and policies address the efficient handling of solid waste
throughout the City. The important and related topics of reducing overall solid
waste and of handling hazardous wastes are addressed in the Environment
Element, Chapter 9 of the City of Chula Vista's General Plan. The Gtay Landfill
is estimated to ~h capacity within the next 23 years, requiring closure of the
facility. Meeting future needs of the planning area may require the creation of a
regional transfer station, where solid waste collected from individual collection
routes is transferred into large trucks for disposal. The transportation of solid
waste to an alternate site must occur in an efficient manner that restricts
adverse circulation, visual, and noise impacts.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) "Plan for adequate systems and facilities to manage the City's solid
waste generation, treatment and disposal." (PFS 24.1)
Solid waste programs and recycling are addressed through city-wide
programs. Design Guidelines are provided in the Specific Plan for
future development which reffect the ability to service for trash and
recycling collection.
c1-j ;J'l
Public nearing Draft
Effective fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services
require two-way relationships with the community. The unique needs and
conditions in the community must be understood and the community must
lend support to the various programs and efforts of the Police Department
and Fire Department. The City encourages active participation by the Fire and
Police Departments in all facets of community life, incfuding involvement in
area business, senior; and youth activities.
D. Law I':nforcement, fire Protection and I':mergency
Services
1. Facilities and Services
In the City of Chula Vista, fire protection and emergency medical services are
provided by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Law enforcement services are
provided by the Chula Vista Police Department. Fire stations are dispersed
throughout the City, while police facilities are centered in headquarters located
in downtown Chula Vista (See Figure 9.4 Police and Fire Station Locations.)
The current Fire Station Master Plan calls for nine fire stations, eight of which
have been constructed. The Master Plan is being updated to reflect changes
to General Plan and to respond to a revised set of performance criteria as
proposed in the Fire Department Strategic Plan. Therefore, the number and
location of future fire stations, along with how the stations are equipped, is
subject to change.
To maintain the high level of dependable, competent fire protection and
emergf}ncy medical services the City enjoys, several strategies wiff contLnue to
be employed. The City will continue to use a growth-related service standard,
through its Growth Management Ordinance and program, to help determine if
public safety is adequately protected. Fire Department staffing and equipment
wiff continue to bf! expanded as needed to meet the service standard and to
nTTrrimize hazards to the firefighters and public, in conformance with changes
to the updated Fire Department Master Plan. The Fire Department wiff continue
to enhance its capabilities and staffing through mutual aid agreements with
fire departments in the surrounding communities.
Simifar strategies also facilitate the provision of law enforcement services
that meet the City's needs. The Department wiff continue to monitor calls for
service, analyze crime statistics and resident survey data, and make changes
in staffing and patrols to reflect the growing community's needs.
Public tlearing Draft
d~J91
2. Disaster and Emergency Response Program
State regulations establish the Standardized Emergency Management System,
or SEMS. The system includes requirements for incident command systems,
multi-agency coordination systems, mutual aid agreements and the .operational
area" concept. As an agency (municipality) with emergency response capability
within the state, Chula Vista is required to use the SEMS system.
Chula Vista provides for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the
protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency
(Municipal Code, Chapter 2.1.4 Emergency Organization Department). The
Code requires coordination of the emergency functions of the City with other
public agencies, corporations, and organizations.
There may be occasions when a limited scale evacuation is the appropriate
response to an emergency situation. Under these circumstances, people
should be evacuated to neighborhood and community schools, hospitals and
public facilities, where they could receive adequate care and treatment. In the
event of a major disaster, wlJere a large part of the City may require evacuation,
the circulation routes serving the Specific Plan area are:
. 1-5, 1-805, and SR-54
. E Street, H Street, J Street, and L Street
. Broadway, Fourth Avenue, Hilltop Drive, and Third Avenue
The Disaster Management Act of 2000 requires that, in order to remain eligible
for post-disaster Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding after
November 2004, every jurisdiction in the United States must have an approved
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HAZMIT Plan) to address the management of and
response to emergency situations. In addition, to be eligible for pre-disaster
FEMA funding for use in hazard mitigation, eachjurisdiction's approved HAZMIT
Plan must include the planned uses of these funds. The City of Chula Vista
adopted a HAZMIT Plan in May 2004 to help mitigate impact to the City in the
event of a natural or man-made disaster. The City's HAZMIT Plan was included
in the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional HAZMIT Plan submitted to FEMA
for approval in compliance with Federal Law.
01.-1'19
Public Nearing Draft
'" ,
, ..,
, ...
City Boundary
Police Headquarters
Existing Fire Station
o
~
Existing & Future Fire Stations & Facilities
Fire Station Address
1 447 F Street
PolIce and Fire StatIon Locations (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Public nearing Draft oZ - ~t)O
3. Objectives and Policies
Objectives and poiicies directing law enforcement, fire protection and emergency
responses are arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages
describe an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for
the Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and poiicies
follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Pollee, Fire Protection
& Emergency Medical Service) (PFS 5)
The City of Chula Vista has experienced significant residential growth over
the last decade. The majority of new growth has occurred in the east, where
continued relatively high growth is expected in the coming years, along with
density increases in the west. Fire protection, emergency medical service and
poiice services will need to expand to match the demand brought on by this
anticipated growth.
While fire stations are located throughout the City, the Poiice Department
maintmns one poiice headquarters, located in the western portion of the City.
The poiice headquarters is sufficient to accommodate the growth projected in
the Specific Plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the UrbiMLCore
1) "Continue to adequately equip and staff the Fire Department to ensure
that estabiished service standards for emergency calls are met." (PFS
5.1)
2) "Upgrade fire and emergency medical equipment as required to protect
the pubiic from hazards and to ensure the safety of the fire fighters."
(PFS 5.2)
b. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response and Development (PFS 6)
General Plan poiicies and Growth Management standards tie new development
and redevelopment to the provision of adequate pubiic facilities and services,
including police and fire protection. Some design characteristics, such as
narrow street widths, aim to create walkable communities, serve to estabiish an
overall neighborly atmosphere, and tend to reduce traffic speeds. In mixed use
neighborhoods, density increases may result in taller buildings. The evolving
urban form and the cumulative increase in development will affect emergency
service response times as well as the equipment, facilities and personnel
needed for fire and poiice services.
"Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" (CPTED) is a method of
incorporating design techniques into projects to help reduce the potential for
c2-c20)
PUblic Nearing Draft
crime. CPTED is used in the development of parks, residential and commercial
projects, schools, transit stations and parking lots to reduce the number of calls
for service. The reduced call volume may favorably impact response times.
CPTED includes the use of four primary strategies:
. Providing natural access control into areas,
. Improving natural surveillance (i.e., increasing "eyes on the street"),
. Maintaining and managing a property to reduce crime and disorder,
and
. Using territorial reinforcement to distinguish private space from public
space.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) "Continue to require new development and redeveiopment projects to
demonstrate adequate access for fire and police vehicles." (PFS 6.1)
2) "Require new development and redeveiopment projects to demonstrate
adequate water pressure to new buildings." (PFS 6.2)
3) "Encourage Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
techniques in new development and redevelopment projects." (PFS
6.3)
Project review within the Specific Plan shall include the above-
listed criteria. Design requirements and recommendations found
in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines require future projects within the
Specific Plan area to incorporate CPTED principles.
c. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response Program (PFS 7)
A city-wide emergency response program provides the framework for
responding to any type of emergency or disaster that might occur in Chula Vista.
Accomplishing efficient emergency response involves coordination with other
agencies regarding disaster preparedness, preparation and regular update of
the emergency response plan, education of residents and businesses about
the plan and about evacuation routes, and periodic training of City staff and
other emergency response staff to effectively implement the plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
All General Plan policies within this criterion are implemented city-wide.
Public Nearing Draft
c.t -;2CJ.2..
d. General Plan DIscussIon: Post Emergency Response (PFS 8)
In the event of disasters and emergencies, a swift and efficient response
minimizes injuries, casualties and property damage. Planning post-disaster
operations ensures the safety, health and welfare of our residents by allowing
critical operations to continue as expeditiously and efficiently as possible
following a catastrophic event. Post-disaster anaiysis will help the City improve
safety plans and responses.
Gen~ral Pian Policies Related to the Urban Core
All General Plan policies within this criterion are impiemented city-wide.
~ol~
Public nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
A.-O{~
1:. Schools
1. School FacilitIes
Excellent schools are assets to any community. Two school districts serve the
City. Chula Vista Elem~ntary School District (CVESD) operates kindergarten
through sixth grade; Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) operates
junior and senior high schools and ancillary programs. Higher education is
available through Southwestern Community College.
As of 2004, the CVESD operates 42 schools and the SUHSD operates 26
schools, both within and outside the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista.
(See Figure 9.4 Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista.)
Both districts actively plan for modernization and expansion of campuses
to accommodate anticipated increases in enrollments. The districts have
completed improvements through modernization programs and bond issues or
prepared modernization plans in preparation for construction.
2. Objectives and Policies _
Objectives and policies impacting schools are arranged around specific topics
or issues. The following pages describe an issue or topic and how the City has
planned for adequate service for the SpeCific Plan through the Generai Plan.
Supporting objectives and policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan DIscussIon: KeepIng Pace with Growth and Technology
(School Facilities) (PFS 9)
Population growth in western Chula Vista may impact existing, aider school
facilities. Modernization of school campuses is expected to continue as the
school districts plan for facility improvements. Technology continues to change
the work place and the social and cultural environments of our community. The
school system, which helps shape our children and our future, must keep pace
with development. While siting of schools falls under the jurisdiction of the
local school districts, not the City, it is the City's intent to facilitate the district's
efforts to provide school services.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) Continue coordinating with local school districts during review of
land use issues requiring discretionary approval to provide adequate
school facilities, to meet needs generated by development, and to
avoid overcrowding in accordance with guidelines of Government Code
65996(b). (PFS 9.1)
,
. c;,y\" ~
CHULA
VISTA VlSt:-\'...
\'~E~.1M1 \,
\ ~\ \
..,\~
/' :\.-.~
",~' "';::r
~
~
.~
~
'~, '"
'S\
\)/
--
\ d"'"'
~,:\'-"
;, .,,-
FEASteR~ \\
'EDIS~ \
00.'\
".'
-
-- ,
"'"
,
",.,^""
./wA""
""d" \.
,..'..,~
"- '
,.,-
'M~.. .
~,_.
,~,-
~.- ,\"~'
/",--'"'C"l,
.-' \"'~
\ ~ .'_ r"
00 Elementary School
~ Middle School
!HI High School
ROSEBANK
00 ."'-
..'
}<;,\ - \
,"
,
~<;'\ \
k,,'^'~
\
,:0"
,
\
'1\<;'\
\ -",,-
\il;:
"-.~
,,,,
'Cl-.
"-'\~
,
,y~
';'
l<
\~
~
.,.
,1C:
. ,
\ ",-<
\~ <;,\.'
,;"-'''-
\
<;'\. "
'f-.
,,""'~- .
CHULA ...--
VlSTA\ \ s\ ._-\/
00_. [fj] '. . "-/'
>~.'
...--"-~ \
CHU~. . - " - [i]
_.YIS1A \ RICE ". Moss
/-C~TER ,.S
c::l. - c:=2. ~ S-
fg.9.4
PUblic Nearing Draft
2) Encourage the consideration of new approaches to accommodate
student enrollments, inciuding alternative campus locations and
education programs. (PFS 9.2)
3) Assist school districts in identifying and acquiring school sites for new
construction in needed time frames. (PFS 9.3)
4) Assist school districts in identifying sources of funding for the expansion
of facilities in western Chula Vista as needed based on growth. (PFS
9.4)
5) Work closely with the school districts to identify needs for public education
facilities and programs, including developing and expanding extra-
curricular recreation and educational programs for primary, secondary,
and adult education, and providing state-of-the-art information services.
(PFS 9.5)
The foregoing policies reflect the need to plan and implement
schools over the relatively long period of development implementing
the Specific Plan. Cooperation in projecting growth and monitoring
new de",elopment and the resulting demographics will assure that
existing schoois are expanded or new schools are built at the time
of need.
b. General Plan Discussion: Site Location and Design (School Facilities)
(PFS 10)
School districts control site selection and school design. In all instances, safe'
pickup and drop-oft of students is a primary concern. Schools are generally
designed with the intent of adding modular units to accommodate temporary
spikes in student enrollment. While both Chula Vista school districts use this
strategy, drawbacks include the fact that the units displace parking, open space
and recreation areas. Some schools in western Chuia Vista are already running
out of limited buildable space and have no room to expand the campuses
horizontally in the current land locked locations.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) "Continue to coordinate and make recommendations to the school
districts and property owners and developers on the location, size and
design of school facilities relative to the location in the community.
Encourage school districts to consider jOint use and alternative structural
design such as multi-story buildings where appropriate. . (PFS 10.1)
Alternative structural designs will be especially important within the
Urban Core due to land availability.
2) "Encourage the central/ocation of new schools within the neighborhoods
or areas they serve so as to further community development and enhance
the quality of life.. (PFS 10.4)
Public Nearing Draft
02 - ~{)to
3) 'Coordinate with the school districts on the design of school grounds
and fields to provide for use of these facilities by the City's Youth Sports
Council leagues. . (PFS 10.5)
Joint use of facilities by the City and the School District can maximize
the public use of school and park sites.
oZ-e2fl1
Public Nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
~-~f)e
1'. Parks and Recreation
1. Facilities and Programs
Parks and recreation facilities and programming are essential to the health
and welfare of the individuals living and working in the City of Chula Vista.
Parks can provide a relief from the stress of daily life and can contribute
to neighborhood engagement, economic development and community
revitalization. The different types of parks and recreation facilities found in
Chula Vista are described below. (See Figure 9.5 Existing and Proposed Public
Parks and Recreation Facilities.)
Community parks, designed to serve more than one neighborhood, are ideally
30 or more acres and provide a wide variety of facilities, including swimming
pools, playing fields, recreation centers, cultural centers and picnic areas.
Neighborhood parks are intended to serve local residents; range in size from
5 to 15 acres; and include open play space, playing fields, play equipment and
picnic areas. Mini parks consist of both public and private facilities, are typically
less than four acres in size, serve a small number of homes, and contain very
limited facilities such as a tot lot or play structure and some grass play area.
Public mini parks are typically located in the older western portion of the City.
Urban parks are generally located in urban downtown areas and may contain
facilities such as public plazas, tot lots, play structures, public art features,
sports courts (such as basketball or tennis), walking/jogging trails, dog walk
areas, picnic or seating areas, some grass play area, and trees. Urban parks,
which will occur where in fill and redevelopment activity is likely to occur, may be
considered for publicpark credit as a necessary component of an overall park
service solution where available and affordable land is scarce. Similar to mini
parks, urban parks may serve a smaller number of homes than neighborhood
parks, depending on the ultimate housing density within the service areas.
Urban parks will typically be less than four acres in size. Recreation facilities
are generally located within community parks and include community centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools, youth centers, and senior centers.
Several related documents address the development of parks and recreation
facilities in the City. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted
in November 2002, contains an inventory of existing parks and recreations
facilities, a needs assessment, and policies to implement the General Plan. The
Master Plan envisions the City's park and recreation facilities as an integrated
system of amenities, programs and services interwoven throughout over 700
acres of parkland to meet the expressed needs of the community.
. The Greenbelt Master Plan identifies segments of an overall backbone system
of 28 linear miles of open space and parks that encircle the City. It discusses
unique opportunities for a continuous trail system to link City parks and other
resources outside of the City boundary.
2. Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing parks and recreation facilities and programs
are arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe
an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the
Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies
follow the discussion.
a. General Plan DiscussIon: Keeping Pace wIth Growth (Parks and Recreation)
(PFS 14)
The City strives to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities, to offer
recreational programs to meet current demand, and to plan and construct new
parks and facilities and develop new programs to meet future demand due to
growth. The majority of residential growth in the last decade has occurred in
eastern Chula Vista; however, it is anticipated that significant growth will occur
in both the east and the west in the future.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee program provide direction and financing for the size and location
of parks and recreation facilities, based on population, density and land use
designation.
Timely development and the provision of facilities, staffing, and equipment
that is responsive to growth and community demands and expectations are
important.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) "Maximize the use of existing parks and recreation facilities through
upgrades and additions/changes to programs to meet the needs of the
community." (PFS 14.1)
2) "Construct new parks and recreation facilities that refiect the interests
and needs of the community." (PFS 14.2)
3) "Continue to maintain and update the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, the Greenbelt Master Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance
and the recreation component of the Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee, as needed." (PFS 14.3)
cJ. -~(j1
Public "earlng Draft
/"",-",' City Boundary 0 Potential Neighborhood Park
",.........,.... Sweetwater Regional Park Boundary @ Community Center
* Community Park @ Mini Park
+ Neighborhood Park Map does not include future potential urban plaza
~ Future Neighborhood Park locations; these areas are shown in Figure 8.69
Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreation FacUlties (Source: City of
Chula VIsta)
Public Nearing Draft
d.. - c/</ 0
4) "Use park dedication, location, site design arid acceptance standards
as provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the
Park Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation DIp, as may be amended
from time to time." (PFS 14.4)
. 5) "Work with proponents of new development projects and redevelopment
projects at the earliest stages to ensure that parks, recreation, trails
and open space facilities are designed to meet City standards and are
built in a timely manner to meet the needs of residents they will serve."
(PFS 14.5)
6) "Design recreation programs to reflect the interests and recreation
needs of the children, teens, adults, and seniors living in our ethnically
diverse city." (PFS 14.6)
7) "Explore opportunities for collaborations and partnerships with local
organizations, expand use of volunteers, and develop commercial
recreational facilities that meet public demand and need." (PFS 14.7)
8) "Continue to provide adequate park maintenance, park ranger service
recreation services, staffing, and equipment to ensure safe, well-
maintained facilities." (PFS 14.8)
The foregoing policies will apply to recreation and park facilities
within the Urban Core. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
development impact fee programs will be monitored during the life
of the Specific Plan and updated to meet service and demographic
needs of the community.
b. General Plan DIscussIon: MeetIng Park Demand (PFS ~5)
Historic park development in western Chula Vista has been impacted by several
factors: pre-existing park development standards that differ from current
City standards, the Quimby Act - state legislation limiting park dedication
requirements for new development, and Proposition 13- state legislation
limiting property tax revenues. Increased residential densities and intensity
of development will create a corresponding increase in demand for recreation
facilities and programs. The current city-wide standard for new development
provides for either the dedication or development of 3 acres of parkland for
every 1,000 residents or the payment of in-lieu fees. The City's Recreation
Development Impact Fee provides a funding mechanism for development
of new recreation facility requirements. City-wide parkland and recreation
development policies to guide future ordinances and master planning are
identified below.
Scarce land tends to make parkland acquisition costs (in terms of cost of land
and displacement) in western Chula Vista significantly higher compared to
d -.jj/
Public nearing Draft
the City's eastern territories. While future growth will resuit in the need and
requirement for additional parklands and recreational facilities, there will be
increased difficulty in securing appropriate park and recreation sites in western
Chula Vista where land is largely built out. Lack of vacant and underutilized land,
and/or competing demands and uses for land ih the west provide challenges to
increasing the park and recreation facility inventory. Maximizing the utility of
existing parks and recreation facilities through renovation and expansion and
consideration of non-active recreational uses within existing recreation needs
is important in the western portion of the City; while this strategy will not provide
additional park acreage, it will partially meet the needs of future residents. In
addition to parkland acquisition efforts, potential solutions for new park sites
include the covering of portions of 1-5 to create park and open space areas and
joint-usr; of school classrooms, playing fields and sports courts by the public
via joint-use agreements. The provision of a community center within urban
development areas should be considered, possibly within a new mixed-use
environment.
An overall combination of park and recreation facilities that will serve all Chula
Vista residents is planned. While a majority of the future demand for facilities -
may be met within planned public park sites, there will continue to be a need to
rely on quasi-public park sites and joint-use facilities to increase the recreation
facility inventory in the City. Details and strategies for meeting park demand
will be addressed further through comprehensive revisions to the existing Parks
and Recreation Master Plan.
General Plan Policies Polices Related to the Urban Core
1) Continue to pursue a city-wide standard for the provision of developed
parkland for new development projects on a basis equivalent to three
acres per estimated one thousand new residents. (PFS 15.1)
2) Consider a combination of land dedication, improvements, and/or in-
lieu fees for park development improvements in the Northwest and
Southwest Planning Areas to better serve the public park and recreation
needs of future residents. (PFS 15.2)
3) Consider a broad mix of park types and facilities toward meeting park
requirements in the Northwest and Southwest planning areas in response
to existing development conditions and lack of land availability. Such
facilities could include urban parks, plazas, neighborhood parks and
community parks to meet the parkland dedication requirements of new
development in the west. (PFS 15.3)
4) Promote the inclusion of park and recreation facilities in or near
redevelopment areas to both serve the new development and to
contribute to meeting existing park and recreation needs. (PFS 15.4)
Public nearing Draft
d -c2./~
5) Use park dedication, location and site design andacceptanceofdedication
standards as provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation Development
Impact Fee (DIF) program, as may be.amended from time to time. (PFS
15.5)
6) Amend the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to add a new .urban park"
definition for parks that may be developed within western Chula Vista,
subject to specific siting, design and park dedication and credit criteria.
(PFS 15.8)
7) Pursue the funding, design and development of a connected park as
part of the Civic Center complex which links Will T. Hyde/Friendship
Park, the Civic Center and Parkway Memorial Park. (PFS 15.10)
8) Consider the design of non-traditional, uniquely themed parks in
the Urban Core and Bayfront that are .stand-alone" attractions or
destinations, having unique character and features. (PFS 15.11)
The foregoing polices will guide implementation of parks and facilities
within the Urban Core.
The Specific Plan area is expected to have a system of public parks, plazas,
promenades, and paseos that will contribute to the parks and recreation
facilities that currently exist in the City. The following parks and open spaces
exist or are expected to be constructed in the Specific Plan area.
Existing:
. Eucalyptus Park, approximately 18 acres
. Will T. Hyde/Friendship Park, approximately 4 acres
. Norman Park & Community Senior Center, approximately 1.5 acres
Proposed:
. Lower Sweetwater, approximately 15 to 20 acres
. Memorial Park Annex, approximately 3 to 5 acres
. Promenade Park west of Broadway, approximately 12 to 15 acres
In addition, a series of urban plazas are envisioned along Third Avenue, H Street,
and Broadway, as well as a pedestrian promenade along F Street connecting
downtown Third Avenue with the bayfront, which will also add recreational value
to urban life.
.:z.. - 6L/3
Public nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
c1->>
c. General Plan Discussion: Joint Use of Park and School Facilities (PFS
~8)
Increased intensity of development in western Chula Vista and lack of vacant
and underutilized land for park facilities will result in an increased demand on
parks and schools for recreational facilities. Joint use of facilities provides an
opportunity for the school children and the general public to mutually benefit.
Public demand for field space for youth leagues exceeds the City's supply
of sports fields in City parks, due to competing demands with adult athletic
leagues and the sheer number of youth sports teams to accommodate. The
City currently relies on individual elementary, middle, and high schools to allow
use of the schools' fields by Youth Sports Council leagues.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
1) Promote the City Council and the Boards of the two School Districts
entering into long-term master agreements to allow allocation of
school fields to the City's Youth Sports Council leagues via a process
administered-by the City, and to allow after-school use Qf classrooms at
different schools for recreation classes. (PFS 18.1)
2) Coordinate with the School Districts on the design of school grounds
and fields to provide for use of these facilities by the City's Youth Sports
council leagues. (PFS 18.2)
3) Consider siting elementary schools adjacent to neighborhood parks,
where feasible, to allow for expanded use of the school grounds and
classrooms by the general public and the park area by the school
children. (PFS 18.3)
The foregoing polices will guide the City in discussions with the
School Districts on possible joint use of facilities within the Urban
Core.
o. ~nergy and Telecommunications
1. Energy
San Diego Gas and Eiectric (SDG&E) owns, operates and maintains the pipes,
wires and appurtenances needed to transport natural gas and transmit and
distribute electricity to Chula Vista residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional facilities. These two forms of energy are essential to everyday life
in Chula Vista. SDG&E estimates that additional infrastructure may be needed
to deliver energy, serve a growing population, maintain local and regional
reliability, and move energy through the western regional U.S. system. SDG&E
projects that infrastructure may include new electricity distribution substations
in the western part of the City. The following objective and policies relate to the
provision of energy to the City. A discussion and related policies addressing
energy conservation are contained in the Environmental Element, Chapter 9 of
the City of Chula Vista's General Plan.
2. Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Chula Vista Include telephone, cable and
wireless communication services and are provided by several companies.
Future communication technologies may expand into other fields. Infrastructure
upgrades are being made by private providers to facilitate high-speed data
transmission and interactive video capabilities. The Citvencourages canstructing
new office and industrial buildings with state-of-the-art teleCommunication
circuits to utilize these upgrades.
3. Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing the generation and delivery of energy are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following describes an issue
or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific
Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Powering Chula Vista (PFS 22)
Population growth in Chula Vista will increase demand for energy and power.
In response to energy needs, the City embarked on a mission to identify viable
options to control the City's energy future. On May 29, 2001, the City Council
adopted the City of Chula Vista Energy Strategy and Action Plan (Energy Strategy)
and adopted an ordinance to investigate the possibility of creating a municipal
utility.
d.-dj!>-
Public nearing Draft
Public Nearing Draft
The Energy Strategy identifies recommended actions, including monitoring the
energy market and legal restrictions, being prepared to enter into an Electrical
Services Contract with an Energy Services Provider or power generatoras allowed
by law, partnering with a third party to build and operate power generation
facilities, developing an emissions offset program based on mobile sources,
becoming a municipal "aggregator" and acquiring electricity at negotiated rates
for City facilities and participating residents and business owners, expanding
energy conservation projects for City facilities and promoting energy efficient
and renewable energy programs for businesses and residents, and developing
and implementing a legislative strategy that facilitates the City's overall energy
plan.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core
All policies regarding energy and telecommunications are implemented
on a city-wide basis. The Specific Plan does provide for the review of
buildings for greater energy efficiency and promotes standards for
sustainability in Section 4. Special Guidelines of Chapter VII - Design
Guidelines.
d c:v(p
. Mobility Improvements: This component describes various methods of
improving mobility in the Urban Core through investments in pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, street and parking systems.
. Amenity improvements: This component describes various methods of
improving the quaiity of the urban environment through investments in
amenities such as street furnishings, gateways, wayfinding signs, public
art, and storefront facade upgrades.
. Additionai Community Improvements: This component addresses the
method for investing in and improving existing and new community
facilities such as parks, plazas, schools, utilities, and infrastructure.
. KeyShort-Term Demonstration Projects: This section describes a number
of seiected-short-term pubiic improvement projects that the City should
undertake to demonstrate its commitment to revitalizing the Urban Core
and the potential for achieving the goals of the Specific Plan.
. Potential Funding Sources: The method to obtain the community benefits
listed above includes harnessing the power of private investment and
the strategic use of available public funds. This section outlines both
private investment obligations and the most likely sources of public
funds that are potentially available to the City.
1:. Description of Improvements
The following components describe the general approach to achieve the vision
and fulfill the objectives for the Urban Core as outlined in the SpeCific Plan.
The following sections overview the factors and standards that have been
used to develop the facilities list for the SpeCific Plan. Appendix D - Facilities
Implementation Analysis is a complete listing of facilities, initial priority, order
of magnitude costs, and likely funding source for implementation.
Public nearing Draft
c{-c1.11
r. l'>1obllity Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on mobility systems with the primary
goal of achieving a balanced transportation system. Inherent in this goal are
initiatives that serve to calm traffic, create a friendlier pedestrian and bicycle
environment, and vastly improve the availability and service of public transit.
Also important to the Specific Plan are mobility connections to other areas of
the city, including the eastern Chula Vista and Bayfront areas.
~. Pedestrian Facilities - Capital Projects
The primary goal of pedestrian facilities is to provide logical, convenient,
and safe pathS of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making walking a
preferred method of travel.
a. Sidewalks on all streets throughout the planning area should be
improved to include adequate width, a safe and smooth walking surface,
and adequate lighting levels as specified in Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines. In some cases, additional right-of-way (ROW) or public
easements may be needed. Additional amenities such as directional
signs, benches, and shade trees are important elements that improve
the level of quality for pedestrian facilities. (See cross-sections and
intersections in Chapter V - Mobility.)
1) Third Avenue: special paving between 14-foot and 38-foot wide
depending on diagonal parking locations (between E Street and G
Street)
2) E Street: standard pavIng, between 9-foot and 13-foot wide (need
additional 22 feet total, or 11 feet on each side, of easement between
1-5 and 300 feet east of ramp)
3) F Street: standard paving, 16-foot wide with a 6-foot wide Class I
bike path in the center of the sidewalk
4) H Street: special paving, 16-foot wide (need additional 38 feet total
of easement between 1-5 and Broadway for sidewalk and additional
travel lane, need additional 8 feet total additional ROW of easement
between Broadway and Third Avenue for sidewalk)
5) Broadway: standard paving, 9-foot wide
6) Woodlawn Avenue: standard paving, l2-foot wide or 24 feet total
both sides
7) All other major streets: standard paving, minimum la-foot wide
b. Crosswalks at all intersections throughout the planning area shall be
clearly marked and improved as specified in Chapter VIII- Public Realm
Design Guidelines.
Public nearing Draft
1) Special paving at all intersections in the Village District along Third
Avenue
2) Special paving at intersections along H Street at Third Avenue, Fourth
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn Avenue, and 1-5
3) Special paving at intersections along Broadway at E Street, F Street,
G Street, and H Street
c. Mid-block crosswalks at selected locations, as described in Chapter VIII
- Public Realm Design G(Jidelines, shall be installed.
. Mid-block with special paving and advanced crossing technology at
four locations along Third Avenue in the Village District
d. Paseos that connect residential areas, public parking lots, and other
facilities to adjacent streets and pedestrian destinations are a key
element in an enhanced pedestrian environment. Paseos should be
incorporated into private and public improvement projects as necessary
to provide exemplary pedestrian access.
2. Bicycle Facilities - Capital Projects
The primary goal of bicycle facilities is to provide logical, convenient, and safe
paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making cycling a preferred
method of travel. To supplement the proposed actions, a bike users map will
be prepared to assist commuters and recreational riders in getting around the
Urban Core and finding directions to various destinations.
a. A boardwalk should be created along H Street and F Street that connects
the Urban Core to the Bayfront area. The boardwalk shall consist of an
elevated Class I bike path a minimum of 6-foot wide located in the center
of the sidewalk on each side of H Street and F Street. The bike paths
shall be marked with colored paving and signed to minimize confiicts
between pedestrians, vehicles, and bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards will
also be evaluated for Davidson Street and G Street.
b. Class II bicycle lanes, at a minimum of 6-foot wide, should be installed
on Broadway and along the segments of F Street where a Class I bike
path cannot be accommodated.
c. Class /II bike routes should be established on the following streets:
Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Third Avenue, E Street, G Street, I Street, J Street,
K Street.
d. End of trip facilities, as specified in the updated City Bicycle Master Plan,
should include secured bike racks and bike lockers.
Public Nearing Draft
c1~-2.lr
3. Transit Facilities - Policy Initiatives and Capital Projects
The primary goal of transit facilities is to provide a convenient and dependable
alternative to automobile travel throughout the Specific Plan area.
Policy InItIatIves
. Establish a West Side Shuttle with service on H Street, Third Avenue, E
Street or F Street, and Broadway with connections to the Bayfront and
Trolley stations at E Street and H Street. The West Side Shuttle should
have a relatively short headway of approximately 15 minutes and should
run in both directions.
CapItal Projects
1) Purchase shuttle vehicles as specified in West Side Shuttle program.
2) Establish shuttle stations consisting of expanded curb and vehicle
pullout areas and signs at the following locations:
. Third Avenue at H Street, F Street and E Street
. E Street at Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Trolley station and Bayfront
. Broadway at F Street and G Street
. H Street at Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn
Avenue, Trolley station and Bayfrortt
3) Provide bus stops and shelters at each of the shuttle locations for use
by shuttle loop service and city-wide bus and transit service.
4. Intersection Improvements - Capital Projects
The primary goal of street improvements is to provide a safe and efficient driving
environment, quality road surfaces, and improved traffic operations through
lane configurations and intersection designs. Intersections at the following
locations will need to be improved to accommodate expected traffic demands.
These improvements will include upgraded traffic control, signals and signal
timing, turning lanes, and through lane configurations.
a. PrIorIty of IntersectIon Improvements
Intersection improvements have been divided into three tiers based on priority,
with the most important and immediate improvements classified as Tier 1. In
each individual tier. the City's existing monitoring program will determine exactly
which projects are implemented first during the biannual CIP program review.
The intersection numbers correspond to the numbering system provided in
Appendix B - Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc.
oZ - ';;'e2.D
Public Nearing Draft
1.) Tier 1. Imorovements
. #1 Bay Bou/evardjl-S" Southbound RampjE Street
. #2 1-5 Northbound RampjE Street
. #7 Third AvenuejE Street
. #16 Third AvenuejF Street
. #21 Third AvenuejG Street
. #24 1-5 Southbound RampjH Street
#25 1-5 Northbound RampjH Street
. #26 Woodlawn AvenuejH Street
#27 BroadwayjH Street
#28 Fifth AvenuejH Street
#29 Fourth AvenuejH Street
. #44 Fourth AveRuejSR-54 Eastbound Ramp
2) Tier 2 Imorovements
#34 BroadwayjSR-54 Westbound Ramp
. #61 L Stre~ay Boulevard
#63 Bay Boulevardjl-5 Southbound Ramp
#64 Industrial Boulevardjl-5 Northbound Ramp
. H Street from four lanes to six lanes from 1-5 to Broadway
3) Tier 3 Imorovements
. #13 BroadwayjF Street
. #45 Fourth AvenuejBrisbane Street
#57 Second AvenuejD Street
Public Nearing Draft
~ - ~:J.)
5. Parking Systems - Policy Initiatives
The primary goal of the parking policy is to provide ample, convenient and
dependable public parking facilities at three primary locations within the Urban
Core:
The Village District
. H Street Transit Focus Area (TFA)
E Street TFA
These areas will likely be parking districts designed to assist the private sector
in minimizing the provision of on-site parking and providing ample parking for
users in each of these areas.
a. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare an update
to the parking district in the Village District. This analysis shall address
the phased provision of additional public parking including:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public spaces through shared
parking and parking management initiatives,
2) Provision of short-term off-street surface parking facilities,
3) Provision of selected long-term parking structures in this District,
and
4) Updating the in-lieu fee program.
b. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare a parking
analysis that addresses the following for the H Street and E Street
TFAs:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public parking through shared
parking and parking management initiatives,
2) Provision of short-term off-street surface parking facilities,
3) Provision of selected long-term parking structures in this District,
and
4) Determining the appropriateness of an in-lieu fee program.
.:<.. - ~d..d..
PUblic Nearing Draft
a. Prepare streetscape master plans for selected streets in the Urban Core.
Master plans should be prepared with community involvement and
should be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the
Specific Plan. Streetscape master plans should address the following
elements:
6, Urban Amenity Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy and design guidance on urban amenities with
the primary goal of achieving a physically enhanced and visually attractive
urban environment that is a desirable destination within Chula Vista.
1. Streetscapes - Capital Projects
1) Coordination with adjacent infill development in order that street
widening and urban design amenities can be incrementally
implemented, to the extent feasible, concurrent with new development
projects.
2) Coordinated design with street improvement projects, incfuding
intersection, infrastructure, and mid-block and crosswalk designs.
3) Detailed designs and materials specifications for all sidewalk areas,
incfuding paving, street furnishings, street trees, decorative street
lights and other elements.
4) Street master plans should be prepared for the following areas:
a) Third Avenue between E Street and H Street
b) Broadway between C Street and L Street
c) H Street between 1-5 and Del Mar Avenue
d) F Street between 1-5 and Del Mar Avenue
e) E Street between 1-5 and Del Mar Avenue
b. Prepare plans for the 1-5 overcrossings that incfude enhanced sidewalk
paving, decorative lighting, street furnishings, public art, and other
elements. Coordinate the designs with gateways and streetscape plans
for these areas. Plans should be prepared for the following locations:
1) H Street
2) F Street
3) E Street
Public Nearing Draft
~-~:2..3
2. Gateways - Capital Projects
Prepare detailed design plans for selected gateways in the Urban Core.
Gateway plans should be prepared with community involvement and should
be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the Specific Plan.
The gateway plans may be developed and implemented as part of private
development occurring at gateway locations. Plans should be prepared for the
following locations:
PrImary Gateways
1) 1-5 and E Street
2) 1-5 and H Street
3) Third Avenue and E Street
4) Fourth Avenue and C Street
Secondary Gateways
1) 1-5 and F Street
2) Third Avenue and H Street
3. Wayfinding - Capital Projects
Prepare a wayfinding directional sign program for the Specific Plan area. The
program should include incorporation of the City logo or other Urban Core
identity brand, informational and directional sign designs to facilities such as
public parking, public facilities and other important destinations. The program
should include sign hierarchy and conceptual designs, should be prepared
with community involvement, and should be consistent with the guidelines and
recommendations of the Specific Plan. Actual capital projects will depend on
the resulting plan or sign program.
4. Public Art - Policy Initiatives
Complete the art in public places program and implement through project
review on individual developments and various public improvement projects.
Public nearing Draft
Public l1earing Draft
5. Storefront/Facade Improvements - Policy Initiatives and
Capital Projects
a. Policy Initiatives
1) Update the storefront far;ade improvement program in the Village
District.
2) Prepare a new storefront far;ade improvement program for the Urban
Core District along Broadway.
b. Capital Projects
. Fund storefront and far;ade improvement projects through the provision
of grants in compliance with the adopted program.
~~s-
n. Additional Community Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on a range of public facilities and
services with the primary goal of providing excellent facilities and services for
the Urban Core residents and visitors. Inherent in this goal are initiatives that
serve to produce additional park space; adequate and efficient use of public
schools, plazas, and paseo systems; and upgraded utilities and infrastructure.
Pursue park opportunity sites within the Urban Core. Each potential park site
should be located as specified in the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Each park should contain facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan update. The following are general areas for park improvements in
the Urban Core:
a. Lower Sweetwater Community Park (approximately 15 to 20 acres)
b. Memorial Park Annex (approximately 3 to 5 acres)
c. Park west of Broadway (approximately 12 to 15 acres)
2. Plazas - Capital Projects
Pursue plaza improvement projects, with amenities as outlined in this Specific
Plan, in-el7njunction with new development at the general locations shown on
Figure 8.69 of Chapter VIII- Public Realm Design Guidelines.
3. Schools - Policy Initiatives
Coordinate with Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the
Sweetwater Unified High School District (SUHSD) to determine the need for
additional school facility space as outlined Chapter IX - Infrastructure and
Public Facilities.
4. Sustainable Development - Green BuildIng Demonstration
The recently established National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities
(NECSC) will serve as a tremendous resource to the City throughout the life of
the Specific Plan. In partnership with the NECSC, the City will look to generate
grant funding speCific to the Urban Core that will support commitments
from developers to undertake a green building demonstration program.
Through existing agreements and future development programs, the City will
target the Urban Core to create an urban model for sustainable community
development.
ci-~
Public nearing Draft
A new resource guide could be developed which includes expanded sustainability
goals, design principles and tools for designing and building in a mixed-use
or urban development market. A Resource Guide for Sustainable Urban
Development could expand upon the Environmental Sustainability Goals and
Design Principles included in Chapter VII- Design Guidelines and help establish
a framework for the creation of a sustainable Urban Core.
Public nearing Draft
.,,{ -:lc2. '1
Attachment 8
3. Long Term Implementation
Chapter X-- Detailed Description of Improvements
Appendix D- Public Facilities Implementation Analysis
Projected Cost Estimates
Projected Timing
Projected Revenues (Development Impacts Fees and Tax
Increment)
Chapter XI - Application to Subsequent Development Projects
UCSP FEIR 06-01
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C:<-~~I
x. Plan Implementation and Community Benefits
Program
A. Introduction X-l
B. Regulatory Framework X"2
C. Visualization X-4
D. Long Term Implementation Process X-9
E. Description of Improvements X-ll
F. Mobility Improvements X-12
G. Urban Amenity Improvements X-17
H. Additional Community Improvements X-20
I. Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects X-22
J. Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms and Funding Sources X-24
K. Community Benefit Analysis X-28
Public nearing Draft
at -~3CJ
I',;:
';'1J,
Public Nearing Draft
X. Plan Implementation and Community Benefits
Program
A. Introduction
The Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program is a critical element
to realizing the desired improvements to Chula Vista's Urban Core that are
outlined in the Specific Plan. The sole purpose of the Specific Plan is to improve
the quality of life for Chula Vista residents and visitors in general, with focus on
the west side in particular. The vision expressed in the Specific Plan includes
investments in streets, transit, parks, plazas, cultural facilities, protection of
historic resources, schools, and improvements to City services such as utilities,
police, fire, and health and human services. This investment will be supported
by a partnership between the City and the private sector as new development
occurs. Thus, this chapter of the Specific Plan contains information on and
forms a critical link between the improvements the City desires and how both
the City and private investment will contribute to make the improvements
happen.
The Specific Pian is the primary planning tool to initiate positive change and
enhance the western side of Chula Vista. The Specific Plan was prepared based
on the overarching policies outlined in the General Plan and retined based on
an analysis of important economic conditions. NUatensive public involvement
program has also shaped the contents and outcome of the Specitic Plan. The
result is a Specitic Plan that is visionary, yet realistic, for the future of the
Specitic Plan area.
-< -2/
B. I!egulatory I'ramework
TheSpecific Plan was developed to create a conducive developmentenvironment,
one that is responsive to the prevailing market demand. Some of the key policy
changes that have been incorporated in the Specific Plan include:
. Zoning that is responsive to market needs;
. Increased density allowed through specialized "form and standard based"
development standards encouraging underutilized and dilapidated
properties to redevelop;
. Streamlined permitting and entitlement processes;
. Area-wide infrastructure and "amenity" (e.g., streets cape and landscape)
investments;
. Marketing of the Specific Plan area to both consumers and prospective
business tenants;
. Technical assistance to Specific Plan area businesses; and
. Enhanced code compliance to improve the visual appeal and function of
the urban environment.
An effective SpecifIc Plan needs to be based on a realistic understanding
of me market and demographic conditions affecting the Specific Plan area.
Simply changing zoning on a map will not attract development unless there is
an underlying market demand for a particular land use. On the other hand, if
there is immediate demand for a desirable land use that is not permitted under
existing zoning, a change in zoning can bring about very significant results.
Moreover, appropriate zoning changes can be made more effective if these
changes are coupled with regulations that address other potential barriers to
development (e.g., onerous parking requirements). With this approach, private
and public sectors work together to provide a synergy of uses as well as public
improvements and urban amenities.
The SpeCific Plan is the first large-scale development plan pursuant to the
adoption of the City's General Plan in 2005. As such, it is a critical test of
the concepts within the General Plan, particularly as they relate to facilities
financing. This Specific Plan assesses the needs for facilities and tests those
needs against the funding which would be made available as a result of the
development its regulations would accommodate, to prove that the facilities
assumptions within the plan are reasonable and feasible. The Specific Plan
anticipates, however, that the facilities funding programs to implement and
construct public facilities will be a part of larger facilities financing plans which
will be prepared for the entirety of western Chula Vista. These plans provide
;(-~
Public Nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
for the coordinated provision of facilities to meet current deficiencies and the
demands of new infill development. Among such plans are the Parks Master
Plan and particular facilities implementation and fee programs related to
transportation, utilities and other public facilities. Over the life span anticipated
within the Specific Plan, these programs will be initiated, reviewed and revised
to keep pace with the amount, location and timing of development and need.
Public improvements are especially important, as these elements add value to
the area and signal to the private sector that the City is committed to improving
the Urban Core. Public improvements thus lay a foundation for future private
sector investment, in a sense "priming the pump", encouraging property owners,
merchants, and investors to do the same.
-? -.:;. 33
c. Visualization
To assist with the visuaiization of the benefits and amenities the Specific Plan
hopes to bring, photographic visualizations are presented to illustrate how the
Urban Core could be transformed in selected areas. Figures 10.1-10.4 show
existing conditions, simulations for interim conditions, and near buildout
conditions for areas along Third Avenue, F Street, H Street, and Broadway.
The rate of development is determined in large part by market forces and will
vary in architectural character and form, but the simulations demonstrate the
pedestrian improvements, public amenities, and anticipated private investment.
It is important to note that the simulations illustrate just one set, of an almost
infinite number, of possible scenarios.
dc231
Public Nearing Draft
Intersection of Th"d Avenue and DavIdson Street - EXIsting CondItIOns.
Interim Conditions. and Near Build-out Conditions
Public Nearing Draft
~ -.<.3D
rg. 10.2
d{ - :L.jJp
Public Nearing Draft
H Street lookmg east towards FIfth Avenue- EXlstmg CondItIons. Interim
Conditions, and Near Build..put ConditIons
Public nearing Draft
01. -cf<,3 7
fg. 10.4
;<-~:3 ~
Public Nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
D. Long Term Implementation Process
From the beginning oftheSpecific Plan process, there has been a keen awareness
that the adoption and implementation of the plan will rest on the amenity value
that new development can bring. This value cannot be achieved by attractive
pictures and vague promises of future action. Among the key benefits of the
Specific Plan will be amenities and capacity enhancements, in the form of such
elements as parks, pedestrian spaces, utilities, transit accommodation and
roadway improvements. The effort to plan and program the delivery of these
essential public facilities within the Urban Core will be especially challenging. In
new communities, the City has assessed such matters through the preparation
of Public Facilities Finance Plans (PFFPs). These documents have served well
to address the extension of facilities coinciding with the relatively short-term
timing of new master planned neighborhoods and subdivision improvements.
However, the Urban Core presents a vastly different set of circumstances: the
placement or upgrading of public facilities within an existing neighborhood, in
support of in fill and redevelopment over a period of perhaps decades.
For the reasons stated above, the Specific Plan relies on a systematic approach
to the delivery of public facilities. These facilities are designed to fulfill the
obligations and objectives handed down from the General Plan. The public
facilities program also fits well with the ongoing efforts of City construction
and operating departments as these departments pursue their own particular
studies, creative implementation approaches, and master plans.
The ffow chart presented in Figure 10.5 was prepared to show how the Urban
Core project includes necessary components to inform the future citywide or
western Chula Vista Impact Fee, Facilities Master Plan, and Capital Improvement
Program processes. The key bridge from the plan and its regulations into public
facilities is the Facilities Implementation Analysis found in Appendix D.
The implementation of the SpeCific Plan is also seen as somewhat dynamic and
is subject to ongoing monitoring and priority-setting. While projects are assigned
priorities based on 2005 factors, the timing and location of development may
require that certain facilities be advanced in priority. This schedule assessment
will be accomplished through a review of facility performance as part of the
biannual review of the Citywide Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget
and through the preparation and maintenance of the City's facilities financing
and fee strategies, as these items may be adopted and amended from time to
time. Any change in priorities, timing and valuation from the facilities program
associated with the CIP or facilities program shall not require the amendment
of the Specific Plan, as long as such changes, additions or subtractions are not
in conflict with the applicable CEQA review documents for this SpeCific Plan.
J. -':<37
FACLITIES
[PUBLIC IMPLEMENTATION]
Facility ListIRougb Costs/Fund Source
Capacity [Utilities, Schools, etc]
Amenity [Streetscape, Parks, etc]
Mobility [Streets, Transit, etc]
REGULA ON AND INCENTIVE
[PRIVATE IMPLEMENTATION]
Regulatory Requirements
Design Standards
Amenity Standards and Bonuses
Mitigation Measures
Fuudin ResourceL-_
Imoact Fee TI/Bonding Gen'l Fund
Location I Location I Location I
Location 2 Location 2 Location 2
ONGOING REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE, PRIORITIES AND FEES
CONDUCTED AS APART OF THE TWO-YEAR CITY CIP BUDGET PROCESS
AND FINANCING FEE PROGRAM UPDATES
rg.10.5
.;z -~ ~6
Public Nearing Draft
. Mobility Improvements: This component describes various methods of
improving mobility in the Urban Core through investments in pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, street and parking systems.
. Amenity Improvements: This component describes various methods of
improving the quality of the urban environment through investments in
amenities such as street furnishings, gateways, wayfinding signs, public
art, and storefront facade upgrades.
. Additional.Community Improvements: This component addresses the
method for investing in and improving existing and new community
facilities such as parks, plazas, schools, utilities, and infrastructure.
. Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects: This section describes a number
of selected short-term public improvement projects that the City should
undertake to demonstrate its commitment to revitalizing the Urban Core
and the potential for achieving the goals of the Specitic Plan.
.. Potential Funding Sources: The method to obtain the community benetits
listed above includes harnessing the power of private investment and
the strategic use of available public funds. This section outlines both
private investment obligations and the most likely sources of public
funds that are potentially available to the City.
~. Description of Improvements
The following components describe the general approach to achieve the vision
and fultill the objectives for the Urban Core as outlined in the Specitic Plan.
The following sections overview the factors and standards that have been
used to develop the facilities list for the Specitic Plan. Appendix D - Facilities
Implementation Analysis is a complete listing of facilities, initial priority, order
of magnitude costs, and likely funding source for implementation.
Public Nearing Draft
~-.:z~ J
f. ~obillty Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on mobility systems with the primary
goal of achieving a baianced transportation system. Inherent in this goal are
initiatives that serve to calm traffic, create a friendlier pedestrian and bicycle
environment, and vastly improve the availability and service of public transit.
Also important to the Specific Plan are mobility connections to other areas of
the city, including the eastern Chula Vista and Bayfront areas.
1. Pedestrian Facilities - Capital Projects
The primary goal of pedestrian facilities is to provide logical, convenient,
and safe paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making walking a
preferred method of travel.
a. Sidewalks on all streets throughout the planning area should be
improved to include adequate width, a safe and smooth walking surface,
and adequate lighting levels as specified in Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines. In some cases, additional right-of-way (ROW) or public
easements may be needed. Additional amenities such as directional
signs, benches, and shade trees are important elements that improve
the level of quality for pedestrian facilities. (See cross-sections and
intersections in ~hapter V - Mobility.)
1) Third Avenue: special paving between 14-foot and 38-foot wide
depending on diagonal parking locations (between E Street and G
Street)
2) E Street: standard paving, between 9-foot and 13-foot wide (need
additional 22 feet total, or 11 feet on each side, of easement between
1-5 and 300 feet east of ramp)
3) F Street: standard paving, 16-foot wide with a 6-foot wide Class I
bike path in the center of the sidewalk
4) H Street: special paving, 16-foot wide (need additional 38 feet total
of easement between 1-5 and Broadway for sidewalk and additional
travel lane, need additional 8 feet total additional ROW of easement
between Broadway and Third Avenue for sidewalk)
5) Broadway: standard paving, 9-foot wide
6) Woodlawn Avenue: standard paving, 12-foot wide or 24 feet total
both sides
7) All other major streets: standard paving, minimum 10-foot wide
b. Crosswalks at all intersections throughout the planning area shall be
clearly marked and improved as specified in Chapter VIII- Public Realm
Design Guidelines.
:z -d.1-~
Public Nearing Draft
1) Special paving at all intersections in the Vii/age District aiong Third
Avenue
2) Special paving at intersections along H Street at Third Avenue, Fourth
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn Avenue, and 1-5
3) Special paving at intersections along Broadway at E Street, F Street,
G Street, and H Street
c. Mid-block crosswalks at selected locations, as described in Chapter V/II
- Public Realm Design Guidelines, shall be installed.
. Mid-block with special paving and advanced crossing technology at
four locations along Third Avenue in the Village District
d. Paseos that connect residential areas, public parking lots, and other
facilities to adjacent streets and pedestrian destinations are a key
element in an enhanced pedestrian environment. Paseos should be
incorporated into private and public improvement projects as necessary
to provide exemplary pedestrian access.
2. Bicycle Facilities - Capital Projects
The primary goal of bicycle facilities is to provide logical, convenient, and safe
paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making cycling a preferred
me.thod of travel. To supplement the proposed actions, a bike users mal'! wii/
be prepared to assist commuters and recreational riders in getting around the
Urban Core and finding directions to various destinations.
a. A boardwalk should be created along H Street and F Street that connects
the Urban Core to the Bayfront area. The boardwalk shall consist of an
elevated Class I bike path a minimum of 6-foot wide located in the center
of the sidewalk on each side of H Street and F Street. The bike paths
shall be marked with colored paving and signed to minimize confiicts
between pedestrians, vehicles, and bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards wii/
also be evaluated for Davidson Street and G Street.
b. Class II bicycle lanes, at a minimum of 6-foot wide, should be installed
on Broadway and along the segments of F Street where a Class I bike
path cannot be accommodated.
c. Class /II bike routes should be established on the following streets:
Fourth Avenue, Rfth Avenue, Third Avenue, E Street, G Street, I Street, J Street,
K Street.
d. End of trip facilities, as specified in the updated City Bicycle Master Plan,
should include secured bike racks and bike lockers.
Public Nearing Draft
3. Transit Facilities - Polley Initiatives and Capital Projects
The primary goal of transit facilities is to provide a convenient and dependable
alternative to automobile travel throughout the Specific Plan area.
a. Polley Initiatives
. Establish a West Side Shuttle with service on H Street, Third Avenue, E
Street or F Street, and Broadway with connections to the Bayfront and
Trolley stations at E Street and H Street. The West Side Shuttle should
have a relatively short headway of approximately 15 minutes and should
run in both directions.
b. Capital Projects
1) Purchase shuttle vehicles as specified in West Side Shuttle program.
2) Establish shuttle stations consisting of expanded curb and vehicle
pullout areas and signs at the following locations:
. Third Avenue at H Street, F Street and E Street
. E Street at Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Trolley station and Bayfront
. Broadway at F Street and G Street
. H Street at Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn
Avenue, Trolley station and Bayfront
3) Provide bus stops and shelters at each of the shuttle locations for use
by shuttle loop service and city-wide bus and transit service.
4. Intersection Improvements - Capital Projects
The primary goal of street improvements is to provide a safe and efficient driving
environment, quality road surfaces, and improved traffic operations through
lane configurations and intersection designs. Intersections at the following
locations will need to be improved to accommodate expected traffic demands.
These improvements will include upgraded traffic control, signals and signal
timing, turning lanes, and through lane configurations.
a. Priority of intersection Improvements
Intersection improvements have been divided into three tiers based on priority,
with the most important and immediate improvements classified as Tier 1. In
each individual tier, the City's existing monitoring program will determine exactly
which projects are implemented first during the biannual CIP program review.
The intersection numbers correspond to the numbering system provided in
Appendix B - Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc.
Public nearing Draft
~) Her ~ ImDrovements
. #1 Bay Boulevardjl-5 Southbound RampjE Street
#2 1-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street
. #7 Third AvenuejE Street
. #16 Third Avenue/F Street
. #21 Third Avenue/G Street
. #24 1-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street
#25 1-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street
. #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street
#27 Broadway/H Street
#28 Fifth Avenue/H Street
#29 Fpurth Avenue/H Street
#44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp
2) Tier 2 Imorovements
#34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp
#61 L Street/Bay Boulevard
#63 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp
#64 Industrial Bou/evard/I-5 Northbound Ramp
. H Street from four lanes to six lanes from 1-5 to Broadway
3) Tier 3 Imorovements
#13 Broadway/F Street
#45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street
#57 Second Avenue/D Street
Public Nearing Draft
:z.. -:l. 4 S-
5. Parking Systems - Policy Initiatives
The primary goal of the parking policy is to provide ample, convenient and
dependabie public parking facilities .at three primary locations within the Urban
Core:
. The Village District
H Street Transit Focus Area (TFA)
E Street TFA
These areas wili iikely be parking districts designed to assist the private sector
in minimizing the provision of on-site parking and providing ample parking for
users in each of these areas.
a. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare an update
to the parking district in the Vii/age District. This analysis shall address
the phased provision of additional public parking inciuding:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of-existing public spaces through shared
parking and parking management initiatives,
2) Provision of short-term off-street surface parking facilities,
3) Provision of selected long-term parking. structures in this District,
and ---
4) Updating the in-lieu fee program.
b. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare a parking
analysis that addresses the following for the H Street and E Street
TFAs:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public parking through shared
parking and parking management initiatives,
2) Provision of short-term off-street surface parking facilities,
3) Provision of selected long-term parking structures in this District,
and
4) Determining the appropriateness of an in-lieu fee program.
~ - J.~~
Public Nearing Draft
3) Detailed designs and materials specifications for all sidewalk areas,
including paving, street furnishings, street trees, decorative street
lights <md other elements.
4) Street master plans should be prepared for the following areas:
a) Third Avenue between E Street and H Street
b) Broadway between C Street and L Street
c) H Street between 1-5 and Del Mar Avenue
d) F Street between 1-5 and Del Mar Avenue
e) E Street between 1-5 and Del Mar Avenue
b. Prepare plans for the 1-5 overcrossings that include enhanced sidewalk
paving, decorative lighting, street furnishings, public art, and other
elements. Coordinate the designs with gateways and streetscape plans
for these areas. Plans should be prepared for the following locations:
1) H Street
2) F Street
3) E Street
6. Urban Amenity Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy and design guidance on urban amenities with
the primary goal of achieving a physically enhanced and visually attractive
urban environment that is a desirable destination within Chula Vista.
1. Streetscapes - Capital Projects
a. Prepare streets cape master plans for selected streets in the Urban Core.
Master plans should be prepared with community involvement and
should be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the
Specific Plan. Streetscape master plans should address the following
elements:
1) Coordination with adjacent infill development in order that street
widening and urban design amenities can be incrementally
implemented, to the exten t feasible, concurrent with newdevelopment
projects.
2) Coordinatea design with street improvement projects, including
intersection, infrastructure, and mid-block and crosswalk designs.
Public nearing Draft
2. Gateways - Capital Projects
Prepare detailed design plans for selected gateways in the Urban Core.
Gateway plans should be prepared with community involvement and should
be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the Specific Plan.
The gateway plans may be developed and implemented as part of private
development occurring at gateway locations. Plans should be prepared for the
following locations:
a. PrImary Gateways
1) 1-5 and E Street
2) 1-5 and H Street
3) Third Avenue and E Street
4) Fourth Avenue and C Street
b. Secondary Gateways
1) 1-5 and F Street
2) Third Avenue and H Street
3. Wayfinding - Capital Projects
Prepare a waytinding directional sign program for the Specific Plan area. The
program should include incorporation of the City logo or other Urban Core
identity brand, informational and directional sign designs to facilities such as
public parking, public facilities and other important destinations. The program
should include sign hierarchy and conceptual designs, should be prepared
with community involvement, and should be consistent with the guidelines and
recommendations of the Specific Plan. Actual capital projects will depend on
the resulting plan or sign program.
4. Public Art - Policy Initiatives
Complete the art in public places program and implement through project
review on individual developments and various public improvement projects.
Public Nearing Draft
Public Nearing Draft
~-~~7
5. Storefront/Facade Improvements - Polley Initiatives and
Capital Projects
a. Policy Initiatives
1) Update the storefront far;ade improvement program in the Vii/age
District.
2) Prepare a new storefront far;ade improvement program for the Urban
Core District along Broadway.
b. Capital Projects
. Fund storefront and far;ade improvement projects through the provision
of grants in compliance with the adopted program.
N. Additional Community Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on a range of public facilities and
services with the primary goal of providing excellent facilities and services for
the Urban Core residents and visitors. Inherent in this goal are initiatives that
serve to produce additional park space; adequate and efficient use of public
schools, plazas, and paseo systems; and upgraded utilities and infrastructure.
1. Parks
Pursue park opportunity sites within the Urban Core. Each potential park site
should be located as specified in the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Each park should contain facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan update. The following are general areas for park improvements in
the Urban Core:
a. Lower Sweetwater Community Park (approximately 15 to 20 acres)
b. Memorial Park Annex (approximately 3 to 5 acres)
c. Park west of Broadway (approximately 12 to 15 acres)
2. Plazas - Capital Projects
Pursue plaza improvement projects, with amenities as outlined in this Specific
Plan, in conjunction with new development at the general locations shown on
Figure 8.69 of Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines.
3. Schools - Policy Initiatives
Coordinate with Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the
Sweetwater Unified High School District (SUHSD) to determine the need for
additional school facility space as outlined Chapter IX - Infrastructure and
Public Facilities.
4. SustaInable Development - Green Building Demonstration
The recently established National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities
(NECSC) will serve as a tremendous resource to the City throughout the life of
the Specific Plan. In partnership with the NECSC, the City will look to generate
grant funding specific to the Urban Core that will support commitments
from developers to undertake a green building demonstration program.
Through existing agreements and future development programs, the City will
target the Urban Core to create an urban model for sustainable community
development.
~~d..6-V
Public Nearing Draft
Public nearing Draft
A new resource guide could be developed which Includes expanded sustainability
goals, design principles and tools for designing and building in a mixed-use
or urban development market. A Resource Guide for Sustainable Urban
Development could expand upon the Environmental Sustainability Goals and
Design Principles included in Chapter VII- Design Guidelines and help establish
a framework for the creation of a sustainable Urban Core.
c2 ::151
I. Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects
The following section identifies key short-term projects or programs that
should be undertaken to demonstrate the potential growth and improvements
facilitated by the Specific Plan. These particular projects/programs have been
selected to create a synergistic approach to revitalization in one of the most
critical areas within the Urban Core, the Village District. The projects/programs
address private investment in new urban infill residential development, public
investment along a major pedestrian and business corridor, and public/private
investments to enhance existing businesses that are expected to remain in the
short-mid term.
1. Pursue Immediate Redevelopment of OpportunIty Sites
Redevelopment of key underutilized sites, particularly within the Village District,
with new mixed-use developments should be pursued immediately to set the
momentum for other new development in the Urban Core. This initial activity
would begin to put more "feet on the street" and create the catalyst necessary
for adjoining commercial uses to really thrive and allow an active urban
environment to evolve.
A number of sites have already been identified and may present unique
opportunities for public/private partnerships. Several of the sites are City
-ewned and are "either vacant or used as surface parking lots, providing readily
available land resources, thus streamlining the development process. The
process, review, and development of these, or other sites, would demonstrate
the positive enhancements provided by key elements of the SpeCific Plan.
In addition, because the area is within a designated redevelopment project
area, the new development would provide an almost immediate enhanced
revenue stream through new tax increment. In return, this new revenue
could be invested in key public improvements and urban amenities within the
redevelopment project area. Focus on the Village District is critical in order to
realize the benefits of new tax increment within the limited timeframe remaining
for the existing Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan.
2. Third Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Improvements
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines provides the more detailed
engineering design of physical streetscape improvements of major streets
throughout the urban core~ A focused effort to develop a streetscape master
plan and improvement plans for Third Avenue between E Street and G Street
should be undertaken as a priority action. Third Avenue was selected as a
priority due to its location as the traditional center of the Urban Core and the
c2 -~:S~
Public nearing Draft
a. Involvement of the Downtown Business Association;
ability to build upon and integrate the revitalization efforts described above
under Section 1. Pursue Immediate Redevelopment of Opportunity Sites. The
effort should include:
b. Development of a work program and request for proposals;
c. Using the public realm design guidelines in Chapter VIII as a basis,
further develop detailed design plans, localized pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, and street improvement plans;
d. Prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) along with an
implementation/phasing strategy for improvements; and
e. Community participation with both area businesses and residents.
3. Improve Existing Storefront Renovation Program
Over the last several years, the City has implemented a storefront renovation
program that has had mediocre impacts on enhancing the existing and future
face of the Village District's commercial corridor. While improvements were
made "one storefront at a time", the results were often overshadowed by
adjoining properties that had not taken advantage of the program. Therefore,
it is recommended that the existing program be revamped to better leverage
public funds with prIvate investments to promote business retention and growth
and augment other revitalization efforts..
The program could be redesigned to have a greater impact along the main
shopping corridor by instead improving a number of businesses located
cohesively or clustered together. By treating several properties in a row, the
architectural enhancements present a greater visual impact to pedestrians,
cyclists, and auto traffickers.
The initial pilot program should be focused on the Village District's Third Avenue
commercial corridor and the Broadway commercial corridor. Improvements
that should be considered include new storefront signs, awnings, windows,
and paint. Restoration of vintage signs representative of significant periods of
history in the urban core may also contribute positively to the pedestrian and
vehicular streets cape. Program development and implementation should be
pursued and include incentivlzed financing options for participants.
Public Nearing Draft
~ -~5",j
... Infrastructure f'inancing ~echanisms and f'unding
Sources
The following is a list of commonly used mechanisms to fund public facilities.
The City of Chula Vista may currently be utilizing some of these mechanisms,
but there may be opportunities for better leveraging of funding or for pursuing
new funding sources.
~. Redevelopment Funds.
The majority of the Urban Core includes areas within various Redevelopment
Project Areas.
a. Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
Tax increment financing is the increase in property tax revenues resulting from
an increase in assessed property values that exceed base year values. Within a
redevelopment project area, the Redevelopment Agency collects a substantial
majorityofthe tax increment financing monies accrued in the project area. All tax
increment monies generated and adopted in redevelopment project areas are
allocated among four basic public uses: schools, neighborhood improvements,
affordable housing, and other public agencies. This funding source provides a
critical means to revitalization and public improvement activities by enabling
redevelopment agencies to issue tax increment bonds without using general
fund monies or raising taxes.
b. Set Aside Funds.
State law requires that at least 20 percent of all tax Increment financing dollars
accrued within a redevelopment project area must be set aside and .used
by the agency for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the
community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing .... (Health and
Safety Code 833334.2(a)). The set aside funds must be held in a separate
Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used, along with any interest
earned and repayments to the housing fund (833334.3). The set aside funds
may be used inside or outside of the project area but must benefit the project
area. Use of set aside funds for the purposes of increasing, improving, and
preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing may
include, but is not limited to, the following:
1) Acquisition and donation of land for affordable housing;
2) Construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units;
3) Financing insurance premiums for the construction and rehabilitation of
affordable housing units;
Public Nearing Draft
4) Providing subsidies to, or for the benefit of, extremely low, very low, and
lower income households as well as persons and families of low or
moderate income;
5) Paying principal and interest on bonds, loans, advances or other
indebtedness and financing or carrying charges;
6) Maintaining the supply of mobile homes; and
7) Preserving "at risk" affordable housing units threatened with imminent
conversion to market rate units.
2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
CDBG are a Federal grant program administered by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. CDBG are administered on a formula
basis to entitled cities, urban counties and states to develop viable urban
communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment
and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-
income individuals. The Urban Core includes areas within the required low and
moderate census tracts. Eligible activities that may be proposed for funding
include, but are not limited to, housing, economic development, and public
facilities and improvements.
3. Business Improvement Districts
Business Improvement Districts (BID) or Property and Business Improvement
Districts (PBID) are mechanisms for assessing and collecting fees that can be
used to fund various improvements and programs within the district. There are
several legal forms of BIDs authorized by California law. The most common types
are districts formed under the Parking and Business Improvement Act of 1989.
Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) formed under the 1989 law impose a fee
on the business licenses of the businesses operating in the area, rather than
the property owners. The collected funds are used to pay for the improvements
and activities specified in the formation documents. A similar assessment
procedure was authorized by the Property and Business Improvement District
(PBID) Law of 1994. The distinction is that the PBID makes the assessment on
the real propertY and not on the business. A PBID is currently in operation in
the Village area. Other areas of the Specific Plan may also be ideally suited for
BID funding.
The range of activities that can potentially be funded through BIDs and PBIDs
is broad, and includes parking improvements, sidewalk cleaning, streetscape
maintenance, streetscape improvements (i.e., furniture, lighting, planting,
etc.), promotional events, marketing and advertising, security patrols, public
art, trash collection, landscaping and other functions. Generally speaking, the
Public Nearing Draft
~ -.).6-:J
BID format works well for marketing and other programmatic activities that
serve to directly benefit area businesses (i.e., tenan.ts), whereas a PBID may be
more appropriate for permanent physical improvements that stand to improve
property values in the area. Given the size and diversity of the Specific Pian
area, it may be appropriate for separate BIDs or PBIDs to be formed for different
regions within the pian area. In this way, the collected funding could be more
specifically targeted to the unique improvement and programmatic needs of
each district.
4. Development Impact Fees
Property tax limitations imposed by Proposition 13, resulting in the decline in
property taxes available for public projects, has led local governments to adopt
alternative revenue sources to accommodate public facility and infrastructure
demands resulting from growth. Development Impact Fees is one of those
sources. AB 1600 (Cortese), which became effective on January 1, 1989,
regulates the way that impact fees are imposed on development projects.
Impact fees are one-time charges applied to offset the additional public facility
provision costs from new development. This may incfude provision of additional
services, such as water and sewer systems, roads, schools, libraries, and parks
and recreation facilities. Impact fees cannotbe usedforoperation, maintenance,
alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities and cannot be channeled
to the local government's discretiC!nary general funds. Impact fees cannot be
an arbitrary am 0 u7'frand must be explicitly linked to the added cost of providing
the facility towards which it is collected.
The City of Chula Vista already has a range of impact fees that are updated
periodically. It is important, however, to realize that there are two primary
aspects of capital costs (based on which impacts fees are collected) - land costs
and building costs. Though the latter can be estimated at a citywide level and
adjusted periodically using appropriate inflation factors, land cost estimation is
more complicated, especially when one considers significant variations in land
values within the city and the necessity to provide land intensive public facilities,
such as parks. As a result the land acquisition component of a standardized
impact fee may not be consistent with the true costs involved.
5. TransNet
In 1987, voters approved the TransNet program - a half-cent sales tax to fund
a variety of important transportation projects throughout the San Diego region.
This 20-year, $3.3 billion transportation improvement program expires in 2008.
In November 2004,67 percent of the region's voters supported Proposition A,
which extends TransNet to 2048, thereby generating an additional $14 billion to
be distributed among highway, transit, and local road projects in approximately
r:l-.t(S&
Public nearing Draft
7. General Fund
equal thirds. In addition, it will support a robust public transportation system,
including new Bus Rapid Transit services and carpooVmanaged lanes along
many of the major freeways. Two percent of the available funds will be
earmarked annually for bicycle paths and facilities, pedestrian improvements,
and neighborhood safety projects. The San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) sets the priorities and allocates TransNet funds.
6. Grant Funding
A variety of funding options are available though Federal, state and local grant
programs. Many of the grant programs target urban revitalization efforts, smart
growth enhancements, and transportation planning and are provided on a
competitive basis. Current grant programs, such as the Smart Growth Incentive
Pilot Program administered through SANDAG, can provide significant funding
towards projects that result in furthering smart growth approaches, such as the
elements embodied in the principles of the Specific Plan.
The City receives revenue from a variety of sources, such as property taxes, sales
taxes, fees for recreation classes and plan checking. Revenue can be generally
classified into three broad categories: program revenue, general revenue and
restricted revenue. Depending on the revenue source, the General Fund may be
~ for a variety of purposes, such as capital improvement projects or streets,
sewers, stormdrains and other infrastructure maintenance improvements.
8. Other FundIng Sources
Examples of other funding sources that may be considered to assist in the
implementation of the community benefits outlined in this chapter include Ad
Valorem Property Taxes, the Sales and Use Tax, the Business License Tax and
the Transient Occupancy Tax.
Public "earlng Draft
d. -cJ,6-rt
K. Community Benefit Analysis
In addition to facilities and amenities outlined by this chapter, as development
proceeds in the Urban Core the specific contributions of each project to the
community shall be analyzed. Each discretionary project application shall be
accompanied bya memorandum form statement of the applicant outlining both
the obligatory contributions of the project (in the form of fees, revenue streams
and direct facilities construction), and any further voluntary contribution to the
community. Voluntary contributions may take the form of:
. Design features of the project, which meets some particular community
need or environmental goal
. Programs associated with the project which may benefit Chula Vistans
directly or indirectly
It is not the intent of this section that the Community Benefit Analysis be used
as criteria for approving or disapproving projects pursuant to this SpeCific
Plan. Rather, the analysis will provide an ongoing framework for citizens to
understand features of the project that positively contribute to Chula. Vista in
ways beyond its physical design.
c2 - d.. ,j-e
Public Nearing Draft
Appendix D. I'acilities Implementation Analysis
~
'ci:.
"'~ ',- If
;-',>,;- -'-
~~; . .', :~',~
'CO "t-
:;~~
q-
l~ ' . :~-;-.:
w;
~~:
f,,"
'-"",
~~ - ""i
- .~:, .
~kj
f:~:
'''',
~jr
~;,~ ' --
'-,;
.-:;
f';:'" ,'.,
~:\~ '
f",:.
~;~ -
).;'
~~:{
:<,
~d~ .
~;i c' :';_
o " ",' ~~':
tJi ~:
~; ~;i
0* ,,~
.X9- '"
,
~I;
-,,,:
'"
,-~.
.'.t~
,;,\;~
'>.'
c'"
,y
,',
.:d
''';J
l:('
:~;~
Public nearing Draft
~<::>(S/
DRAFT REPORT
CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
FACILITIES IMPLEMENT A TION ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
May 18, 2006
EPS #15001
BERKELEY
2501 Ninth St., Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2515
www.cpsys.com
Phone: 510-841-9190
Fax: 510-841-9208
y
ct-.,2~ tJ
SACRAMENTO
Phone: 916~649-8010
Fax: 916-649-2070
I
DENVER
Phone: 303-623-3557
Fax: 303-623-9049
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INlRODUCTION AND SUMMARy OF FINDINGS........................................................... 1
Summary of Findings ...............................................................................................1
II. PuBuc IMPROVEMENT COSTS.................................................................................... 3
m. DEVELOPMENT PROjECTIONS...................................................................................14
IV. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANALySIS............................................................. ....... 17
Calculation of Applicable Impact Fees.................................................................. 17
Development Feasibility Impacts of Impact Fees.................................................26
V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POTENTIAL.......................... ...................................... 30
VI. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................40
ctt--.<c, I
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements .........................................4
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements-
Percentages. ....... ..... ......... .......................... ...... ................. .................................. 8
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements-
Dollar Amounts ................................................................................................10
Allocation of Improvement Costs by Purpose and Geography
through Time ....................................................................................................12
Development Absorption Projections by Time Period.................................. 16
Transportation Development Impact Fee Estimate .......................................19
Transportation Development Impact Fee Projections through Time ...........20
Traffic Signal Development Impact Fee Estimate ..........................................22
Traffic Signal Fee Projections through Time ..............~..................................23
Parks Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Estimate ...........................24
Parks Acquisition and Development Fee Projections through Time............ 25
Total Combined Development Impact Fee Projections through Time......... 27
Feasibility Impacts of Estimated Development Impact Fees ........................28
Projected Tax Increment Available for Urban Core Projects
through Time .................................................................................................... 32
Improvement Costs vs. Projected Tax Increment and Impact Fees
through Time .................................................................................................... 35
Projected Tax Increment Bonding Capacity by Year .....................................36
Projected Tax Increment and Bonding Capacity Available
for Urban Core Projects through Time............................................................ 37
Required Tax Increment Bond and Debt Service to Cover
Years 5-10 ShortfalL........................................... ...............................................38
Figure 1: City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Areas ........................................31
c2.. -~? :z
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) and McGill Martin Self (MMS) have been retained
by the Oty of Chula Vista to prepare a Facilities Implementation Analysis (pIA) for the
Urban Core Specific Plan. The PIA involves the following analyses:
1. Cost estimates, definitions of purpose, and allocation of geographic areas of
benefit for the public improvements called for in the Specific Plan;
2. Projections of development in the Urban Core Specific Plan area over the next
several decades;
3. Identification of public improvements that may be funded through nexus-based
development impact fee programs;
4. Identification of any temporary and overall funding deficits attributable to
shortfalls in fee revenues versus the costs of improvements;
5. Evaluation of the impacts of such fees on the feasibility of new development;
6. Discussion of the availability and applicability of alternative funding
mechanisms, including redevelopment tax increment;
7. Revenue estimates for the tax increment likely to be generated through
redevelopment in the Urban Core.
This analysis is intended to provide the decision-makers of the Oty of Chula Vista with
an understanding of the purposes of various improvements, the extent to which the
development in the Urban Core is likely to support the required costs of those
improvements, and the various mechanisms through which those funds could be
generated. This knowledge will be critical in prioritizing the public infrastructure and
facility investments in various locations and at various times.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This analysis has led to the following conclusions:
1. The public improvements called for in the Urban Core Specific Plan are
estimated to cost a total of $135 million in today's dollars. These improvements
include projects for transportation, traffic signalization, transit, and public spaces
(parks and plazas).
2. A limited group of these public improvements are required to provide new
capacity for development expected to occur in the Urban Core. The remaining
improvements are required to address existing deficiencies and/or aesthetic
1 P: \ 15000s \ 1500 1 ChU/1I Vis~aCortSP \Report \ D51806DrftRpt2.doc
=:1-,,2 ~ 3
Draft Report
Urban Core Spedfic Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
improvements in the Urban Core, and may have wider areas of benefit, including
the Bayfront, Western Chula Vista, or the entire City.
3. Based on the findings and projections of market research, it is estimated that
roughly 3,600 housing units, 259,000 square feet of retail, 1.1 million square feet
of office space, and 650,000 square feet of hotel/motel will be developed in the
Urban Core Specific Plan area through the year 2030. Full buildout of the Urban
Core's expected future development-an additional 3,500 housing units and
200,000 square feet of office-may not occur for several additional decades.
4. The imposition of development impact fees in the Urban Core based only on
those improvements required to mitigate the demands from new development
would result in Transportation and Traffic Signal fees that are below the current
levels being levied in Chula Vista. The Parks Acquisition and Development
(PAD) fee calculated for the Urban Core would be slightly higher than the PAD
fees currently applicable in Western Chula Vista, but well below the current
levels in the Eastern Territories.
5. The impact fee revenues would not cover the full costs of improvements as
detailed in the Specific Plan, and are also expected to lag behind the desired pace
of improvements, which are heavily concentrated in the "5-10 year" timeframe.
In sum, the impact fees calculated herein would be expected to cover roughly
half of the total costs of improvements included in the Specific Plan.-
6. The impact fees, as calculated for the Urban Core, would not materially affect the
feasibility of desired residential or commercial development.
7. The development and continued value escalation of Redevelopment Project Area
parcels within Western Chula Vista is projected to yield a total of nearly $200
million (present value) in tax increment through the year 2036. This does not
include or assume any increase in revenue related to development proposals
currently being discussed for the Bayfront area.
8. If impact fees are levied in the Urban Core as calculated in this document, only
about $67 million or 35 percent of the tax increment would be required to fund
other improvements not covered by the impact fees, leaving roughly $127 million
(present value) for other projects within western Chula Vista redevelopment
areas.
9. Alternative funding sources such as regional or intergovernmental grants,
Capital Improvements Program funds, developer exactions, and land-secured
financing (Mello-Roos districts) may also be appropriate and attainable for
certain improvements, thereby lowering the financial burden on the desired
Urban Core development and allowing more tax increment funds to be used for
other priorities in the aty.
2 P: \ 150005 \15001 ChulflVisfllCoreSP \Report \ 051806DrftRpt2.doc
o? ~ t.,-'I
II. PuBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS
The Urban Core Specific Plan identifies a variety of public facilities for which this
implementation analysis has been prepared. Some of these facilities are required to
provide capacity for new residents, workers, and visitors to the Urban Core. Examples
include intersection and roadway improvements, park improvements, etc. Other public
facilities in the Specific Plan serve users beyond the Urban Core, such as the interchange
and transit improvements that will be used by Bayfront and Eastern Chula Vista
populations as well as those in Urban Core.
City staff, MMS, and EPS have established the list and estimated the costs of public
improvements associated with the Urban Core Specific Plan, as shown on Table 1. The
costs for these improvements have been estimated with contingencies included, and
have been verified as reasonably conservative by City engineering staff. As shown, it is
estimated that the total costs of public improvements for the Urban Core Specific Plan
will total roughly $135 million, in today's dollars.
The list of improvements has been segregated into four categories: transportation
improvements, traffic signals, transit improvements, and public spaces. This
categorization is helpful in estimating the levels of impact fees that would be required to
provide such improvements, and comparing those fees to the existing fees imposed in
the City of Chula Vista.
As Table 1 shows, the majority of the public improvement costs are categorized as
transportation improvements. These include freeway interchange improvements, street
widenings, added turn lanes, roadway restriping, etc. Sidewalk and crosswalk
improvements are also shown in this category, as these improvements would be most
efficiently constructed during the improvement of the streets.
Public spaces comprise the second largest category of costs. Table 1 shows that three
major park improvements would be required under the Specific Plan - Lower
Sweetwater Park, Memorial Park, and Promenade Park The costs of acquiring land and
developing park features are included in these cost estimates. In addition, numerous
plazas are envisioned throughout the Urban Core. These plazas would provide a
different type of public space than would a traditional park, but are similar in providing
public access to places for congregation and recreation.
EPS has assumed that the public space acquisitions and improvements generally would
be phased according to the demands created by residential development in the Urban
Core, but in fact may occur more opportunistically as parcels are available. Also, it is
important to note that the park improvements (excluding the plazas) sum to roughly 33
to 40 acres. This amount may not be adequate for all of the residential development
ultimately envisioned by the Specific Plan, but the total demand is assumed to be met in
combination with proposed plazas in the Urban Core and parks in the Bayfront area
3 P: \ 150005 \ 15001 ChulllVistaCortSP \ Report \ OS1806DrjtRpf2.doc
c;(-O(~
Table 1
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Imp_ntII
Carn......
T...,
COOl
T1mo
F_
D.acrlpllonf
Comments
TRANSPORTA110N IMPROVEMENTS
BayBIvdII.5SBRamplEStrellt
F StreetlmprtMtlTlllnts (1-5 to Fourth Ave.)
Add EB,SB and NB !iaht-tumlanes
F Street Sidewalk Improvements 11-5 to Fourth Ave.l
RestrillllAlRamp $10,000 o-SYllalS
4Sfe8\wlde, IncludesCMisslorll BlkaLane $8,056,000 O-SYllillS
sidllwalkliahtfna $3,813000 0-5 years
AddprolllCltYllplusplllTlllulwpMslng,'dda12'
wldewl$lbol.llldrighllUml,n.12O'Inl.ngth
IndudlldIn C1P $74,000 D-Svears
$74000 o.5YllIrs
$74000 O'S....an
Colltdinlle wlth C.lTnlOs, Only Rnlripe $10,000 0.5vIIlal$
COlltdnlle wlth Carrlllne, Only Restripe '10,000 o-SVllIn
ClKIllllnatll willi CarrlllnS only Rntripe $10,000 0.5viNll'$
RlghlTumlanll,striPlna $10000 D-SViNll1I
RillhtTumlanllils,slri~a $10,000 o-s....an
RlahtTumlanes,stri~g $10,000 D-5viNlrs
Includes8C/11SSWalksailnlllrsediDns $550,000 0.5 years
AssumeSpeelal P'Ying between 14 to 3S'widll
(d.pltndsondlagonalpart(ing)'Sld.....alk
monolfttllt tllrb and gutter, drlvewaysand
sldllWalkllahlino, $1744.,000 0-5YIlIIS
M1dblockCltlulnasandentlaneedsidewalk $954,000 0.5 years
NarrowmostofThinl~veentlreltlad $5.014,000 0.5yulS
AssuITlllilSpeclalPa'lingIl'wideSldew'lk
monollll1lc curb and gutter, drtveways, sldllWalk
liatltina $7469000 So10vears
AssulllllSllImpedPaYinllS'wlde $93,000 5-1011'1S
'Mden Road 14' Newpa'llllment (112' curbto l:lIrtJ
wIIh 12'1lI1sed medlln),sl.reet lights. lane
mllrt/nas,curb,lIutlllrllnddreinllCle S3.De6,OOO So10vIlIrs
New pavem.nt (82' curb 10 curb w~h 12' reised
medlan),SlnIetllghts,llInlllllllfblgS,curb,guttllll"
IlfIddllllnllO' $15635,000 5-10vea"
RllstriPllAtRBmp '10,000 SolO yea"
WklllllESlr-.etSbcFllet300fellllinllllnglh,
IlIllroadBImlI~locat.,~strtpebridge $13iOOO 5-10 years
86' Widll 14' l'lIised median, s~llIllahls 54,951,000 SolO V""
PBg.10f3
FlfthAveII-l S\reel Chanae Approach
Fourtf1AV8/HstreelAddLane
Fourth AveJSR-S4 EB Rlmll Add Lanll
1_5 NB RllmpiE Streel Add Lanll & LRT
1_5 NB RBmPl1'1 Strefll Add LanllsILRTlRllStrlpll
1-5 sa Rllmlll'HStreeIAdd Lanes
Tllin;l AVllIE Sftel ConYBrt Lanes
Thln:l AYIIiIIF SlIHt Convert La",s
Thlnl AveIG SlRllI Convert Uines
ThlrdAvenullCI'O$SWBlkPllYinglVillagllOls1r1ct)
Thln:l Awnue Sidewalk Improvements
T111n:l Awnull Mld/:lloek Imllrovemanls (5 1ft! 50' LF each)
T111n:lAvenuestreetlmllrovemenlsIEtoGSI.l
BroadwllV SlII_lllk lmllf'OwmBnis IC 10 L st.}
Brolldwav$oeeilIIPavina.Crosswalks
BroadwllY SlrH\ Imllf'Owmenls (E to F St.)
BroadwllV street ImproYBmllnls (C 10 Est., F to L SI.)
BroBdwBVISR_54 11\9 Ramll Re$ir111l1
ESlreetlmllf'O'IIlImeIllSI1-5to300'eastofl'llmp)
H SlrlIllt Improvemants ll-5 to BroadwIlV)
EcolI_IPloIIIlIIIoSy.......lM.1JI1117OO/1
~
c:Z&~
SlandarllpaYingofHI'w~lncI.land5CBplnll,
trellwells,ndrumlturelliahtina?
ChanaeNBlSSllllProBehllS
Add EEIIVvB riaht-tum lane
AddEBriatlMumlllne
Add lane and LRT ame HPBf8llon
Add IInll, LRT 11m. uparUJon & I'IIlrtpe
Add sa left. ED t/lru and natlt tum lanllS
Convert to uduslve r1ah\-lUm IanH
Con'llllrttoellduslverilrhl-tuml.alltlS
Conwrt to 8llCIusMl r!Q:h\-tum I,nes
Crosswalkspad&lpaWlaalonaThinlAve
18' wide improwments Ind.landseapJng,
IumKul'll, tree walls, and IlahllllU
3e'wldeImpn:lVllilmentslllmld-blodr;crosslngs
Ind.landsl:llplng,fum~ul'll,lnlllWells,llnd
lIahtina
CrosswalksDBclBloavlnaatE,F,G HStrelllS
Medlin & landscaplng,ighllng. (lUro.guttar,
biklllanllS
Total c:osl ad}us1ad by SElMto Ind. current
TransNel PI'OIIram Improwments,
Restripeirtio$tlal'llldla1klahtlllna
P,115OOOo11MOICIl""'_eC...sF>_S1IOl1te1...IM
Table 1
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
Urben Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Improy.."..
Com_""
T....
coot
-
,-
DN;l;rtptlonl
ComlMm:.
JSIr&8t/I.5NSRarnpA<ldLana Conslructkmreaslblll\yunderrevl_ $10,000 5-10yea~ Add EB iell-l1Jm and VW right-turn lane
LSt...,VSayBIYdSianaVA<ld18ne Construdionreilslbllllyunderrevl_ $ol74,000 5-10 years Add slaMI, SB left.wm, and NB rlllht-tum
standardpavlngll'.13'lncl.landseaplng.
furn~ure, t..., wells and Ightlng. Figure shown
Enhanced landscaping. dliYeWays, sidewalk = SO% ore5llrnate provided due 10 reduced
E Slreet Slreetscepe IrrlPfOYllmenb (1-5 10 Broadway, 3rd Aw. 10 4lh Ave.) lIahtina $2.211.500 10 + Years soopeofaree 10 be lmproYlld.
H street Improvements (Broadway to Third! 70'wlde 14'ralsedmedlan streetlights Si.231,00Q 10" Years
Aseuma Special p...,;ng ill' wide SId__lk
monollthlccurbandgutter,drlv&wllys,slcIewalk
lighting, nellld 38' ROW between t.-5IBroadway, B'
H St...,t Sid_alk. ImproYllments ROW between BroallwaylThin:l A~) $1,988000 10"Yeal1l Does n<ll Ind. addltional ROW C05t5.
Crosswalkspecilllpeving.tThird,Fourth,
HStreeISP&dlIIPavlng.Crossw.Ik$(I.StoThirdAve.} Assume Stamped PaWlg 8' wkle $389000 10 + Yeal1l Flfth,BI'OIdw,y,'Noodl.wn & 1-5
Woodlawn Aw Sid_all; ImproYlHnllnls (E 10 H St.) 2f1wldestandard $1.710000 10"Yellrs
Woodlawn A.... St...,llmprovemenlS (E to G St.) lncklderal$ed median connect 10 H slreet $U8875O 10"Yaars Doesn'lndude land 8CQuil~ion costs
-- <.n
SubtUal, "-~on $70,",,210
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Bay BIYI:lIl-S S8 Ramp SiaMI COOn:linalewithCilllrw.ns&CCV $2S0OCO 5-10 years Add signal
BroadwaylH _el JumperLane Sians, Tralllc 5Qnal Modlllcallon .'"'" 5-10 years Addiumperlanaorlhrulan&
Industrlril BlYdII-S HB Ramo Sianal PetCCV C.rrranscoonllnlllon, $250,000 5-10.,ears Addsialllll
Se<:ond AvelOStrelItAII.wav SttIo "\NfIYStoIll'2S1oDSians $10,000 10 + Yeilrs Conwr1toall-waystoo
Fourth Ave/BriabanestreetSklnalPhase PerCCVaddsklnalheild.ras\r1pe,reprogram $7"000 10"Yaars AddS8rlllhl..l1JmoverlappllaselosiQnal
SIlbtcQI, TmIk S1gMl '121,000
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
CoslperCCV(3 c; 3rdAw," Gl ESt.. 2 II>> At nch shullle SlOp by shllttle loop selVice Ind
Bus$hellers Broa<lway and II 411 H St.} $1139,000 S-10ynrs ~itywlde bus and lransll sei"M:&
SubtoU;l,TraMfl.-npl'DY*nMtS $11',000
&011_ & Plollllit!gSyoNm.. hie. ~t.,.t,!~
Page20r3
P:ll_11_1C1M1l.V;..C....SI'lMo_1051_...>lO
at-=<" 7
Table 1
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
Urban Core Specific Plan FaclDtles Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
.............
Ducltptlon/
c_...
Corn....ra
T....
....
-
,-
PUBUC SPACES
.....
Lower Swaalwlller Park & ImprowrnenlS
Mttmorial Park Annex & P'rll.Jmprovemenls
Promenade Park & Improvements (West of Broadway balween E & H ~1.1
P.....
30:1 A....IH Street PlllZlllmpl'OYllmenls
1.5& FstrMtOYen:rolSlngPlua
TtIinlAve&FStreetPlaza
Third Ave ftI Memorial Park Piau
-4tI1 AvelH SllMI Plaza Improvements
5th AvelH Slr8et PlazlIlrnprovaments
BroadwaylESll'eeIPIIIZII&tmPftlvements
BroldwlYlH Street Pilla & lmol'OY8rnenls
ESt. I!DTrollIyStalfon
H street (!Jl Chula VIsta Canter CMtlf)
HSlrut<<ll'MlodlawnPlaza
1.5 & E snet OvererossinQ Plaza
I.S&HSlree\OvereroS$ltoQPl:lu
(UCSP EsI.l 15-20 ac
(UCSPEsll3-5.c
{UCSP Esl) 15.c
Subtotal.P1Irb
$30000,000
$7,500,000
122.000,000
$O,lllO.ooo
Existing
"""'"
"50'"
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$500,000
$350,000
$350000
$350000
$350,000
$3SO,ODD
$350,000
5350,000
Subtotlll, PIuu $4.,700,000
Subtotal, All PIIbllc S~llS (Pam and PI&zQ) $II4,ZOO,OOO
TOTAL. AU PUBUC FACIUT1E8 AND INFftASTftUCTURE IMPROveMENTS $131.....210
5-10yea~
10+Yea~
10+YeI~
O-S\I1IlI~
O-Svevs
0-5\111l1rl1
o-5yea~
5-10yearll
S-10yearll
5-10ye.~
5-10ve.~
5-10ye8~
10+Ye.~
10+Ye.~
10 + Y8ars
10+Yea~
Unftcosts8resxpr1Issadin2005dolllrsthroliQhthesn\irespreadsheelandwlll
be subjeclto chanQe, Nurnbersarero\lndedlolhelhollsandtttsd~8r.
SctImN: CitydChula VIlta'McGilfMartin Salf; Economic&~f1 Syatoma, Inc,
EGlHIO,,"cIPl"nn/llgSyolWr!../nc.SI1et.!OOI
Paoe3of3
d -02 i. f?'
P,11-.t15001Cb"",vtarorc...SPw_IllS1.-.,,'"
Draft Repart
Urban Care Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
The costs for transit improvements and traffic signals are fairly minimal in the Urban
Core Specific Plan, with each category representing less than $1 million.
Tables 2 and 3 further define the costs of various improvements according to the
purpose of each improvement and the geographical areas of benefit. These distinctions
are critical in understanding the nexus between new development in the Urban Core
and the need for additional improvements, as well as identifying costs that should be
borne by a larger geographic area than just the Urban Core. For example, new
development in the Urban Core may not be responsible for fully funding improvements
that will substantially benefit new development in the Bayfront area or existing
development in the Eastern Territories. EPS has worked with Oty staff to conceptually
allocate the costs for various improvements by purpose and geography. Table 2 shows
these allocations by percentage of costs, while Table 3 calculates the actual dollars
amounts implied by those allocations.
It is important to note that the improvements shown as being the responsibility of the
Urban Core to provide new capacity are only those improvements identified as required
for mitigation in environmental in1pact assessments. All other costs are "optional" in
the sense that they are not required for environmental mitigation, and thus would not be
wholly attributable to new development in the Urban Core. This distinction represents a
highly conservative assumption regarding the nexus requirements for impact fees, as it
is possible that other improvements intended to serve new Urban Core development
may also be eligible for impact fee funding. This present study is not intended to fully
document the nexus relationships between development and needed improvements;
such analysis would be required separately prior to the adoption of any impact fees
unique to the Urban Core.
Table 4 provides an estimate of the improvement costs by category, purpose, and
geography in three different time periods-within five years, five to ten years, and ten
or more years. This assessment distinguishes those improvements that are most critical
to support new development in the near term from those that are likely to be required
only as the Urban Core undergoes substantial new development. As Table 4 shows,
most of the costs attributable to the need for added capacity for development in the
Urban Core are associated with public spaces. The transportation improvements are
largely allocated to Otywide responsibility, as many of the improvements are required
or desired to enhance traffic flow and the urban experience on major corridors that serve
the entire Oty rather than just Urban Core populations. Again, the Urban Core is
assigned only those transportation improvements identified as being required to
mitigate additional traffic associated with new development in the Urban Core-the
remaining costs are assumed to be more broadly shared.
It is important to note that several improvements envisioned for the Urban Core area are
not included in this analysis, for various reasons. Parking structures for the transit
stations and for the Village have not been included as costs in this Urban Core facilities
analysis, because they serve a Oty-wide or even regional population and may be funded
through other means. Similarly, the costs of building pedestrian paseos have not been
c:;::( ~ t 9 P:\15000s\15001ChulIlVistllOJreSP\Report\051806DrjtRpt2.doc
Table 2
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements - Percentage.
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
'--
,...,
Coot
-
,..".
% NMdad For:
-
~ A!I:IIn!rl
-..
-
~,
-
!O'i.
CIty-
"'*
TRANSPORTAT1ON IMPROVEMENTS
,
va. va.
"",-
..
$10000 ., ,. 100% .'" 33%
$6056000 ., ,. 100% 100%
$3813000 ., ,. 100% 100%
$74,000 ., ,. 100% 100%
$74000 .. ,. 10'" 100%
$74000 .. ,. 10'" '00%
$10000 0-5 ". 10'" .'" 33%
$10000 .. ,. 100% .'" 33%
$10000 ., ,. '00% .'" 33%
10000 .. ,. 100% 100%
$10000 .. ,. 100% 100%
510000 .. ,. 100% 100%
50000 ., ,. 100% 100%
$1744000 0-5 ". 100% 100%
$954000 0-5 ". 100% 100%
$5014000 0-5 100% 100%
$74t19ee&--- ~10 100% 100%
100%
100%
~
SubtDQJ,TIII~tIon $70,4H.250
TRAFFIC SIGNAl..
$250000
'36000
$250000
$10000
574000
5-10 Irs
5-10 Irs
5-10 Irs
10+YlllllS
10+YUB
100%
'00%
'00%
100%
100%
57%
100%
57%
100%
100%
33%
33%
Subtotal,TrafllcSl;nIIl
$A22,llOD
E..".....-c&P1~.s,v.m..!""_5I1Irl(lOll
Page1of2
P,11_1~ICI,,"'_Ca...sP\M_I_'"
cf( -.1 7' ()
$169000 ~" ... 100% 100.
swtotal, Trw....1t ImprowIMntI $119,000
...
...
roo ~
Samtotll,Parb ...........
Table 2
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements - Percentage.
Urban Core Specific Plan Faclllttes Implementation Anatysla; EPS #15001
ImprowlMnIa
T....
Coot
-
F~_
TRANSIT IIPROVEMENTS
BusShellllB
PUBUC SPACES
"
SUbtoUII.Pluu $4,700,000
Subtotl.l, All Public SpIIc.. (p.1b IWl P\Qu) $1(,200,000
TOTAL, ALL PUBLIC FAClLmES AND INFRASTRucnJRE IMPROVEMENTl! $1S5AP,2fiO
Un~costsil"explusedin2005dolilrslhlOughlheentirespl'tladlhecltand....;J1
be subjecl to change. NumbersallllOundedtolhet/louSilndlhsdollal.
Soutt:u..otyolChulilViatil;McGillMwtinSillf,.Economic&PfilMingSystsms,lnc,
E<KIII_.&~$1SI""..ln..Y'I_
Page 2 012
dZ -;;( '1 /
% NMcIH For:
-
- -
100%
100%
100%
'00%
'00%
100%
'00%
100%
100%
_.
....
100%
100%
100%
'00%
100%
'00%
100%
'00%
100%
100%
"0%
o.a Ic:el RiM
"y.
f!OIll
-
s;&
CIty.
-
P:lf_'500'C~"~Co",S__IOS1_LlIIII
Table 3
Allocation of Public Facilities and Inf....tructure Improvements - Dollar Amounts
Urban Core Speclftc Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
T"'" - . NHded For: ...
............"" COot F_ - ..... .... - CIty.
- - !:sa fmDl ~ "'*
TRANSPORTATION lMPROVEfoENTS
.... $10000 l).5 ~ $10000 " "700 $3300 " "
1-5 to Foutth Ave 16056000 ~, ~ so .....000 so so 56058000 so
ements 1-5 \0 Fourth Ave. $3813,000 l).5 ~ so $3813,000 so so $3813000 so
$74000 ~, ,. $74000 so $74000 so " so
$74000 ~, ,. $74000 so $74000 so " so
$74000 l).5 ,. $74000 so $74000 so " so
$10,000 ~, . $10000 so "700 $3300 so so
10000 ~, ,. $10000 so 700 13300 so so
10000 ~, ,. 110000 so '6700 $3300 so so
$10000 ~, ,. so $10000 " so so $10000
$10000 ~, ,. so $10,000 " , " $10000
$10000 ~5 ~ so $10000 so so " $10000
District $550,000 l).5 ,. " ""000 " " " $550000
$1744000 ~5 ~ so $1744000 so " " $1744000
LFeach $954000 l).5 . so $954000 so " " $954000
~ $5014000 l).5 " $5014000 " " " $5014,000
'" $7489000 5-10 " $7.469000 " so " $7.469000
$3,066000 " $3086,000
$15,&35,000 " $15,835,000
" "
so "
1,10750
"
" $1710000 " "
" $4668750 " "
8Llbtotal.Tnlr~r1lltlon "......... $6,....000 IU,W,25(j $11,471,'10 '1,1U,'20 $1a,V74,7$(J ,,"-1",000
llWF1C ~......
B BivdlI-5SBRa " $250000 5-10 ,. "50000 " $167500 $62500 " "
B~ IHStre.tJll La", $38000 5-10 ,. $38000 " $3.000 " " "
IndustrialBM:UI-5NBR Sin. $250000 5-10 ,. ""000 " $187500 $82,500 SO "
SecondAveJQ lraetAl Sto $10000 10+Yealll $10000 " $10000 " " "
FOllrth AvetBrieblne sn-\ Si nal Phase $74000 10 + Yealll $74000 " 74000 " " "
SUbtotIII, TrafficSlllnal $8"'000 $8"'000 " _.... "...... SO SO
E'_o.~s~"",.ytl/'%l:lOe Pagl1of2 ".1f_I5001Cll.ul'18tlc-SfJIM_,II_..m
cd{ -ot 70'<
Table 3
Allocation of Public Facllftles and Infrastructure Improvements - Dollar Amounts
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementatlon Analysis; EPS #15001
e.2 -~ l' C3
Table 4
Allocation of Improvement Costs by Purpose and Geography through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Improvement Category Geography
0-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years
Total
Transportation Costs
New Capacity
Urban Core $248,800 $3,744,580 $0 $3,993,380
Bavfronl $13200 $1 839420 ~ $1.852620
Tolal $262,000 $5,584,000 $0 $5,846,000
Amenity
Urban Core $0 $0 $7,484,500 $7,484,500
Bayfronl $0 $0 $0 $0
Western Chula Vista $9,869,000 $0 $1,105,750 $10,974,750
Citywide $8.292.000 $26.263.000 $11.608.000 $46 163.000
Total $18,161,000 $26,263,000 $20,198,250 $64,622,250
Traffic Signals
New Capacity
Urban Core $0 $373,000 $84,000 $457,000
Bavfronl ~ $165.000 ~ $165.000
Total $0 $538,000 $84,000 $622,000
Transit Improvements
Amenity
Urban Core $0 $0 $0 $0
Bayfronl $0 $0 $0 $0
Weslern Chula Vista $0 $0 $0 $0
Citvwide ~ $169000 ~ $169.000
Total $0 $169,000 $0 $169,000
Public Spaces
New Capacity
Urban Core $1,400,000 $31,900,000 $30,900,000 $64,200,000
Total Improvements
New Capacity
Urban Core $1,648,800 $36,017,580 $30,984,000 $6B,650,380
Bavfronl $13200 $2.004.420 . ~ $2.017.620
Tolal $1,662,000 $38,022,000 $30,984,000 $70,668,000
Amenity
Urban Core $0 $0 $7,484,500 $7,484,500
Bayfronl $0 $0 $0 $0
Weslern Chula Vista $9,869,000 $0 $1,105,750 $10,974,750
Citvwide $8.292.000 $26.432.000 $11 608.000 $46.332.000
Tolal $18,161,000 $26,432,000 $20,198,250 $64,791,250
Sources: City of Chula Vista; McGill Marlin Self; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5/1812006 P:\1SOOOs\15001Chu/aV;s.CoreSPIModtJ/s\051806tbleu/s
:L-.271
Draft Report
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 20/J6
included, as it is assumed that private development would be encouraged to construct
these as part of their site plans. The costs of wastewater treatment facilities required to
serve new development are assumed to be fully funded through existing user fee
programs. And finally, the costs for grade crossings at E and H Streets are to be funded
through SANDAG as regional transportation improvements that will appropriately rely
on a combination of locaL state and federal transportation dollars.
c1' -c:; 7SP,\15000,1l5001ChUI,V;,""",",SP\R<po.,\051806DiftRP".d"
III. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The Urban Core Specific Plan proposes new rones to implement new development and
redevelopment within designated areas consistent with the Oty's General Plan over the
next 20 to 25 years. Because of the current developed condition of the Urban Core, and
the unique nature of urban revitalization, the exact extent, timing and sequence of infill
development and redevelopment pursuant to the new zones is unpredictable and
depends on a variety of factors. These include, but are not limited to, long-term viability
associated with recent development; longevity of other existing residential and
commercial uses that may not redevelop over the 25 year planning horizon; preservation
of significant historic structures; and development costs associated with the acquisition,
demolition, and cleanup of urbanized land. To that end, the Specific Plan anticipates the
following projected buildout over the life of the plan consistent with the General Plan:
Type of Development
Net New Development Potential In
Urban Core at Full Bulldout
7,100 units
1,650,000 square feet
1 ,300,000 square feet
650,000 square feet
Multifamily Residential
Retail
Commercial
Hotel/Motel
Previous analyses generated by Economics Research Associates (ERA) projected the
amount of various types of development that are likely to occur during the next several
decades. The ERA work, presented in a documented entitled City of Chula Vista Urban
Core Specific Plan Market Analysis Gune 2, 2005), indicated the following assumptions
could represent an aggressive growth scenario for the Urban Core through 2030:
Development Type
Residential
Office
Total Demand through 2030
3,639 Units
1 , 122,000 Square Feet
Average Annual Absorption
146 Units
44,880 Square Feet
Note that the ERA study indicated that there would be no net new retail development in
the Urban Core, as the report determined that the Urban Core already had as much
retail as could be envisioned for the future. Also, the ERA report did not attempt to
estimate demand and absorption for hotel/motel space.
To estimate the total new development in the Urban Core over the next several decades,
EPS has used the ERA absorption projections for residential and office space, shown
above, and created new projections for retail and hotel/motel uses. The retail projections
are based On the amount of retail square footage envisioned in development projects
currently proposed or in various stages of the development pipeline. These retail square
footage figures were provided by City staff. EPS's hotel/motel projections assume that
lodging development will be fully built out by 2030, because of high demand in the
Urban Core as the developments and amenities envisioned for the Bayfront are
completed.
14 P: \ 15000s \ 15001 Chw" YisfaCoreSP \Report \ OS1806DiftRpt2.doc
~-c2. 7(.,
Draft Report
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
In Sum, EPS has assembled the development projections for the Urban Core Specific
Plan Area shown on Table 5, These figures are applied to the various analyses that
follow in the next Chapter of this Report.
c:r -0:271 P,\l5000,\l500IChul.Vi'fRC",SP1R'T""tl051806DrftRpt2.doc
Table 5
Development Absorption Projections by TIme Period
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Absorption Projections by Time Period
Land Use Category 0-5 years 5~10 years 10-25 years >25 Vears Total
Residential Units 730 730 2,179 3,461 7,100
Retail Square Feet (1) 234,000 25,000 0 0 259,000
Office Square Feet 224,400 224,400 673,200 178,000 1,300,000
HoteUMotel Square Feet 130,000 130,000 390,000 0 650,000
(1) Total retail absorption is well below capactty created in the Specific Plan, corresponding to ERA's mar1l;et analysis findings.
Only retal! square footage included in currently proposed projects is assumed to be built in Urban Core.
Sources: Ctly of Chula Vis1a; EconomIcs Research Associates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & PfennlngSy$tem"Inc. 5/1812006
P:lfSOOOslf5001ChuhJVI.s:tllCoreSP\fofoo1e/.s'0518061b/e,f. xis
d!. o:! 7 JY
IV. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Enabled by AB 1600, development impact fees are required to establish the "nexus" or
quantitative relationship between new development's demands on infrastructure, and
the costs to provide capacity to meet those demands. Jurisdictions may not charge
development impact fees that exceed the nexus-based costs attributable to new
development. While this Facilities Implementation Analysis is not intended to establish
the nexus for development impact fees at the level of engineering detail required for a
legally defensible ordinance, it provides an estimate of the levels of fees that could be
charged to new development in accordance with nexus principles, and evaluates the
effects that such added costs may have on the feasibility of the types of development
desired in the Urban Core.
This analysis calculates what fees might be charged by impact type, based on the
development projected for the Urban Core Specific Plan alone, as a test of the feasibility
of the plan. For reference, the discussion refers to transportation development impact
fees ("TransDIF"), the Park Acquisition and Development Fee ("PAD"), and other terms
generally used in Chula Vista based on existing fee programs. However, this analysis is
restricted to the public improvement projects of the Urban Core Specific Plan and the
developments projected to take place within that plan area It is not expected that the
City would establish a separate fee structure within this limited geography. Thus, at
such time as a TransDIF is established for this area, or future adjustments are made to
the PAD fees, those fees may vary significantly from fue-estimates contained in this
report.
CALCULATION OF APPLICABLE IMPACT FEES
As discussed in Chapter II, the public facilities included in the Urban Core Specific Plan
can be aggregated into only a few categories:
. Transportation Improvements -street widening, turning lanes, sidewalks and
crosswalks, etc.
. Traffic Signals-lights, stop signs, phasing, etc.
. Transit Improvements-bus shelters
. Public Spaces-acquisition and development of parks and plazas
Of these categories, it is clear that the costs for certain transportation improvements,
traffic signals, and public spaces would be eligible for funding through development
impact fees, as they are demonstrably related to new development and impact fees
currently exist for these purposes. Transit improvements are not as definitively related
to new development in the Urban Core, as they may represent expanded services that
serve the whole City or region, rather than just the residents, workers, and visitors of the
Urban Core.
~-=<77P
P: \ 150005 \ 15001 Ch"lo. VistaCoreSP \&port \ OS1806DrftRpt 2.dac
Draft Report
Urban Core Specific PlDn Facilities Implementaticm Analysis
May 18, 2006
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Certain transportation improvements are required to provide additional capacity on the
existing roadway network, so that the vehicular traffic added from residents, workers,
and visitors of the Urban Core will not cause congestion that causes health or safety
problems. The City currently imposes a Transportation Development Impact Fee
(TransDlF) on development in the Eastern Territories, and has proposed a similar fee to
be applied throughout the City. The TransDIF in the Eastern Territories was structured
for "greenfield" development, and in some cases is applied on a per-acre basis that does
not reflect the conditions of the Urban Core, where redevelopment and higher density
uses will be more prevalent than development on vacant land, and per-acre densities
and mixes of uses will be more variable.
Transportation improvements are typically allocated to development based on trip
generation-the number of vehicular trips that various types of development are likely
to generate on the local road network. Trip generation varies by the type of
development (residential, retail, office, etc.) and the context of the development
(pedestrian-oriented mixed-use area vs. auto-oriented area). Table 6 shows trip
generation assumptions and calculations for the Urban Core Specific Plan at full
buildout. As shown, it is projected that development in the Urban Core will generate
over 100,000 daily vehicular trips at buildout, with residential development being
responsible for the largest proportion of these trips.
Table 6 also applies the trip generation calculations to the costs for transportation
improvements attributable to new development in the Urban Core, and calculates the
fees that may be applicable to each type of development. As the table also illustrates, the
calculated TransDlF's for all land uses in the Urban Core are substantially lower than
those fees currently applied to new development in Eastern Chula Vista.
It is important to note that the costs used to calculate these TransDlF estimates do not
include 100 percent of the projected costs of transportation improvements, as a large
portion of those costs is required to address existing operational and aesthetic
deficiencies and/or are assumed to be shared with development elsewhere in the City.
Table 7 compares the projected timing of TransDlF funding from new development in
the Urban Core to the expected timing of various improvement costs. As shown, a
disproportionate amount of improvement costs are shown to be desired in the five- to
ten-year timeframe, creating a deficit in that period. In such instances, either projects
would need to be deferred until more TransDlF funding is available from new
development, or an alternative funding source would need to be utilized, which could
then be back-filled with TransDIF funds as the development occurs in subsequent years.
18 P: \ 15000s\15001ChulaVisfaCoreSP\&port\051806DrjtRpt2.doc
J-ofgtJ
Table 6
Transportation Development Impact Fee estimate
Urban Core Speciflc Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
&tI1M"d
.......... T...._
...- DeYIiopIMntat ........ p........... PotItfttIaIF..
TrarrlcSlg,.IF..{1) DowIopmo" Bldldout Trtp9llntratl:on TalTrlpaI ..T.... ........ ,.r Unit or Sq. ~.ofPropcHclor
Aollvhy- Land U..C1a..lflcatlon by....... IUnltaofSq.Ft.) ....lloy """ "po TotalCoata R. ExIatIngF.-s(Z)
Raaldantl.ll Condo/Duplex 60% 4,260 .DU 34,080 31.7% $1,265,887 1217
- "" ..... """ 1L2l2 1M>\ ......., 1m
TOIIVAverage 100% 7,100 51,120 47.5% $1,898,830 1217 S4,020-~,030IUnlt
.."" Colrmert:iaVRetailCentef 50% 129,500 4011000 SF 5,180 4.8% $192.409 .....
COIITTlIJnily Shopping Centllr 40% 103,600 8011000 SF 8,288 7.7% $307,654 12.17
R..~taurantllounllll lOll ""'" ""'""-'E !.lli. WI nwzr I!.H
T1I1BVAwraga 100% 259,000 17,612 16.4% $654,190 ...., $5.08.$12.301SF
'""'" ClIrrtI'l&reialollice building <100.000 SF '0% 390,000 20i1000SF 7,BOD 7.3% $289,728 $0.1"
Co.""..reialotfiCII buildini "'100,000 SF 50% 650,000 1711000 SF 11,050 10.3% $410,<<7 ....,
Corpcratlollicebulldlni(singllluSIlr) 10% 130.000 1411000 SF 1,820 1,7% $67,603 .....
:;; Meti~Udentalbuildina '"" """"" "'""'-'E ..". ..... llillill I1dI
TotaVAVllrBglI 100% 1,300,000 27,170 25.3% $1,009,218 ..,,. $2.08.$8.04JSF
HotellMoI81 HlItelwi coowntion& reslllurant(3) 50% 325,000 101RlIlIm 6,109 5.7% $22tl,917 ..,,.
"""'-'2l m moo2 ~ ..... "'" -.m -
TolaVAwragll 100% 650,000 11,607 10.8% $431,142 ..,.. $3.23-$I.l.04/SF
T.... 107,509 100% $3,993,380
(l)Tl'RfficS.gnalFeeauumpllonsBreusedbllCllusBlhIIyexplIClIIySlIIIIlhlllripgllnllratillnlactorsnllClIISi1rytoallotalllcostJ..
(2) For residentill1, proposed flies providlld by City staff. For non-resldantiBI, EPS estimatad I", ~sed on Eastem TefTftories flies (applied on pllr~CtII basis).
adju.ted for likllly denl1511s of deYlllopment in UrtHln Core.
(3) Assul1"es hotelslmotel. at 53Z aYllr1lgl1 gRlss square feet perroom.
SlIlIroeS: CityofCtrIlI. Vista; McGill Martin ~If; Eoonomic & Pftwfing Sy$fem.s, me.
_~I'lomIIIIv'__ ~"....
P.11_,SOO1CllllllrVl..eo..sPIM_51_......
c:<.-~9 /
Table 7
Transportation Development Impact Fee Projections through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Trame Signa' Fee (1) estimated 0-5vearw 5.10 years 10+ years Tota'
Activity Type Land Use CI...Iftc8Uon TtlnsOlF UnitS/SF Fees UnllslSF F.., Units/SF Fees Units/SF Fees
Residential Condo/Duplex $297 438 $130,155 438 $130,155 3,_ $1,005,578 4,260 $1,265.887
Aoartments .tm 292 $65 077 ;m $65077 ~ $502 789 2M!! $632 943
Tolal/Average $267 730 $195,232 730 $195,232 5,640 $1,508,366 7,100 $1,898,830
Retail CommerciallRetail Center $1.49 117,000 $173,837 12,500 $18,572 0 $0 129,500 $192,409
Community Shopping Center $2.97- 93,BOO $278.138 10,000 $29,716 0 '0 103,600 $307,854
RestauranllLounae ~ 23400 $139089 <JiQQ $14858 Q E 25 900 5153927
Tetal/Average $2.53 234,000 $591,044 25,000 $63,146 0 '0 259,000 $654,190
Offlc. Commercial office building <100,000 SF $0.74 67,320 $50,Q11 67,320 $50,011 255,360 $189,705 390,000 $289,728
Commercial office building >100,000 SF $0.63 112,200 $70,850 112,200 $70,850 425,600 $268,748 650,000 $410,447
Corporate office building (single user) $0.52 22,440 $11,669 22,440 $11,669 85,120 $44,264 130,000 $67,603
~ Medlcal/dental bulldino .l1M 22440 $41 676 22 440 $41 676 85120 $158 087 130 000 5241440
Total/Average $0.78 224,400 $174,207 224,400 $174,207 851,200 $680.805 1,300,000 $1,009,218
HotellMotel Hotel wI coovention & restaurant (2) $0.70 65,000 $45,383 65,000 $45,383 195,000 $136,150 325,000 $226,917
Motel (3) ~ = ~ 65 000 $40845 195 000 $122535 ~ $204 225
Total/Average $0.66 130,000 $86,228 130,000 $66,228 390,000 $258,685 650,000 $431,142
Tob" TransDlF Fees $1,046,711 $518,813 $2,427,858 $3,993,380
Tot..1 Cas" Eltglblll for TransDlF (Urban Core Only) $248,800 $3,744,580 '0 $3,993,380
TranaDIF Surplusl(Def1c1t) in each Period m7,911 ($3,225,787) $2,427.858 ${I
(1) Traffic Signal Fee assumptions are used because they explicitly state the trip generation factors necessary to allocate costs.
(2) Assumes hotels at 650 gross square feet per room
(3) Assumes motels at 450 gross square feet per room
Soun:es: City of Chula Vista; McGill Martin Self; E.conomic & Planning Systems, Inc.
E""na"*""PIMningS,.......IIIc.SI1Il12OOlS
P:\1.5OOO.r\15001Chu/8V1s18CoreSP'ModmIOS18OtJtbles.xl$
~-~;~
Draft Report
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Traffic signals are required to safely and efficiently manage the flow of the vehicular
traffic added from residents, workers, and visitors of the Urban Core. The City currently
imposes a Traffic Signal Fee on most development projects throughout the City. The
Traffic Signal Fee is allocated to development based on trip generation. Table 8 applies
the trip generation calculations to the costs for traffic signal improvements, and
calculates the fees that may be applicable to each type of development
Table 8 also compares the Traffic Signal Fees as calculated for the Urban Core to those
currently applied to new development in Chula Vista As shown, the projected Traffic
Signal Fees for all land uses in the Urban Core are substantially lower than those
currently levied by the City.
Table 9 compares the projected timing of Traffic Signal Fee funding from new
development in the Urban Core to the expected timing of various improvement costs.
As with the TransDIF improvements, a disproportionate amount of traffic signal
improvement costs is shown to be desired in the .five to ten year timeframe, creating a
deficit in that period.
PUBLIC SPACES
Public spaces are also eligible for impact fee funding, as the amount of acreage required
for parks and plazas is based on the residential population of an area, and is required to
meet or exceed 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The City has an existing Park Acquisition
and Development (PAD) fee ordinance, which is applied at one price level in the Eastern
Territories and another (lower) level in Western Chula Vista PAD fees are applied only
to residential and hoteVmotel development-retail and office projects are not currently
required to contribute to park acquisition and development costs.
In the City's current PAD fee structure, the fee paid per hotel/motel room is 57.7 percent
of the fee paid per residential unit. Table 10 uses this ratio to allocate the estimated
costs of park and plaza improvements included in the Urban Core Specific Plan. Table
10 also compares the PAD Fees as calculated for the Urban Core to those currently
applied to new development in Chula Vista. As shown, the calculated Urban Core fees
are somewhat higher than the fees currently imposed in Western Chula Vista, but well
below the fees being levied in the City's Eastern Territories.
Table 11 compares the projected timing of PAD funding from new development in the
Urban Core to the expected timing of various improvement costs. Once again, a
disproportionate amount of improvement costs is shown to be desired in the five- to ten-
year timeframe, creating a deficit in that period. If park additions are required in
proportion to population increases (3.0 acres per 1,000 population), this timing
cf -o? P321
P: \ 1500Qs \ 15001 ChulaVisfaCoreS P \Report \ 051806DrftRpt2.doc
Table 8
Traffic Signal Development Impact Fee estimate
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
T...._
......... o.w!opment c,.......
"'.- atBulldout Proportlo,.. Powndal,.. Appllabla
Trlltnc:Slgnal....landu.. o.".lopm,nt IUnllslSq. Trlp GenemlDn TotlIITrlpat Perul'ltot ......... pwUnltl8q. TrafllcSlgnld
AdlvttyType CI...lftcatlOll OJ""''''' FlAt_il) po,.,.. Do, T__ TatalCosls ....- '"
Raakl,nti... Condo/Duplex ""' "" ""'U 34,080 31.7% $144,665 $3<1.01 $213.20
- "" ..... """ 1LO<J! ,..". ill.ill ...... llii.iQ...
TOIBVAverage '''"' 7,100 51,120 47.5% $217,297 PO..1
....., CommercialJRatallCentar ,,. 129,500 4011000 SF 5.18C1 4.8% $22,019 $0.17 $1.07
Community Shopping Center .,. 103,800 80!1000SF 8.288 7.7% $35.230 $0.34 $2.13
R,,~laut.ntJlDunae "" ....,. ""'-"'-'" ill< ...,. lli.lli WI ......
TotaIfAVIIflIgII 100% 259,000 17,612 18."'" $74,864 .....
om.. Commercial ofllce bulldlnll"'100,OOO SF ,,% 390,000 20/1QOOSF 7,aoo 7.3% $33,15t1 ..... $0.53
Commercial oMce building ,.1 00,000 SF '"% 650,000 17/1DOOSF 11,050 10.3% 504&.971 $0.07 $0.45
Corporate office bulldlnll (slngl. UMI) ,,% 130,000 14/'lOOOSF 1,820 1.7% $7.7311 ..... $0.37
Uedlr..8Ud..nllllbulldlnn "" Lmllll >OL1mlIlli ..... ..". = Wi ill>.
TotaUAwrage 100% 1,300,000 27.170 25.3% $115,492 $0.0,
HGtllIIMGtIII HOltll wi convention & restaurant (1) ,,% .U 1OJRoom 1I,1te-- 5.7% SZ5,972 ....., SZllll.501Room
""'"" "" ill ...... ..... "'" "'-ill ...... SZ3985lRoom
TotaUAverage 100% 1,222 11,809 10.8% $49.347 ......
Toto' 107,511 ",% $457,000
(1) Assumes hotels at IISO gm" $Quare filet par room
(2) Assumes motels at 450 gross square filet per room
SOUl"Ce$-" City of Chule v,$//J; McGIll Marlin Self; Ecooomir; & Planning Systems, Inc;.
_~"""""I,-........Ifl_
"",_.".,_I"*Ccn_'__
~-4.E~
Table 9
Traffic Signal Fee Projections through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
0-5y..rs 5-10y..rs 10+ years lobll
Estimated Unlts/SFI Units/SFI Unils/SFI Unlts/SFI
AcUvlty Type Land U.. Classfflcatlon Fee Rooms Fees Rooms Fees Rooms Fees Rooms Fees
Residential CondolOuplex $34.01 438 $14,895 438 $14,895 3,384 $115,076 4,260 $144,865
Acartmenls $25.50 m $7447 m $7447 2256 557 538 2840 $72432
Total/Average $30.61 730 $22,342 730 $22,342 5,640 $172,614 7.100 $217,297
Retail Commertial/Retail Center $0.17 117,000 $19,693 12,500 $2,125 0 '0 129,500 $22.019
Community Shopping Center $0.34 93,600 $31,829 10,000 $3,401 0 '0 103,600 $35,230
RestaurantILounae SO.68 23400 lli.ill 2500 1LZQll Q lQ 25900 .lli.lli
Tolal/Average $0.29 234,000 $67,636 25,000 $7,226 0 '0 259,000 $74,864
Offlce Commercial office building <100,000 SF $0.09 67,320 $5,723 67,320 $5,723 255,360 $21,709 390,000 $33,156
.-:. Commercial office building >100,000 SF _$.0.07 112,200 - $8,108 112,200 $8,108 425,600 $30,755 650,000 $46,971
w Corporate office building (single user) $0,06 22,440 $1,335 22,440 $1,335 85,120 $5,066 130,000 $7,736
Medical/dental buildina $0.21 22440 ~ 22440 ~ 85120 $18091 ~ $27 630
Total/Average $0.09 224,400 $19,936 224,400 $19,936 851,200 $75,621 1,300,000 $115,492
Hotel/Motel Hatel wi convention & restaurant (1) $42.51 122 $5,194 122 $5,194 367 $15,581 811 $25,968
Mate1(2) 538.26 .ill. H.lli m H.lli ;m ~ ill .m.w.
TotalfAverage $40.38 244 $9,868 244 $9,868 733 $29,603 1,222 $49,339
Total Tramc Signal Fees Projected (rounded) $119,800 $59,400 $277 ,BOO $4fi7,OOO
Total Coat. Eligible for Traffic Signal Fee. (Urban Core Only) $0 $373,000 $84,000 $4fi7,OOO
Traffic S/gneJ Surplus/(Det1cJt) In each Period $f19,8OO ($313,100) $193,800 $0
(1) Assumes hotels at 850 gross square feet per rootIf1
(2) Assumes motets at 450 gross square feet per room
Sources: City of Chufa Vista; McGiN Marlin Self; Economic & Planning.$ysfems, Inc.
ECOIlOIl!k'~SyaI......ItH;_!V1&'2005
P:\15OOOs"\150()jChlll.Vistll~PMode~10518()6tbfes.)(/~
cf( -~ R.6-
Table 10
Parks Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Estimate
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Total New Currently Currently
Development at Proportionate Potential Fee Applicable Applicable
Bulldout Share of Total per PAD Fee in PAD Fee in
Activity Type (UnitsIRooms) Costs UnltIRoom Western CV Eastem CV
Residential 7,100 $58,404,955 58,228.05 $6,651.00 -$12,352.00
HotellMotel (1) 1,222 $5,790,086 54,738.20 $3,835.00 $7,122.00
Total (rounded) $64,200,000
~).Assumes hotels/motel rooms pay 57.6% of the fees paId by reSidential units,
as in current ordinance, and average 532 gross square feet per room.
Sources: City of Chula Vista; McGill Martin Self; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic&PlanninQS)'3tems,/nc. 5I18'200d
P:\15QOO$\15001ChullJVlstltCCII"8SPIModlIII'10518tHJtb/es.lCls
~~~?~
Table 11
Parks Acquisition and Development Fee Projections through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Activity Type
Estimated
Fee
0-5 years
Unitsl Fees
Rooms
5-10 years
Units! Fees
Rooms (rounded)
10+ years
UnitsJ Fees
Rooms (rounded)
Total
Units! Fees
Rooms (rounded)
ResldenUal
$8,226.05
730 $6,010,000 730 $6,010,000 5,640 $46,390,000 7,100 $58.410,000
244 $1,160,000 244 $1,160,000 733 $3,470,000 1,222 $5,790,000
$7,170.000 $7,170,000 $49,860,000 564,200,000
$1,400,000 531,900,000 $30,900,000 $64,200,000
$5. no,OOO ($24,730,000) $18,960,000 $0
HoteUMotel
$4,738.20
Total PAD Fees Projected
Total Costs Eligible for PAD Fees {Urban Core Only}
tr: PAD Fee Surplus/(Deflclt) In each Period
Sources: City of Chula Vista; McGill Martin Self,' Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic&Pl.mgS~Inc. 5I1812OCM
P:\ 15000s\15001Chufa\listaConJSPIModeIs\051 B06tbIes.xls
=<-e2R1
Draft Report
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
assumption is overly aggressive. The improvement timing assumptions on Table 1
equate to the addition of 15 to 20 acres of parks (not including additional plaza acreage)
within the first ten years - substantially more than the 11 acres that would be required
for the new population (assuming 1,460 total units at 2.5 people per unit). From a
funding perspective, it may be advisable to delay the acquisition and development of
much of this required park land.
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEES
Table 12 summarizes the total development impact fees calculated herein, and compares
them to the total estimated costs of improvements eligible for impact fee funding.
Consistent with the findings for each impact fee individually, Table 12 shows that there
is a projected surplus in the first five years, followed by a cumulative deficit in the 5-
tolD-year period that would then be recouped after 10 years.
DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY IMPACTS OF IMPACT FEES _
The Urban Core Specific Plan is creating capacity for new development that is desired in
an effort to revitalize this important area of Chula Vista. As such, it is important that the
development impact fees imposed upon new development not create major hurdles to
development feasibility. If the development impact fees are too high, the added-msts to
satisfy those fee requirements will in turn require higher price points for the
development itself (residential values, commercial lease rates, etc.), assuming that other
development costs (construction, design, financing, etc.) remain constant. To the extent
that the market will not support these higher values or rents, the desired development is
not likely to occur.
It is important to note that the City currently levies development impact fees beyond
those estimated in this report. Examples include sewerage participation fees and Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF). In addition, the Sweetwater Authority
water district charges impact fees for water infrastructure. These additional fees have
not been included in this analysis because no corresponding infrastructure or facility
improvements have been expressly identified in the Urban Core Specific Plan.
However, these additional fees will continue to be levied upon new development in the
Urban Core, and used to support the growing demand for improvements such as police
and fire facilities, libraries, recreational facilities, and water and wastewater
infrastructure.
Table 13 compares the total development impact fees that may be imposed by the City
to the estimated costs of development of various types. As shown, the combination of
development impact fees calculated herein and the PFDIF and sewerage participation
fees currently required represents a smaIl fraction of the total costs associated with new
development. At the levels calculated in this analysis, it is not expected that the
development impact fees would substantially affect the feasibility of development in the
26 P:\ lS000$\15001ChuI4VistllCoreSP\~rt \OS1806DrftRpt2.doc
~-c:{ ?f?
Table 12
Total Combined Development Impact Fee Projections through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Fee Type 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Total
TransDIF $1,046,711 $518,813 $2,427.856 $3,993,380
Traffic Signal Fee $119,800 $59,400 $277,800 $457,000
PAD Fee $7170000 $7 170 000 $49 860 000 $64 200 000
Total Combined Fees Projected $8,336,511 $7,748,213 $52,585,656 $68,650,380
Total Costs Eligible for Fees (Urban Core Only) $1,648,800 $38,017,580 $30,984,000 $68,650,380
,~ Combined Fee Surplus/(Deflclt) In each Period $8,687,111- ($28,286,367) $21,581,6511 $0
"
Sources: City of Chula Vista; McGill Martin Self; Economic & Planning Systems, fnc.
Economic & Pl8nning Systems, Inc. SI1&'2OOt1
PI 15OOOs\ 15001ChulaVistaCoreSP\Models\051806tb1es,xls
=f -0:( ??
Table 13
Feasibility Impacts of Estimated Development Impact Fees
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Estimated SeWflnllge
Development Cost Trame Signal PartlclplltJon Fees as % of
Activity Type (1) TnlnsDlF(2) F.. PAD Fee PFDIF(3) F..(3) Total Feu Costs
R.sldenllll (per Unit)
With Existing Fees $300,000 $4,020.00 $159.90 $6,651.00 $5.109.00 $2,608.50 $18,548.40 6.2%
With Newly Cato..dated Fees $300,000 $267.44 $30.61 $8,226.05 $5,109.00 $2,608.50 $16,241.60 5.4%
Retail (per Sq. FL)
VVlth Existing F eM $200 $5.08 $1.07 SO.OO $1.66 $0.73 $8.54 4.3%
With Newly Calculated Fees $200 $2.53 $0.29 $0.00 $1.66 $0.73 $5.20 2.6%
omce (per Sq. Ft.)
Wlh Existing Fees $275 $2.08 $0.37 $0.00 $0.33 $0.73 $3.51 1.3%
Wth Newly Calculated Fees $275 $0.78 $0.09 $0.00 $0.33 $0.73 $1.93 0.7%
~ HotallMotel (per Sq. Fl) (4)
With Existing Fees $250 $3.23 $0.45 $7.21 $0.33 $3.45 $14.67 5.9%
With Newly Calculated Fees $250 $0.66 $0.08 $8.91 $0.33 $3.45 $13.43 5.4%
(1) Residential cost assumptions based on Mid-Rise Condo costs in Keyser Martson "'Nest Side Residential In-Fill Feasibility Analysis~
(August 30, 2(04), il101lesad by 20% to refteet Inflation of construction costs. Retail, 0ITica, and HoteUMotel costs are estimatea based on
EPS ellplll'iance on other recent urban development projects. Developml!llt costs do J:I21 include property acquisition costs.
(2) existing T/1InsDIF fees a/1l based on EPS axtrapaation dfees applilKl in Eastern TanitoI1es, based on assumed density of Urban Core dewlopmenl
(3) Public Facllities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) and Sewltf8.ge Participation Fee are not assumed to be diffarent than those aJlT8nt1y levied on Urtlan Core development.
(4) Assumes average of 532 gross square feet per room
SOUICeS: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Eoo~_&PIoMlr>II5y""".,~, M.v.!OOo1I
P:\I_II5Q(llChu"'V1oI.co..$py,f<><M~5'8_...",
o1~r~
Draft Report
Urban Care Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
Urban Core. By far, the greater factors will be the achievable price points (sale or lease)
for the new development, and the costs of construction and property acqillsition.
Furthermore, it is possible that development impact fees levied elsewhere in the City of
Chula VISta could be used for some of the improvements listed in the Urban Core
Specific Plan. As noted on Tables 2 through 4, there are nUmerous improvements
included in the Specific Plan that may have benefits beyond the Urban Core. Impact
fees on development in the Bayfront, broader Western Chula Vista, or the entire City
could potentially be used to fund some of these additional improvements.
~-=<9/
29 P: \ 15000s \ 15001 ChulaVistaCoreSP \ Report \ OS1806DiftRpt2.d<<
V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POTENTIAL
The Oty has retained Harrell & Company Advisors to provide tax increment projections
for each of the Redevelopment Project Areas in Chula Vista. None of these Project Areas
conforms perfectly to the boundaries of the Urban Core Specific Plan area. Some parcels
in the Urban Core Specific Plan area are located within the Town Center I and Town
Center II Project Areas, while others are located within the Amended Project Area, and
still others are not located in any Redevelopment Project Area The boundaries of each
Redevelopment Project Area are shown on Figure 1.
EPS has worked with Oty staff and Harrell & Company to estimate the tax increment
projections for each Redevelopment Project Area except the Bayfront area The tax
increment projections are based on the following assumptions:
1. Tax increment from projects that are currently in the development pipeline
(planned, permitted, or under construction) is estimated based on the specific
known attributes of the project (size, price points, timing, etc.). This analysis does
not include assumptions of tax increment from the evolving plans for redevelopment of
the Bayfront (Gaylord, housing, ete.).
2. The tax increment from all other Project Area parcels on which no specific
projects are currently proposed is estimated based on an average of 4 percent
annual growth in assessed value. This approach deliberately exceeds the 2
percent growth cap required under Proposition 13, as it is expected that many
parcels in the Urban Core and the Redevelopment Project Areas will be
redeveloped for significantly higher-value uses over the next several decades,
and that there will be additional reassessments triggered by the sales of existing
properties that do not redevelop. Oty staff has confirmed that this 4 percent
growth assumption is reasonable, given the level of investment expected as well
as the assessed value increases associated with ongoing resales of existing
properties.
3. Desired improvements in the Urban Core are eligible to be funded using tax
increment from any of the Redevelopment Project Areas shown on Figure 1.
This assumption has been confirmed as accurate and appropriate by the City's
Redevelopment Manager.
Table 14 shows the tax increment projections for each of the Redevelopment Project
Areas in various time periods. As shown, these areas are expected to generate a total of
$340 million of net tax increment (after housing set-asides, agency pass-throughs,
County administrative costs, etc.) tluough the year 2036, when the last of the
Redevelopment Project Areas is scheduled to sunset. However, $28 million of this
combined net tax increment will be used to pay debt service (principal and interest) on
bonds issued in 2000. Therefore, the net tax increment that could potentially be
available for projects and operations in the Urban Core is estimated at $312 million.
;(-c:<~ 30
P: \ 15000$ \ 1500 1 Chula.VistaCoreSP \ Rtport \ 051806DrftRpt2.doc
ity of Chula Vista
REDEVELOPMENT rlOJECf AREAS
_ 8AYFRONT
_ OTAV VAllEY ROAD
_ SOUTHWEST
_ TOWN CENTRE I
_ TOWN CENTRE II
_ ADDED REDEVelOPMENT
AREAS-~ ~
0{ -0{ 73
Table 14
Projected Tax Increment Available for Urban Core Projects through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Total Tax
Increment for Debt Service Available for
Amended Southwest Otay Valley All Project for 2000 proJecta and
Year Town Center I Town Center II Project Area Project Area Project Area Area. Bonds Operations
2006 $1,325,200 $910,600 $231,600 $980,600 $1,070,200 $4,518,200 ($1,203,083) $3,315,117
2007 $1,366,200 $939,400 $334,200 $1,087,400 $1,209,600 $4,936,aOO ($1,201,313) $3,735,487
2008 $1,531,600 $1,102,800 $529,600 $1,256,400 $1,339,200 $5,759,600 ($1,203,898) $4,555,702
2009 $1,894,600 $1,268,000 $848,000 $1,586,400 $1,37S,aOO $6,972,800 ($1,200,623) $5,772.177
2010 $2,363,400 $1.438,800 $1,206,800 $1,791,400 $1,413,800 $8,214.200 ($1.201.263) $7,012,937
2011 $2,412,800 $1,611,400 $1,466,800 $1.867,200 $1,452,400 $8,810,600 ($1,200,563) $7,610,037
2012 $2,465,200 $1,790,400 $1,607,200 $1,944,400 $1,493,400 $9,300,600 ($1,203,483) $8,097,117
2013 $2,517,000 $1,837,200 $1,750,800 $2,026,200 $1,536,800 $9,668,000 ($1,204,748) $8,463,252
2014 $2,571,800 $1,885,400 $1,901,000 $2,110,200 $1,580,800 $10,049,200 ($1,204,308) $8,844,892
2015 $2,627,800 $1,585,000 $2,057,200 $2,198,200 _ $1,613,200 $10,081,400 ($1,142,113) $8,939,287
~ 2016 $2,686,800 $1,620,000 $2,1'12;400 $2,290,400 $1,647,800 $10,417,400 ($1,141,113) $9,276,287
2017 $2,746,000 $1,655,400 $2,292,000 $2,383,800 $1,685,000 $10,762,200 ($1,138,318) $9,623,882
2018 $2,808,200 $1,691,400 $2,415,700 $2,483,000 $1,723,400 $11,121,700 ($1,138,678) $9,983,022
2019 $2,873,200 $1,727,600 $2,545,600 $2,584,200 $1,762,200 $11,492,800 ($1,142,178) $10,350,622
2020 $2,939,200 $1,764,200 $2,679,300 $2,692,000 $1,802,400 $11,877,100 ($1,138,840) $10,738,260
2021 $3,009,000 $1,802,200 $2,818,600 $2,790,600 $1,845,800 $12,266,200 ($1,138,595) $11,127,605
2022 $3,079,000 $1,844,200 $2,963,100 $2,894,000 $1,889,400 $12,669,700 ($1,141,495) $11,528,205
2023 $3,154,400 $1,884,800 $3,112,600 $3,002,800 $1,934,400 $13,089,000 ($1,142,275) $11,946,725
2024 $3,230,600 $1,926,400 $3,268,700 $3,115,000 $1,982,400 $13,523,100 ($1,140,350) $12,382,750
2025 $3,308,800 $1,971,400 $3,430,300 $3,230,800 $2,031,600 $13,972,900 ($1,141,275) $12,831,625
2026 $3,391,400 $2,016,BOO $3,598,000 $3,351,600 $2,082,000 $14,439,600 ($1,139,781) $13,299,819
2027 $3,475,800 $2.063,800 $3,773,000 $3,478,600 $2,135,400 $14,926,600 ($1,140,869) $13,785,731
2028 $3,564,600 $2.111,400 $3,953,100 $3,609,600 $2,190,000 $15,428,700 ($1,139,269) $14,289,431
2029 $0 $2.160,800 $4.141,300 $3,745,600 $2,247,400 $12,295,100 ($754,981) $11,540,119
2030 $0 $2,211,400 $4,338,500 $3,886,400 $2,305,200 $12,739.500 ($753,431) $11,986,069
2031 $0 $261,200 $4,539,500 $4,032,800 $2,366,600 $11,200,100 $0 $11,200,100
2032 $0 $264,200 $4,749,600 $4,185,800 $2,430,800 $11,630,400 $0 $11,630,400
2033 $0 $266,200 $4,969,400 $4,345,200 $2,496,200 $12,077,000 $0 $12,077,000
2034 $0 $268,200 $5,195,900 $4,509,800 $2,565,200 $12,539,100 $0 $12,539,100
2035 $0 $272,000 $5,432,400 $4,681,400 $2,636,000 $13,021,800 $0 $13,021,800
2036 !Q Illi.Ql& $5 677 400 54 8S0 200 !Q $10 811 600 !Q $10811600
Total $61,342,600 $44,426,400 589,997,600 $89,002,000 555,844,400 5340,613,000 ($28,296.843) $312,316,157
&xInomic&PilInningSy.stems, Inc:. V/&'2GI:le Page 1 012 P:115OO:ls115OlJ1Chu1.W.stJlC<:wSPlMcdel8\OSl8D6lbJ..,n.
~-~7'f
Table 14
Projected Tax Increment Available for Urban Core Projects through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Year
Amended
Town Center I Town Center II Project Area
Southweat
Project Area
Otay Valley
Project Area
Total Tax
Increment for
All Project
........
Debt Service
10r2oo0
Bonds
Avallabl. for
Projects and
Operations
Values by Time Period
o-s Yea,. (200&-2010)
Nominal Value $8,48 1 ,000 $5,659,600 $3,150,200 $6,702,200 $6,408,600 $30,401,600 ($6,010,180) $24,391,420
Present Value at 3% Discount Rate $7,928,965 $5,300,688 $2,903,531 $6,264,022 $6,022,088 $28.419,495 ($5,670,242) $22,749,253
5-10 Y8Inr (2011-2015)
Nominal Value $12,594,600 $8,709,400 $8,783,000 $10,146,200 $7.676,600 $47,909,800 ($5.955.215) $41,954.585
Present Value at 3% Discount Rate $10,236,613 $7,086,374 $7,112,179 $8.237,102 $6.237,393 $38,909,661 ($4,849.111) $34,060,550
10+ YNta (2015-2038)
Nominal Value $40,267,000 $30,057,400 $78,064,400 $72,153,500 $41,759,200 $262,301,500 {$16,331 ,448) $245,970,152
Present Value at 3% Discount Rate $25,001,927 $17,855,772 $41,724,336 $38,993,275 $23,236,579 $146,811,859 ($10,046,807) $136,765,082
All Yea,. (2008-2038)
Nominal Value $61,342,600 $44.426,400 $89,997,600 $89,002,000 $55,844,400 $340,613,000 ($28,296,843) $312,316,157
Present Value at 3% Discount Rate $43,167,505 $30,243,034 $51,740,046 $53,494,399 $35,496,060 $214,141,045 ($20,566,160) $193,574,884
Sources: Harrell & Company Advisors; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
EcDnom;"&.PfWlllingSystwn~.Inc. 5I1&:ZOO!1
Page 2 of 2
P.115000s\15001Chule\ll8t.cor.SFV.fode/~\OS18061b1..uls
c;( -<::2 7.0-
Draft Repart
Urban Care Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
Table 14 also translates the tax increment projections into today's dollars, assuming a
discount rate of 3 percent per year. The 3 percent discount rate simply translates the
figures into today's dollars using a general inflation rate, which can be considered
the appropriate figures to compare to the estimated improvement costs in today's
dollars if the tax increment is simply dedicated on a "pay-as-you-go" basis over the next
several decades, The sum of the tax increment under the 3 percent discount rate,
therefore, is the appropriate point of comparison to the improvement costs if the Gty
chooses not to issue a tax increment bond. As shown, EPS has estimated that the tax
increment will yield roughly $194 million in today's dollars over the next 30 years.
Table 15 compares the total improvement costs to the combined funding from the tax
increment projections and the estimated development impact fees from the previous
chapter. As that table clearly shows, the combination of these potential funding sources
greatly exceeds the total improvement costs (by nearly double). In addition, Table 15
shows that if all estimated impact fees are received, only 35 percent of the projected
available tax increment would be required to fund Urban Core improvements, leaving
65 percent (roughly $127 million) in funding available for other projects.
It is important to note that, on a pay-as-you-go basis, the combination of tax increment
and impact fees can more than cover the costs of all desired improvements in the first
five years and over the full buildout of the Urban Core, but would not meet the full
expected costs in the 5-10 year period. While the tax increment itself would cover the
costs of improvements not funded by impact fees, the tax increment is not projected to
cover those costs and the temporary deficit in impact fee funding. Thus, it is clear that
either temporary funding would have to be secured or some of those 5-10 year
improvements would need to be deferred.
Tables 16 through 18 explore one approach to closing the temporary funding gap in the
5-10 year time period-bonds based on tax increment realized at the time of bond
issuance. Table 16 shows the bonding capacity of the tax increment an annual basis.
This analysis assumes that bonds issued on the tax increment would be subject to a 1.20
debt coverage ratio, meaning projected annual revenues exceed the amount dedicated to
debt service by 20 percent to allow room for fluctuations in the actual tax increment
received. EPS has also assumed that the bonds would have a 6.0 percent interest rate,
that issuance costs would equal three percent of the total bond amount, and that the
terms of the bonds would be only as many years as the tax increment was projected to
be collected (through 2036). Thus, a bond issued in 2006 would have a 30-year term,
while a bond issued in 2016 would have a 2()..year term. As shown, EPS has estimated
that the available tax increment in 2012 (year 6) could support a bond that would yield
$82 million of up-front dollars from which improvements could be funded over time.
The present value of that bond capacity is estimated at roughly $69 million.
As was shown on Table 15, the combination of annual tax increment and impact fees
could fully fund the improvement costs in the first five-year period, but would not fully
fund the costs in the 5-10 year period. Table 17 shows that if a bond is issued in Year 6
to fully fund the period's improvements not covered by impact fees, such a bond would
=<-~ 7 ~
34
P: \ I5000s \ 15001Chula VistilConSP \ Report \ 051806DrftRpt2.doc
Table 15
Improvement Costs vs. Projected Tax Increment and Impact Fees Through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Item
o-s years
(2008 ~ 2010)
10+ years
(2016 - 2038)
IMO years
(2011 ~2016)
Total
Improvements to be Funded through Impact Fees on URBAN CORE
Development (1)
Improvements NOT Funded by Impact Fees on URBAN CORE
Development
TDtallmprovement Costs
$1,648,800
$18,174,200
$19,823,000
Present Value of Available Tax Increment at 3% Discount Rate (2)
Impact Fees on URBAN CORE Development (3)
Total Combined Funding (Tax Increment plus Impact Fees)
$22,749.253
$8.336,511
$31,085,784
Net Surplus/(Deflclt) In Combined Funding by Period
$11,2tJ2,784
Cumulative Surplus/(Def1cit)
$11,282,764
Tax Increment Required to Fund Urban Core Improvements
NOT Covered by Impact Fees on URBAN CORE Development
(4)
Percent of Available Tax Increment Required for Urban Core Improvements
Remaining Tax Increment Available for Other Projects
$36,017,580 $30,984,000 $68,650,380
$28.436.42!J _ $20,198,250 $66,808,870
$64,454.000 $51,182,250 $135,4158,250
$34,060,550 $136,765,082 $193,574,884
$7,748,213 $52,565.656 $68,650,380
$41,808,762 $189,330,738 5262,225.26.
($22,84$,238) $138,148,488 $128,788,014
($",382,474) $128,788,014 $128,788,014
$88,BOB,B7D
35%
$126,766,014
(1) From Table 12
(2) From Table 14
(3) From Table 12
(4) Difference between total present value of projected tax increment and total impact fees on Urban Core development
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Er;:a'Iomo'c&PlatlllJllpSyst!lml",Inr;. $I1812OOC
=?-cl~1
P:\1SOOOs\15001CJrus.\liIlt.cor.SFWodeIa\OSI!1061t1Ju,~t.
Table 16
Projected Tax Increment Bonding Capacity by Year
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Year
Years from
Present
(2006)
Available for Projects
and Operations
(All Project Areas)
Potential Bonding
Capacity (1)
Present Value of
Bonding Capacity (2)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Total
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$3,315,117
$3,735,487
$4,555,702
$5,772,177
$7,012,937
$7,610,037
$8,097,117
$8.463,252
$8,844,892
$8,939,287
$9,276,287
$9,623,882
$9,983,022
$10,350,622
$10,738,260
$11,127,605
$11,528,205
$11,946,725
$12,382,750
$12,831,625
$13,299,819
$13,785,731
$14,289,431
$11,540,119
$11,986,069
$11,200,100
$11,630,400
$12,077,000
$12,539,100
$13,021,800
$10,811,600
$312,316,157
$36,885,887
$41,037,436
$49,368,546
$61,638,279
$73,712,228
$78,636,132
$82,144,218
$84,168,999
$86,092,746
$85,006,320
$86,005,271
$86,802,387
$87,374,531
$87,660,642
$87,720,116
$87,359;8'74
$86,616,538
$85,489,793
$83,917,160
$81,804,479
$79,125,992
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$36,885,887
$39,842,171
$46,534,589
$56,407,757
$65,492,360
$67,832,219
$68,794,490
$68,437,099
$67,962,409
$65,150,266
$63,996,003
$62,707,891
$61,282,738
$59,692,631
$57,993,331
$56,072,979
$53,976,563
$51,722,731
$49,292,487
$46,651,951
$43,810,143
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(1) Assumptions:
Debt Coverage Ratio = 120,0%
Bonding Interest Rate = 6,0%
Issuance Costs= 3,0%
Term = Number 01 Years remaining on Project Areas (through 2036) IF at least 10 years remain;
Assumes no bond issue lor less than 1 O-year term,
(2) Assumes 3% discount rate,
Sources: Harrell & Company Advisors; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & PlannIng Systems, Inc. 5/1812006
P:\15000s\ 15001 Chufe Vista CoreSPIModels \051 B06tb1es.xls
36
=1~o< 9 g>
Table 17
Projected Tax Increment and Bonding Capacity Available for Urban Core Projects through Time
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Item
0-5 years 5.10 years 10+ years
(2006.2010) (2011.2015) (2016 . 2036) Total
$19,823,000 $64,454,000 $51,182,250 $135,459,250
$8,336,511 $7,748,213 $52,565,656 $68,650,380
($11,488,489) ($56,705,787) $1,383,408 ($88,808,870)
Total Improvement Costs (1)
less Impact Fees on URBAN CORE Development (2)
Surplus/(Shortfall) of Available Impact Fees
Tax Increment Revenues
Present Value of Required Tax Increment Bond (3)
Present Value of Tax Increment NOT Used for Bond Debt~~ce (4)
Present Value of Remaining Tax Increment After Fully Funding
Improvement Costs In Excess of Available Impact Fees
$0
- $22,749,253
$56,705,787
$13,085.413
$0 $56,705,787
$70,138,278 $105,972,944
$11,282,784
$13,085,413
$71,521,684 $95,869,862
(1) See Tables 2 through 4.
(2) See Table 12,
(3) Used to offset shortfall in Years 5.10. See Table 18 for bond capacity and debt service estimates. Present value calculated at 3% discount rate.
(4) Present Value at 3% discount rate of tax increment not used to pay annual bond debt service of $5,395,040
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic I; PIfInning Systems, Inc. 5f1/J12005
P:\15000s\1500fChulalllstacortJSPWod6lsIOSf30lltbles.xIS
=<-.j 91
Table 18
Required Tax Increment Bond and Debt Service to Cover Years 5-10 Shortfall
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Year
Years
from
Present
(2006)
Available for
Projects and
Operations
(All Project
Areas)
Nominal Value of
Required Bond
(1)
Annual Debt
Service on Bonds
Issued In Year 6 (2)
Available Tax
Increment After
Debt Service
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Total
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$3,315,117
$3,735,487
$4,555,702
$5,772,177
$7,012,937
$7,610,037
$8,097,117
$8,463,252
$8,844,892
$8,939,287
$9,276,287
$9,623,882
$9,983,022
$10,350,622
$10,738,260
$11,127,605
$11,528,205
$11,946,725
$12,382,750
$12,831,625
$13,299,819
$13,785,731
$14,289,431
$11,540,119
$11,986,069
$11,200,100
$11,630,400
$12,077,000
$12,539,100
$13,021,800
$10.811.600
$312,316,157
$67,709,676
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5,395,040
$5 395.040
$134,875,990
$3,315,117
$3,735,487
$4,555,702
$5,772,177
$7,012,937
$7,610,037
$2,702,077
$3,068,212
$3,449,852
$3,544,247
$3,881,247
$4,228,842
$4,587,982
$4,955,582
$5,343,220
$5,732,565
$6,133,165
$6,551,685
$6,987,710
$7,436,585
$7,904,779
$8,390,691
$8,894,391
$6,145,079
$6,591,029
$5,805,060 '
$6,235,360
$6,681,960
$7,144,060
$7,626,760
$5.416.560
$177,440,167
(1) Based on shortfall after impact fees in Years 5-10 shown on Table 17, inflated by 3% per year.
(1) Assumptions:
Debt Coverage Ratio = 120.0%
Bonding Interest Rate = 6.0%
Issuance Costs= 3.0%
Term = Number of Years remaining on Project Areas (through 2036) IF at least 10 years remain;
Assumes no bond issue for less than 1 O-year term.
Sources: Harrell & Company Advisors; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 511 B/2OO6
P:\15000s\15001Chula VistaCoreSPWodels\051806tbles.xls
38
01--::3' CJ ()
Draft Report
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 18, 2006
have to yield roughly $57 million in current dollars. 1bis figure is well below the actual
capacity created by the tax increment in Year 6, which was projected at $69 million
(present value) on Table 16. As such, funding the deficit would not require the full
bonding capacity available in Year 6, leaving revenues available for other projects. In
addition, the portion of tax increment that is not required for debt service in the years
following the bond issuance could also be available for other projects, as detailed on
Table 18.
In sum, Table 17 shows that the combination of impact fees on Urban Core
development, "pay_as_you_go" tax increment funds and tax increment bonding capacity
would be more than adequate to fully fund all of the improvement costs envisioned in
the Specific Plan. Nearly $100 million of surplus revenue is shown to be likely, which
could then be used for additional improvements in the Urban Core or elsewhere in
Chula Vista.
~-3CJ/ 39
P: \ 150005 \1500 1 Chula VisfllCoreSP \ Report \ 051B06DrftRpt 2.doc
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This Facilities Implementation Analysis for the Urban Core Specific Plan has estimated
the costs of various public improvements and allocated those costs according to their
purpose and the geographic areas of benefit/responsibility. This analysis has also
estimated the improvement costs that could be funded through development impact
fees, and identified financial gaps in certain time periods and overall that would need to
be addressed through other funding mechanisms. One such mechanism is tax increment
financing from the Gty's Redevelopment Project Areas, which are projected to generate
sufficient revenues over the next several decades to fully cover the costs of Urban Core
improvements.
To the extent that other funding sources and mechanisms can be utilized, the costs
addressed through impact fees and tax increment financing can be reduced. The
reduction of impact fees can enhance the feasibility of desired development in the Urban
Core, although it is not expected that the cost burden of the impact fees calculated herein
would represent a significant feasibility hurdle for development. The reduction of the
reliance on-tax increment financing would enable those funds to be used for other
improvement projects elsewhere in the City.
Other funding mechanisms that could be considered and sought to finance the public
improvements envisioned in the Urban Core Specific Plan include the following:
. Regional funding- TransNet, SANDAG, and other funding sources may be
available for certain improvements that have regional significance.
. Capital Improvement Program funding-Many of the improvements represent
benefits to the City generally, and could be funded through the OP budget.
. Developer exactions- The provision of plazas, park land (especially for the
Promenade Park), streetscape improvements, etc. could be required as a
condition of approval for certain developments (where feasible).
. Land-secured financing-Mello-Roos districts or other assessments on
landowners or building occupants could be imposed to provide funding for
improvements beyond those funded by impact fees. Application of these
mechanisms is likely to be limited, however, because of multiple ownerships and
developed conditions in the Urban Core.
It is important to note that this Facilities Implementation Analysis presents an analysis
of the potential funding for the improvements detailed in the Urban Core Specific Plan.
Policy-makers are not required to impose fees or allocate funding as described herein,
but rather will be expected to assess the importance of various improvements and the
appropriateness of various funding mechanisms in a context of competing policy and
financial priorities, as well as under market conditions that will evolve through the next
several decades as the Urban Core is undergoing re-investment and redevelopment.
40 P: \ lS000s \ ISDOIChulllVistaCortSP '&port \ OS1806DTjtRpt2 .doc
cZ-..:30c:(
This chapter describes the authority of a Specific Plan, the process which will be
used to consider development applications and the administrative procedures
required for amendments and/or modifications to the Plan.
XI. Plan 4dministration
A. Introduction
A Specific Plan is a regulatory tool that local governments use to implement their
General Plan and to guide development in a localized area. While to the general
plan is the primary guide for growth and development throughout a community,
a Specific Plan is able to focus on the unique characteristics of a specialized
area by customizing the vision, land uses and development standards for that
area. This specific plan has been prepared and adopted pursuant to Section
65450 et seq of the California Government Code;
PUblic nearing Draft
-=<-~
B. Specific Plan Adoption
This Specific Plan has been adopted by City Council Ordinance. Adoption of this
Specific Plan followed soon after the adoption of a comprehensive General Plan
update. Upon adoption, the Specific Plan implements the adopted General Plan
by establishing the land uses, development standards and design guidelines
for the Specific Plan Focus Areas.
Public Nearing Draft
For those projects which propose buildings that exceed 84 feet in height, the
further following findings will be required to be made:
. The building design reflects a unique, signature architecture and creates
a positive Chula Vista landmark;
. The project provides increased amenities such as public areas, plazas,
fountains, parks and paseos, extensive streets cape improvements,
or other public amenities that may be enjoyed by the public at large.
These amenities will be above and beyond those required as part of the
standard development approval process; and,
. The overall building height and massing provides appropriate transitions
to surrounding areas in accordance with the future vision for those areas,
or if in a Neighborhood Transition Combining District, the adjoining
neighborhood.
c. Specific Plan Administration
1. Urban Core Development Permit and Design
Requirements
The Design Review Process for future development projects is established for
the Specific Plan focus areas. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4,
below, development projects within the Specific Plan Focus Areas will be subject
to a design review process to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. In
addition, proposed developments would also be required to adhere to existing
CVMC regulations and processes for other discretionary review, such as those
for conditional use permits, variances, and subdivisions, as may be applicable.
(See CVMC 2.55, 19.14, and 19.54). All developments within the Specific Plan
Focus Areas require submittal and approval of an Urban Core Development
Permit (UCDP). The UCDP Review Process is illustrated in Figure 11.1. To be
approved, a development project must:
. comply with the permitted uses and development criteria contained in
Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Regulations of this Specific
Plan, and other applicable regulations contained in the CVMC; and,
. be found to be consistent with the design requirements and
recommendations contained in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines of this
Specific Plan.
Except as provided in Section 3. Nonconforming Uses, Section 4. Exemptions,
and Section 5. Site Specific Variance below, all projects require a pre-submittal
meeting with staff to determine appropriate processing requirements and
preliminary issue identification. The UCDP will be issued if it is determined
that the project complies with the provisions of the SpeCific Plan, including the
Public Nearing Draft
~ - 3tJ.!:J-
URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
Minor
Projects
--
."Pmjedchar.g.,s'~t1$
neceuar(
Mob rltcorrimendaHori on
com&tenev w/SpKIlk::Plon:
Stall Design
Ravhtw
Ifconslstenf.
SubmftUCDP wI ConditkM\S of
Approval to eYRe
becuflVe. Ofkei'
NQflceof "
D<IcIsIon
DenIed
If not ,consistent, ,redesign
or-CV1tC
Exetuttve::Oftk:jf denlcd
APpealtoCItyCouncnr
*.d_ltYelOpment Agency
,
,
.
~ppeal to CVRC
"Process pertains 10 project; In redeVelapment area, only
.. If Redevelapment Agency InvolVement (e.g. Agreement or Funding)
project ebtan, concurrent Agency Approval
fg. 11.1
t:2-3CJ~
Public nearing Draft
b. Developments Not Within a Redevelopment Project Area
Projects within the Specific Plan area, but outside a Redevelopment Project
Area, will be subject to the City's existing design review processes. Large-scale
projects, as defined above, will require review by the Design Review Committee.
Minor projects may be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator, or
his/her designee in a manner consistent with CVMC Section 19.14.
development regulations, standards and design guidelines. Approval of the
UCDP will include all conditions of approval ranging from design, environmental
mitigation measures, public improvements, and others as may be determined
upon review of the specifiC development project. The UCDP process will ensure
an enhanced level of review for major projects, while minimizing processing for
minor projects, as defined by CVMC Section 19.14.582.
The Specific Plan provides separate processes for design review for those
developments within established Redevelopment Project Areas and for those
developments located outside established Redevelopment Project Areas.
Figure 11.2 illustrates the boundaries of existing Redevelopment Project Areas,
which may be amended from time to time, within the Specific Plan boundaries.
Projects which include site areas within both areas shall be approved using the
process set forth for Redevelopment Project Areas.
a. Developments Within a Redevelopment Project Area
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) has been established by the
City Council to assist with implementation and oversight of infill development in
the Redevelopment Project Areas within the Specific Nan, and elsewhere within
the City. The CVRC holds regularly scheduled meetings to review developments
and design proposals. The CVRC provides a vehicle for public participation
relating to the growth and redevelopment of the Chula Vista Urban Core, and
serves as a communications link between its citizens, the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency. In addition, the recently established Redevelopment
Advisory Committee will provide input on projects, early and often.
All developments within the Specific Plan Focus Areas that are all or in part
within a Redevelopment Project Area require submittal and approval of a UCDP.
The UCDP process requires review and approval by either the CVRC Executive
Director or the CVRC Board. For minor projects, design review will be subject to
review and approval by the Executive Director of the CVRC with the opportunity
for appeal to the CVRC. Design review of other projects will be conducted by
staff with recommendation to the CVRC.
Public nearing Draft
.2 -361
National City
Urban Core
Specific Plan
and
Redevelopment
Areas
~
~
I'f)
\
0 Focus ~
Area
" ,. Study
, , Area
- Red!lv.
Areas
to'IlC:I.Q""'~_
......-
H
A +
adl~
..--..,-..-
fg. 11.2
If'
-
~
Public Nearh lraft
PUblic nearing Draft
c. Other Discretionary Approvals
The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to other discretionary permits
or actions (e.g. Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permits) shall be applied as
required based on individual development projects.
2. Permitted Land Uses
Permitted land uses within the Specific Plan Focus Areas are identified in
the Land Use Matrix found in Figures 6.2-6.6 of Chapter VI - Land Use and
Development Regulations. The Community Development Director or his/her
designee may determine in writing that a proposed use is similar and compatible
to a listed use and may be allowed upon making one or more of the following
findings:
. The characteristics of and activities associated with the proposed
use is similar to one or more of the allowed uses and will not involve
substantially greater intensity than the uses listed for that District;
. The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and vision of the
applicable District;
. The proposed use will be otherwise consistent with the intent of the
Specific Plan;
. The proposed use will be compatible with the other uses listed for the
applicable District. --
The Community Development Director or his/her designee may refer the
question of whether a proposed use is allowable directly to the CVRC or
Planning Commission on a determination at a public hearing. A determination
of the Community Development Director or his/her designee, CVRC or Planning
Commission may be appealed in compliance with the procedure set forth in the
CVMC.
0< - 30 ~
3. Nonconforming Uses
Existing uses that are not listed in the allowable land uses table or determined
to be permitted pursuant to the findings and procedure above are declared
nonconforming uses. Refer to the CVMC Chapter 19.64 - Nonconforming Uses
for definitions and policies managing nonconforming uses such as:
. Continuances (continuing operation of nonconforming uses)
. Changing uses
. Terminations of nonconforming uses
A one time extension of up to six months, according to the provisions of CVMC
Chapter 19.64.070A, may be granted by the CVRC or Planning Commission, as
applicable, where undue economic hardship is demonstrated.
Standards contained within the Specific Plan are mandatory requirements that
must be satisfied for all new projects and building renovations except where
CVMC nonconforming regulations (Chapter 19.64) provide exemptions or
allowances.
4. Exemptions
Exemptions to Specific Plan requirements include minor modifications to existing
structures such as painting, maintenance or repair, re-roof, modifications that
increase the total building area by 200 square feet or less (within a 2-year
period) as well as other exceptions and modifications described in Chapter
19.16 of the CVMC.
5. Site Specific Variance
Standards contained within the Specific Plan are mandatory requirements
that must be satisfied for all new projects and building renovations except
where CVMC Variance regulations (Chapter 19.14.140 - 19.14.270) provide
for a variation from the strict application of the regulations of a particular
subdistrict.
o(-..;5jeJ
Public Nearing Draft
. Proposals to amend the Specific Plan must be accompanied by detailed
information to document the change required. This information should
include revised Specific Plan text (or excerpt thereof) and revised
land use diagram or map amendment, where relevant, depleting the
amendment requested.
. The City has conducted a comprehensive analysis and invested a
significant amount of time and money in the preparation of the Specific
Plan, therefore, any proposals to amend the Specific Plan must document
the need for such changes. The City and/or applicant should indicate
the economic, social, or technical issues that generate the need to
amend the Specific Plan. Costs incurred for the amendments shall be
the responsibility of the party requesting the amendment.
. The City and/or applicant must provide an analysis of the amendment's
impacts relative to the adopted Environmental Impact Report. Depending
on the nature of the amendment, supplemental environmental analysis
may be necessary. The need for such additional analysis shall be
determined by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines 3 15162).
D. Specific Plan Amendment
Over time, various sections of the Specific Plan may need to be revised, as
economic conditions or City needs dictate. The policies presented in the Specific
Plan contain some degree of flexibility, but any Specific Plan amendments
must be judged by relatively fixed criteria. The California Government Code
(3 65453) clearly states that a Specific Plan "may be amended as often as
deemed necessary by the legislative body." Amendments to this Plan may be
initiated by a developer, any individual property owner, by the CVRC or by the
City, in accordance with any terms and conditions imposed during the original
approval or in accordance with any terms and conditions pertaining to Chula
Vista Municipal Code. The Community Deveiopment Director or his/her designee
is responsible for making the determination of whether an amendment to the
Specific Plan text or maps is needed. Amendment procedures are described
below.
1. Major Amendments
The Community Development Director, or his/her designee shall within 10
days of any submittal of a request to amend this Plan, determine whether
the amendment is "minor" (administrative) or "major". Major amendments
(described below) require an advisory recommendation by the CVRC and Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council. If the amendment is determined
to be minor, the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, may
Public Nearing Draft
0(-.3//
approve or deny the application. Minor amendments must be determined by
the Community Development Director to be in substantial conformance with the
provisions of the Specific Plan and do not include any changes described below
for major amendments. Any decision of the Community Development Director,
or his/her designee, may be appealed to the CVRC and Planning Commission
and/or City Council, provided said appeal is initiated within 10 working days
of receipt by the applicant of written notice of the decision of the Community
Development Director, or his/her designee.
Examples of "major" amendments include:
. The introduction of a new land use designation not contemplated in the
Specific Pian, as may be amended from time to time.
. Changes in the designation of land uses affecting two acres or more
from that shown in the Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to
time.
. Changes to the circulation system or other community facility which
would materiaiiy affect a planning concept detailed in the Specific Plan,
as may be amended from time to time.
. Changes or additions to the design guidelines which materially alter
the stated intent of the Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to
time.
. Any change which would result in new significant, direct adverse
environmental impacts not previously considered in the EIR.
2. Necessary Findings
The Community Development Director, orhis/herdesignee will review the request
for Specific Plan Amendment and aii submitted supporting material and develop
a recommendation on the Specific Plan Amendment for consideration by the
CVRC, Planning Commission and City Councii. The Community Development
Director, or hiS/her designee may also request further clarification and
submittai of additional supporting information, if necessary. The consideration
of any proposed amendment to the Specific Plan shaii require that the foiiowing
findings be made:
. Changes have occurred in the community since theapproval of the original
Specific Plan which warrant approving the proposed amendment.
. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan for the
City of Chula Vista.
. The proposed amendment will result in a benefit to the area within the
SpeCific Plan.
~-3/rfL
Public Nearing Draft
. The proposed amendment will not result in significant unmitigated
impacts to adjacent properties.
. The proposed amendment will enable the deliver of services and
public facilities to the population within the Specific Plan area.
Public Nearing Draft d? - .31..3
1". five Year I!eview
Conducting periodic reviews of the Specific Plan is important to ensure
proper functioning and implementation over time. A five-year review will
offer an opportunity to make sure the Specific Plan is on track, check in on
the implementation process to ensure that the goals and objectives are being
achieved and make changes in case they are not. Over the life of the Specific
Plan, the changing landscape of the Urban Core may impact the effectiveness
of implementing actions. Thus, a five-year review cycle allows for adjustments
to the plan to be made as necessary.
Items of particular importance to consider are:
. Review the total amount of development against the thresholds
established in this Specific Plan
. Evaluate the need for planned improvements based on development
patterns and programs in the CIP
. Review the various Incentives Programs to evaluate if these elements
are providing the intended results
A Five-Year Progress Report will be prepared and may be included as part of
Budget Cycle or Strategic Plan Updates.
~ --3/1
Public nearing Draft
CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
(public Facilities and Services Program)
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of
Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan to comply with Public Resources Code section
21081.6, 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.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista
designates the Environment Review Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of
the documents or their material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the
mitigation identified in the EIR and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
. Monitor qualifications
. Specific monitoring activities
. Reporting system
;-Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project is the adoption of the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan
(UCSP). The UCSP would govern the development and revitalization of the urban core of
the City of Chula Vista. The UCSP includes land use objectives, development
regulations (zoning), and development design guidelines to implement the adopted
General Plan vision for the urban core. The UCSP's planning horizon is the year 2030.
The City of Chula Vista is located in southern San Diego County, between National City
and the southernmost portion of the City of San Diego which abuts the U.S.-Mexican
border. The UCSP area occupies 1,700 acres in the northwest portion of the City. A
smaller, 690-gross-acre Subdistricts Area was determined to be most in need of
revitalization and is the focus of all the regulatory land use provisions of the UCSP. The
new zoning, development standards, and design guidelines proposed in the UCSP will
apply only to the Subdistricts Area of the UCSP. Existing zoning and land use
regulations will not be changed in the remaining portion of the UCSP study area outside
the Subdistricts Area. The UCSP Subdistricts Area comprises the traditional downtown
area east ofI-5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north ofL Street, and south ofC Street.
Under the proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, the urban core would be
organized into three planning districts (Urban Core, Village, and Corridors) and 26
subdistricts.
0<'-,5/,6-
The proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan is described in the Environmental
Impact Report (ErR) text. The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues
determined to be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed
in the ErR include land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology
and soils, paleontological resources, population and housing, hydrology and water
quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services, public utilities,
and hazards/risk of upset. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the
environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant
impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of recommended mitigation
measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified for
landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological
resources, water quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services,
public utilities (energy), and hazards/risk of upset.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts
identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Urban
Core Specific Plan therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas
identified above.
Mitigation Monitoring Team
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached
MMRP table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula
Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
. Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience
in working under trying field circumstances;
. Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
. Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of
cost -effective mitigation options; and
. Excellent communication skills.
Program Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should 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 greater detail will be
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. All
parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted
and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort.
Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City
of Chula Vista would include the City of Chula Vista and its Mitigation Monitor. The
Mitigation Monitor would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental
~-~/b
Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks
and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation
monitoring report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of
the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions
addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the
MMR and file it with the MM following the monitoring activity. The MM will then
include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive
construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe
the major accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered
in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome
problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In
addition, and if appropriate, each Environmental Monitor or Environmental Specialist
will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the Mitigation Monitor. The
daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the
monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be
generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental
material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential
for the City of Chula Vista to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the
mitigation measures imposed on the project.
Actions in Case ofNoncomoliance
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 warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or
task delay; and
. Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
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
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 on-site monitors. Decisions regarding
actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR
are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language
appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific
cl-:3j~
3
Plan has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated
monitor, the City of Chula Vista, will further refine the mitigation measures.
J,-3!%'
4
~
~
"-.:
'-lJ
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PROGRAM)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City ofChula Vista
(CCV)
Surface and Ground Water Quality.
Implementation ofthe proposed UCSP
would allow a three-fold increase in
population and associated intensification of
existing urban land uses which would
likely result in a substantial increase in
direct runoff to drainage basins, municipal
storm sewer systems, and eventual
drainage to surface water and/or the ocean.
This runoff will likely contain typical
urban runoff pollutants such as sediment,
pathogens, heavy metals, petroleum
products, nutrients (phosphates and
nitrates) and trash. This comprises a
potentially significant long-term water
quality impact.
The potential long-term impacts to water
quality which may result from
implementation of the proposed UCSP
would be required to be reduced to
acceptable levels through the mandatory
controls imposed by local, state, and
federal regulations.
5.7-1: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, compliance with all
applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations regarding watr quality (e.g. lURMP,
SUSMP, NPDES, SWPPj and City Development
and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water
Manual) shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
5
Prior to the approval of
any construction permits,
including but not limited
to the first Grading
Permit, Demolition
Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Selected provisions of the UCSP that allow
and encourage native plant landscaping
and sustainable building practices (water
input and waste efficiencies, living roofs,
bioswales, etc.) would potentially lessen
future runoff volumes, lIow rate and
pollutant concentration.
The construction activities of subsequent
individual projects would also potentially
cause short-term water quality impacts
through direct discharge of pollutants, soil
excavation/sedimentation, and through
encountering of shallow groundwater
during sublloor grading. This comprises a
potentially significant short-term water
quality impact.
5.7-2: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, project applicants shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that the proposed on-site storm drain
systems fully mitigate drainage impacts and meet
all federal, state, and regional water quality
objectives and all City standards and requirements.
Land development construction drawings and
associated reports shall include details, notes, and
discussions relative to the required or
recommended Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Permanent storm water BMP
requirements shall be incorporated into the project
design and all subsequent individual development
projects are required to complete the applicable
Storm Water Compliance Form and comply with
the City ofChula Vista's Storm Water
Management Standards Requirements Manual.
6
Prior to the approval of
any construction permits,
including but not limited
to the first Grading
Permit, Demolition
Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
~
l1
~
'-.
5.7-3: The City ofChula Vista requires that all new
development and significant redevelopment
projects comply with the requirements of the
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01.
According to said permit, all projects falling under
the Priority Development Project Categories are
required to comply with the Standard Urqan Storm
Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric
Sizing Criteria. Future projects shall comply with
all applicahle regulations, estahlished hy the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEP A), as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and storm water
discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City
ofChula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations
and requirements. Further, the applicant shall file
a Notice of Intent (N0l) with the State Water
Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under
the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
and shall
7
Prior to the approval of
any construction permits,
including but not limited
to the fIrst Grading
Permit, Demolition
Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPP) concurrent with the commencement
of grading activities. The SWPP shall include
both construction and post-construction pollution
prevention and pollution control measures, and
shall identify funding mechanisms for the
maintenance of post-construction control
measures.
~
I
~
.9J
5.7-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Deve~opment
Permit or other discretionary permit, all .
subsequent individual development projects shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, conformance with
Mediterranean/indigenous landscaping and other
relevant design recommendations provided in
UCSP Chapter VII Development Design
Guidelines.
8
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City ofChula Vista
(CCV)
~
I
CJJ
~
()J
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Road Segments and Intersections Level
of Service. A substantial increase in traffic
on area roadways and at area intersections
will result from planned population growth
in the urban core area over the next 25
years. Without the intersection and
roadway improvements envisioned in the
proposed UCSP, by year 2030 conditions,
2 road segments and 19 intersections
would operate at unacceptable LOS E or
worse during peak traffic periods. This
comprises a significant traffic impact prior
to mitigation.
The significant impacts to intersections
will be mitigated to below significance by
implementation of the improvements
recommended in Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-
I, with the exception of #27 Broadway/H
Street, #33 Hilltop DrivelH Street and #54
Third A venue/J Street. Impacts to these 3
intersections would remain significant and
unmitigated.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
5.8.5 -1: Intersection Improvements. Impacts to the
19 affected intersections will be mitigated to
below significance by the implementation of
improvements that have been divided into three
tiers for phased implementation based on need
and enhancement nf the overall street network.
Generally, time frames associated with the tiered
improvements are anticipated as short-, mid- and
long-term. In each tier, the City's existing TMP
will determine the order in which projects are
implemented during the biannual CIP program
review. The Tier I impljOvements would be
included in the current ~IP and subsequently
monitored for improvement within the first five
years of implementation of the UCSP. It should
be noted that three of the intersections (#7, #16,
and #21) are proposed as project features rather
than as needed to improve intersection LOS and
most likely will be related to and timed with
implementation of streetscape improvements
along Third A venue.
9
Three-tiered phasing of
implementation based on
need. Tier 1, short-term,
improvements are to
occur within the first five
years of implementation
of the UCSP or as may
be modified by results of
the annual Traffic
Monitoring Program
(TMP).
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
~
~
Recommendations at intersections #27,
#33, and #54 do oot improve conditions to
an acceptable LOS due to ROWand design
constraints. The following describes the
constraints at the three intersections:
. At the Broadway/H Street intersection
(#27), an additional northbound and
southbound through lane would be
required in order to achieve an
acceptable LOS 0 conditions. However,
this improvement would require
extensive widening of Broadway and H
Street to allow for lane drops.
Furthermore, this widening would
create longer pedestrian crossings. As
such, the recommended improvements
of the eastbound queue jumper lane and
the additional westbound through and
right-turn lanes would improve the
intersection from LOS F to LOS E
conditions.
The intersection number~ in the improvements
described below corresppnd to the intersection
numbering system used in the TIA (Appendix C
of this E1R):
a. Tier I Improvements
. # 1 Bay BoulevardlI-5 Southbound Ramp/E
Street: Add an eastb01;md through and right-
turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, and
northbound right-turn lane. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
. #21-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a
westbound right-turn lane. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this improvement
. #7 Third A venue/E Street: Convert the
northbound and southbound shared right-
through lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
. # 16 Third A venue/F Street: Separate the
southbound shared through-right lane into an
exclusive through and right-turn lanes,
convert the northbound shared through-right
lane into an exclusive right-turn lane.
10
~
I
~
~
\
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
o At the Hilltop Drive/H Street
intersection (#33), no improvements
would be recommended due to ROW
constraints. The poor LOS at this
intersection is primarily caused by the
high traffic volumes in the
eastbound/westbound movements.
Additional through and/or turn lanes
would be required in order to improve
this intersection to an acceptable LOS.
With no improvements, this intersection
would remain at LOS E during both
peak periods.
o At the Third A venuell Street
intersection (#54), the required
improvement of an additional
southbound right-turn lane would
impact the existing commercial building
(Henry's Marketplace), which is built
adjacent to the sidewalk. Therefore, this
improvement is not recommended.
o #21 Third A venue/G Street: Convert the
northbound/southbound shared through-right
lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
o #24 1-5 Southbound RamplH Street: Add a
southbound left, eastbound through and right-
turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
o #251-5 Northbound RarnplH Street: Add a
westbound through and right-turn lane and
restripe south approach to accommodate dual
left-turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans
will be required for this improvement.
o #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street: Change
Woodlawn Avenue to a one-way couplet. This
improvement is required to serve the intense
redevelopment occurring on both sides of H
Street. The couplet improvement is not
required mitigation further north toward E
Street.
o #27 BroadwaylH Street: Add an eastbound
transit queue jumper lane and westbound
through and right-turn lanes.
11
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
~
'\'
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
As a result, the LOS would remain at
LOS E. However, if the property were
to redevelop in the future, additional
ROW could be obtained for the
southbound right-turn lane.
While existing TransNet funding is
expected to cover some of the costs of
roadway and transit improvements and
existing traffic signal fees currently
collected as new development occurs
would be applied, as appropriate, to
identified signal-phasing improvements,
the Facilities Implementation Analysis
(FIA) has identified proposed development
fees that may be needed to fund some of
the recommended traffic improvements. In
addition, some of the improvements will
require right of way dedications either as
part ofthe development process or
concurrent with capital improvements,
and/or coordination with Caltrans.
o #28 Fifth A venuelH Street: Change the
northbound/southbound approaches to include
protective plus permissive phasing and add a
westbound right-turn lane.
o #29 Fourth AvenuelH Street: Add a1\
eastbound/westbound right-turn lane.
o #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp:
Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required
for this improvement.
b. Tier 2 Improvements
o . #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp: Add
a westbound right-turn lane. Coordination
with Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
o #59 J StreetlI-5 Northbound Ramp: Add an
eastbound left-turn and westbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
12
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
. #6 I L Street/Bay Boulevard: Signalize the
intersection, add a southbound left-turn lane,
and a northbound right-turn overlap phase to
the traffic signal.
. #63 Bay Boulevard/l-5 Southbound Ramp:
Signalize the intersection. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
. #64 Industrial Boulevard/l-5 Northb,ound
Ramp: Signalize the intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required
for this improvement.
. H Street from four lanes to six lanes from 1-5
to Broadway
c. Tier 3 Improvements
. # I3 BroadwaylF Street: Add an eastbound
right-turn lane.
. #45 Fourth AvenuelBrisbane Street: Add a
southbound right-turn overlap phase to the
traffic signal.
. #57 Second A venuellp Street: Convert to an
all-way stop controlldd intersection.
13
~
I
Vv
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
On an annual basis during buildout of the UCSP,
the City shall apply the TMP to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the
Subdistricts Area by conducting roadway segment
travel time studies in accordance with the City's
Growth Management Program and Traffic
Threshold Standards. The results of the annual
study under the TMP will be used by the City to
determine the timing and need for implementation
of improvements to the nineteen intersections
identified above as having potential significant
impacts. The City shall iIljplement the intersection
improvements in phases b~ed on the results of the
annual TMP and on need and enhancement to the
function of the overall street network. In addition
to determining timing and need, this systems and
operations monitoring approach should also be
used to further ascertain final design details of the
intersection improvements 'and may include
consideration of the effects on traffic flow as well
as the impactslbenefits to other travel modes (e.g.,
pedestrians and bicycles) that are foundational to
the successful implementation of the Specific
Plan.
14
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
,
~
'0
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
The potential significant impacts to street
segments will be mitigated to below
significance by implementation ofthe
improvements recommended in Mitigation
Measure 5.8.5-2, with the exception of
Third A venue between E and G Streets.
The significant and unavoidable impact to
this street segment result from the design
of the project, which is intended to reduce
Third A venue to a two-laoe downtown
promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the
traditional commercial village. Although
the planned improvements would result in
an un,acceptable LOS, they would meet the
project objectives of creating a more
pedestrian friendly and active streetscape
that will accommodate multi-modes of
transportation rather than accommodating
only the automobile.
5.8.5-2: Segment Improvements. During build-out of
the UCSP, the City shall apply the Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the
Subdistricts Area by conducting roadway
segment travel time studies in accordance with
the City's Growth Management Program and
Traffic Threshold Standards. The results of the
annual study under the TMP will be used by the
City to determine the timing and need for
implementation of improvements to the street
segments identified as having potential
significant impacts. The City shall implement the
following street segment improvements:
(I) based on the results of the annual TMP; or
(2) based on need and enhancement to the
function ofthe overall street network; and (3) in
a manner that efficiently implements with
phasing of necessary adjacent intersection
improvements.
15
Timing of
implementation based on
(1) results ofthe annual
Traffic Monitoring
Program (TMP); (2) need
and enhancement to the
function of the overall
street network; and (3) in
a manner that efficiently
implements with phasing
of necessary adjacent
intersection
improvements.
City ofChula Vista
(CCY)
~
~
(Jj
C>
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
1) H Street between 1-5 and Broadway would be
reclassified as a six-lane gateway. As a result,
the acceptable ADT would increase and result
in an acceptable LOS.
2) Third A venue between E Street and G Street
would be constructed as a two-lane downtown
promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the traditional
commercial village. As a result, the acceptable
ADT along the segment would decrease and
result in an unacceptable LOS. As such,
impacts to Third A venue will be significant
and unavoidable. However, the Third Avenue
corridor intersections at E, F and G Streets
would all operate at an acceptable L0S.
16
~
I
~
'-
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
City of Chula Vista
(CCY)
Due to the long-tenn nature of some of the
improvements, the fee program and
coordination have either not been
implemented or begun, respectively,
whereas the right of way exactions would
occur with redevelopment. While these
improvements are intended to be
implemented when necessary and within
the Tiers noted above, their long-tenn
implementation cannot be assured at this
time. Identified significant impacts will be
partially mitigated but due to the lack of
funding assurances at this time, future
coordination with CAL TRANS and
SANDAG, and future right of way
exactions, impacts are considered
significant and unmitigated.
5.8.5- 3:Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development
Pennit, subsequent development projects shall
prepare a traffic assessment to quantify the
projects' potential traffic impacts. Subsequent
projects will be required to contribute their fair
share to the Tiered Improvements listed above
under Mitigation 5.8.5.1. Mitigation may be in
the fonn of:
I. Payment of Transportation Development
Impact Fee (TDlF), as may be established in
the future for the western portion of the City;
2. Payment of existing Traffic Impact Signal
Fee;
3. Construction of improvements within the
project boundaries; and/or
4. Early advancement of improvements beyond
the project boundaries, subject to a
reimbursement agreement.
17
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Pennit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary pennit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
liJ.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
The City's TDIF program for the west side of the
City, including the Urban Core is anticipated to
be developed within the subsequent twelve
months following adoption of the UCSP. The
TDIF will clearly establish the costs of the
improvements identified above as well as the fair
share costs to be applied to all subsequent
development projects. Once the TDIF has been
established, the fee will be consistently: applied
to all subsequent development projects, until
such time that the TDIF is amended or rescinded.
In the interim, if subsequent development
projects are processed and approved prior to the
establishment ofa TDIF, a condition of approval
will be included that prior to issuance of building
permits the project will contribute to the TDIF,
as may be established.
18
~
I
~
lJ.j
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City ofChuIa Vista
(CCV)
Pedestrian, Bicycling and Public
Transit. The three-fold increase in
population projected for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area by 2030 would place
greater demands on public transit services.
However, provisions of the UCSP serve to
benefit, rather than to deteriorate, mobility
conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and
public transit users. Additionally, the
UCSP does not conflict with any adopted
plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
Impacts to alternative forms of
transportation as a result of the proposed
UCSP would not be significant nor adverse
given adherence of subsequent projects to
relevant regulations and guidelines ofthe
UCSP as outlined in Mitigation Measure
5.8.5-4.
5.8.5-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development
Permit for subsequent development projects, the
traffic assessment prepared to quantify the
projects' potential traffic impacts will also
identify how alternative modes of transportation
will be accommodated. Mitigation may be in the
form of:
1) Compliance with the development regulations
and design guidelines ofthe UCSP to
accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and
public transit; and
2) Where applicable, c,*,struction of
improvements within the project bOl1ndaries;
and/or
3) Early advancement of improvements beyond
the project boundaries, subject to a
reimbursement agree":lent.
19
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
~
\
CJv
UJ
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Mebures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
>
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
Parking. A projected total of 18,560
parking spaces would be required to serve
future development of the proposed UCSP
at buildout.
Potential significant impacts to parking
would be reduced to below significance by
the incorporation of these development
regulations and design guidelines into
subsequent development projects, as
required as part of the UCSP design review
process. Parking improvements will either
be made on-site (i.e. where required of
subsequent development projects), or off-
site (i.e. in coordination with the City's
Parking District or in Lieu Fee program).
A number of other parking improvement
strategies are included in the UCSP
including raking buffers, parking districts
and parking structures.
5.8.5-5: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development
Permit, subsequent development projects shall
comply with the parking standards set forth in
the UCSP development regulations and design
guidelines for the type and intensity of
development proposed.
20
~
<1
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Multi-Jurisdictlonal Efforts. The
proposed UCSP will result in both direct
and cumulatively significant traffic impacts
to study area freeway segments and ramps.
. As described above under Road Segments
and Intersections Level of Service, the
following freeway interchanges would be
significantly impacted by the proposed
UCSP:
. # I: Bay Boulevard/I- 5 SB ramp at E
Street (LOS E - AM Peak, LOS F - PM
Peak);
. #2: 1-5 NB Ramp at E Street (LOS E-
AM and PM Peak);
. #24: 1-5 SB Ramp at H Street (LOS F-
PM Peak);
. #25: 1-5 NB Ramp at H Street (LOS F-
PM Peak);
. #34: Broadway at SR-54 WB Ramp
(LOS F - AM Peak);
. #44: Fourth A venue at SR-54 EB
Ramp (LOS F - PM Peak);
5.8.5-6: The City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional
effort conducted by Caltrans and SANDAG to
assist in developing a detailed engineering study
of the freeway right-of-way that will identifY
transportation improvements along with funding,
including federal, state, regional, and local
funding sources, and phasing, that would reduce
congestion consistent with Caltrans Standards on
the 1.5 South corridor from the State Route 54
(SR-54) interchange to State Route 75 (SR-
75)/Palm Avenue (the "1-5 South Corridor")
(hereinafter, the "Plan). Local funding sources
may include fair share contributions by private
development based on nexus as well as other
mechanisms. The Plan required by this
mitigation shall include the following: '
I) The responsible entities (the "Entities")
included in this effort will include, but may
not be limited to the City, the Port, SANDAG,
and Caltrans. Other entities may be included
upon the concurrence of the foregoing
Entities.
21
Time Frame of
Mitigation
To coincide with multi-
year planning effort that
began June 2005, is
ongoing and scheduled to
conclude in three to five
years.
City ofChula Vista
(CCV), in cooperation
with other jurisdictions.
~
~
CJJ
{'-
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
. #59: J Street at 1-5 NB Ramp (LOS F -
AM Peak, LOS E - PM Peak);
. #63: Bay Boulevard at 1-5 SB Ramp
(LOS F - AM and PM Peak); and
. #64: Industrial Boulevard at 1-5 NB
Ramp (LOS F - PM Peak).
The monitoring of traffic as stipulated by
Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-1 will assist in
establishing the need and timing for
transportation improvements, including
freeway-related improvements, serving the
UCSP area. In addition, Mitigation
Measure 5.8.5-3 requires subsequent
development projects to prepare a traffic
assessment to quantifY the project's
potential traffic impacts. Subsequent
projects will also be required to contribute
their fair share to the Tiered Improvements
listed above under Mitigation 5.8.5.1.
2) The Plan will specifically identifY physical
and operational improvements to 1-5, relevant
arterial roads and transit facilities (the
"Improvements"), that are focused o~ specific
transportation impacts and will also identifY
the fair share responsibilities of each Entity
for the construction and financing for each
Improvement. The Plan may also identifY
other improvements necessary to address
regional transportation needs, but for purposes
of this mitigation measure, the Improvements
included in the Plan need only be designed to
mitigate the impacts created by the Proposed
Project.
3) The Plan will set forth a time line and other
agreed-upon relevant criteria for
implementation of each Improvement.
22
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
I
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGA nON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation of impacts will require
development and regional acceptance of a
feasible program to improve freeway
segments and ramps in the Urban Core
area. The City, along with Caltrans, and
SANDAG will continue to pursue aud
promote improvement of the 1-5 freeway
facilities adjacent to the UCSP area. The
concept of promoting/requiring Ufair-
share" contributions on the part of
developers for improvements to the
freeway system will need to be addressed
as part of the implementation of an
acceptable program to improve freeway
segments and ramps. As such, the
specification of such requirements cannot
be determined at this time. Mitigation
Measure 5.8.5-6 was developed to ensure
the continued participation in regional
transportation planning efforts by the City,
Caltrans, SANDAG, and other entities as
may be identified.
4) The Plan will identify the total estimated
design and construction cost for each
Improvement and the responsibility of each
Entity for both implementation and funding of
such costs.
5) The Plan will include the parameters for any
fair-share funding contributions to be
implemented, that would require private
andlor public developers to contribute to the
costs, in a manner that will comply with
applicable law.
6) In developing the Plan, the Entities shall also
consider ways in which the Improvements can
be coordinated with existing local and
regional transportation and facilities financing
plans and programs, in order to avoid
duplication of effort and expenditure;
however, the existence of such other plans
and programs shall not relieve the Entities of
their collective nbligation to develop and
implement the Plan as set forth in this
mitigation measure. Nothing in the Plan shall
be construed as relie'jing any Entity (or any
other entity) from its Independent
responsibility (if any)' for the implementation
of any transportation improvement.
23
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
The City of Chula Vista shall continue to
work with SANDAG and Caltrans on an
ongoing basis to identitY sources and
obtain funding for a variety of
transportation system improvements.
Future residential growth in the Urban
Core will be subject to the Regional
Transportation Congestion Improvement
Program, as stipulated by the Transnet
legislation and will provide additional
funds for improvement of the regional
arterial system.
7) The City shall seek adoption of the Plan
before the City Council upon the completion
of the multi-jurisdictional effort to develop
the Plan. The City shall report, to their
governing bodies regarding the progress made
to develop the Plan within six months of the
first meeting of the Entities. Thereafter, the
City shall report at least annually regarding
the progress of the Plan, for a period of not
less than five years, which may be extended at
the request of the Citq' Council.
8) The Plan shall also e~pressly include each
Entity's pledge that it will cooperate with
each other in implementing the Plan.
The failure or refusal of any Entity other than the
City to cooperate in the implementation of this
mitigation measure shall not constitute failure of
the City to implement this mitigation measure;
however, the City shall use its best efforts to
obtain the cooperation of all responsible Entities to
fully participate in order to achieve the goals of
the mitigation measure.
24
~
I
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Law Enforcement Future development in
accordance with the proposed UCSP would
result in a significant impact to law
enforcement services because of the
anticipated increase in calls for service and
the additional travel time required to
answer these calls. While the police
facility at Fourth Avenue and F Street is
sufficient to meet the law enforcement
needs created by increased demand
resulting from development, more police
officers will be needed in order to maintain
response times. Significant impacts would
result if timing of these provisions does not
coincide with projected increase in demand
for services and populations growth.
Implementation of mitigation measures
5.11-1-1 through 5.11.I-3 would mitigate
impacts to the provisions of adequate law
enforcement services resulting from the
adoption of the UCSP to below a level of
significance.
Mitigation Measures
5. I 1.I -I: Subsequent development projects shall
demonstrate that significant impacts to police
services resulting from an individual project are
addressed prior to approval of an Urban Core
Development permit or other discretionary
approval. As part of pn,>ject review, subsequent
development projects shall be evaluated for
adequate access for police vehicles (pursuant to
GPU Policy PFS 6.1) and integration of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) techniques (pursuant to GPU Policy
PFS 6.3).
5. I 1.1-2: As a condition of project approval, individual
developers shall pay the public facilities
development impact fees (PFDIF) at the rate in
effect at the time building permits are issued.
5. I U-3: As part of the annual budgeting process, the City
shall assess the need for additional police
personnel to provide protection services
consistent with established City service levels
and commensurate with the increase in
population.
25
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Needs assessed during
annual City budget
review.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City ofChula Vista
(CCV)
~
,
6v
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION'MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
Fire Protection, The Chula Vista Fire
Department does not currently meet the
threshold standard for response time for the
City, including the UCSP Subdistricts
Area. Buildout of the proposed UCSP
would increase demand for fire protection
services. However, as population growth
in the service area warrants, additional fire
protection personnel and fire protection
equipment and facilities would be provided
to help ensure adequate service within the
requirements of the GMOC threshold
standards. Significant impacts to fire
protection services would result if timing
of these provisions does not coincide with
projected increase in demand for services
and population growth.
With the implementation of mitigation
measures 5.11.2-1 through 5.11.2-3,
significant impacts to the provision of fire
protection services would be mitigated to
less than significant.
5.11.2-1: Prior to approval, subsequent individual
development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate provision of adequate access and
water pressure for new buildings.
5.11.2-2: As a condition of project approval, individual
developers shall pay the public facilities
development impact fees at the rate in effect at
the time building permits are issued.
5.11.2-3: As part of the annual budgeting process, the City
will assess the need for additional fire
personnel to provide protection services
consistent with established City service levels
and commensurate with the increase in
population.
26
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Needs assessed during
annual City budget
review.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City ofChula Vista
(CCV)
~
I
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Scllools. The proposed UCSP will result in
a three-fold increase in population within
the Subdistricts Area at buildout and an
associated increase in demand for schools.
At buildout, the UCSP is expected to
generate a net increase of approximately
3,877 students between elementary, middle
school, and high school grades. The
generation of approximately 2,485 addi-
tional elementary students would have a
significant impact on existing elementary
schools serving the area because they are
already at or near capacity. New students
generated by the UCSP would require at
least 59 additional elementary school
classrooms.
However, potentially fewer students may
result from UCSP buildout or interim
conditions due to the intensified urban
environment of the UCSP, with new mid-
to high-rise mixed uses likely to be
occupied by single or childless young
couples, or empty nesters. Therefore, the
impacts may be overstated and will be
monitored to accurately plan for new
student enrollment.
5.11.3-1: Prior to approval, subsequent development
projects in the UCSP shall demonstrate that
significant impacts to public educatio'1al
services resulting from the individual project
have been addressed. As a condition of project
approval, individual developers shall pay the
statutory school impact fees at the rate in effect
at the time building permits are issued.
27
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
t
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
Libraries. Buildout of the UCSP may
require additional library space in order to
meet and maintain the City criteria of 500
square feet per 1,000 population and 3
books per person for new development.
Based on the expected net increase in
population of 18,318 with buildout of the
UCSP, increased demand on existing
library services would amount to
approximately 9,159 square feet of library
facilities and 54,954 books. Existing
library service conditions in the City are
inadequate and not in compliance with City
standards. Additional library capacity is
planned by 2007, however, with the
construction of the 30,000-square-foot
Rancho Del Rey Library. In the absence of
this or other new library construction, any
additional demand on library services
would comprise a significant impact.
The following mitigation measure will mitigate library
impacts resulting from the adoption of the UCSP to below
a level of significance.
5.11.4-1: Prior to approval, subsequent individual
development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate that significant impacts tp the
provision of library services resulting from
individual projects have been addressed. As a
condition ofproject approval, individual
developers shall pay the public facilities
development impact fees at the rate in effect at
the time building permits are issued.
28
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
~
cL
--/:....
CJJ
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City ofChula Vista
(CCV)
Parks and Recreation. Implementation of
the proposed UCSP would generate
increased demand for parks and recreation
facilities. Full buildout of the UCSP would
be required to provide up to approximately
55 acres of new parkland (incrementally
and commensurate with new development)
in order to meet the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, Park Development Ordinance
standard of 3 acres of parkland for every
1,000 people. A significant impact could
occur if dedication of parkland and
construction of new facilities does not
coincide with project implementation and
project population growth.
Implementation of mitigation measure
5.11.5-1 would reduce impacts to the
provisions of park and recreation services
and facilities resulting from the adoption of
the UCSP to below a level of significance.
5.11.5-1: Prior to approval of an Urban Core
Development Permit, each subsequent project
shall establish to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director that the
project meets the City's parkland dedication
requirement. As a condition of project
approval, individual developers shall provide
required parkland and facilities on-site, if
possible and consisten\ with potential site
locations identified in Q1e UCSP and Parks
Master Plan; or pay the applicable parlj:land
acquisition and parkland development fee and
recreation facility development impact fees at
the rates in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
29
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
~
t1
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
!
Mitigation Measures
Potential Significant Impact
Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Based
on buildout projections, impacts to the
provision of sewer service would be
significant. Chula Vista owns capacity in
the Metro system, which provides
conveyance of City wastewater flows.
Increasing population will place additional
demand on sewer services. While it is the
intent of the City to ensure that services are
provided concurrent with need, the
provision of sewer services is not solely
within its authority. Although the City is in
the process of acquiring additional capacity
from Metro, that acquisition has not yet
been finalized. Based on GPU buildout
projections, the City will be generating
approximately 26.2 mgd of wastewater
citywide by 2030 and would need to
acquire additional 6.4 mgd of capacity
rights by the year 2030 in order to meet
citywide projected demand. Of this total,
1.57 mgd are projected to be generated in
western Chula Vista, including a projected
generation of 0.88 mgd for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.12.2-1: Prior to the approval of subsequent individual
development projects, project plans shall
demonstrate that there is sufficient wastewater
capacity available to serve the proposed project.
Conditions of approval may require sewer
capacity fees to be contributed to mitigate
project-related impacts.
30
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
'&
\
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Energy. Impacts to energy are considered
significant because there is no long-term
assurance that energy supplies will be
available at buildout of the UCSP.
A voidance of energy impacts cannot be
assured regardless of land use designation
or population size. Although changes to
planned land uses in the City would
continue to implement the Energy Strategy
Action Plan, San Diego Regional Energy
Plan and Transit First Plan, implementation
of the proposed land uses identified in the
UCSP has the potential to result in
significant impacts to nonrenewable and
slowly renewable energy resources as a
result of anticipated growth.
The environmental sustainability measures
ofthe UCSP(Chapter VI, G.) may further
serve to reduce energy consumption
associated with construction and
occupation of structures within the UCSP
area.
5.12.4-1: The City shall continue to implement the Energy
Strategy Action Plan that addresses demand
side management, energy efficient and
renewable energy outreach programs for
businesses and residents, energy acquisition,
power generation, and distributed energy
resources and legislative actions, and continue
to implement the CO, Reduction Plan to lessen
the impacts on energy.
While implementation of the above mitigation
measure reduces energy related impacts, because
there is no assurance that energy resources will be
available to adequately serve the projected increase
in population resulting from adoption of the UCSP,
the impact remains significant.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City ofChula Vista
(CCV)
31
ATTACHMENT q
RESOLUTION PCM 07-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
(pCM NO.07-01) AND RELATED REZONING ACTIONS
WHEREAS, on December 13,2005 an update to the City's General Plan was approved
which provides a contempOlary vision for the Urban Core, the tIaditional dewntown of the City
The General Plan Vision for the Urban Cere of the City states that the Urban Cere will centain
the greatest diversity of public, commer'cial, civic, financial, cultmal, and residential uses
emphasizing its role as the hub of the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Visien fer the tIaditional residential neighborheods that
sUHound the Urban Core states that the attIactiveness ofliving in these areas will be enhanced by
the Urban Core's diversity in character and mchitectural style and enhanced access to facilities
and services; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Transpertation Element of the General Plan calls fer the
Urban Cere Specific Plan (UCSP), 01 'Other zening regulatiens to implement the new land uses,
in pmticulm' mixed use and mban core residential zening districts, to ensure the systematic
implementation 'Of the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP will serve as the specific plan te direct and guide the develepmel!L.
of the Urban Cere, including the D'Ownt'Own and surrounding m'eas, t'Owmds this g'OaI by directly
regulating land use and establishing a focused devel'Opment scheme and process fer the area; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Cede Secti'On 1907 010 ad'Opt~ by reference
Secti'Ons 65450 tluough 65457 'Of the California G'Overnment Cede that auth'Orizes the l'Ocal
legislative b'Ody t'O initiate the prepmati'On 'Of a specific plan to implement the policies 'Of a
general plan; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to have zoning c'Onsistent with the City's General Plan is
established in CVMC Secti'On 19,06 030 and CalifOlnia Government Cede 65860, The UCSP is
the first in a series of significant zoning decuments that me anticipated to implement the visi'On
established by the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, 'On May 27, 2003, the City Ceuncil approved Res'Oluti'On N'O. 2003-236 te
initiate the preparatien 'Of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in January 2004 the consulting fum of RRM Design Group was retained to
assist staff in the prepmati'On 'Of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, 'On August 3, 2004 the City Council appointed an 18 member Advisory
C'Ommittee te w'Ork with the City's staff' and c'Onsultant team and the cemmunity in devel'Oping
s'Ome 'Of the maj'Or cemponents 'Of the UCSP, and the UCSP Advisory C'Ommittee held it's fust
=<-3~~
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM 07-01
Page 2
meeting as a two day event on August 13 and 14,2004 to begin pIepaIation of the waft UCSP;
and
WHEREAS, in Septembel 2004, a community wOIkshop was held to gatheI public input
on mattels related to the preparation of the draft UCSP; and
WHEREAS, based on input from Committee membels and the public at these meetings,
draft "Vision Plans" were created to set the flamewolk for developing the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, the waft Vision Plans wele presented to the UCSP AdvisOlY Committee
followed by presentation to a joint City CouncilJPlanning Commission wOlkshop on November
17, 2004, and a second community wOlkshop. Based on the positive reaction to the Vision Plans
the staff and consultant team began developing major components of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, monthly meetings of the UCSP AdvisOlY Committee were held from
JanuaIY through June 2005.. These well attended meetings held with the UCSP AdvisolY
Committee plOvided direction on significant planning issues such as new pelmitted land uses,
development standards, design guidelines, and gateway design elements; and
WHEREAS, in September 2005, the Genelal Plan Draft EIR was leleased fOI public
review, followed by public heatings and approval of the Genelal Plan on December 13, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005, a preliminaIY
"Public Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory Committee in MaIch 2006. In
addition, a third community workshop, jointly sponsored by the NOIthwest Civic Association and
Crossroads II, was held to provide the community with an ovexview of the UCSP and gamel
additional PleliminaIY input on the waft UCSP. Feedback from both of these events was
considered and incOlporated, as detelmined appropdate by staff and the consultant team, into a
"Public Review" Draft UCSP; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP has been prepared pUlsuant to the autholity gtanted in the ChuIa
Vista Municipal Code Section 19..07, Specific Plans, and the Califomia Govexnment Code, Title
7, Division 1, Chapter 3, AtticIe 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatOlY
elements identified in Govemment Code Section 65451; and
WHEREAS, Chapters V, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP provide the plan and
mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent
development; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP Environmental Impact RepOlt 06-01 has been prepared as a
Progtam EIR and includes an evaluation of the gtowth management quality of life thresholds at a
progx'anrmatic level. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progtam (MMRP)
provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measUles that address provision of
public services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to contribute to the
of-3~1
Planning Commission Resolution No, PCM 07-01
Page 3
provision of public services and facilities commensurate with their impact as development occurs
over the course of the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period for the DEIR, information
sessions/workshops were held with the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to provide an overview of the UCSP to these advisory
bodies in preparation offutwe public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public
hearing for Draft EIR 06-01 on July 13,2006, to close the public review period, and following
the close of the public hearing, the public review period ended on July 13 2006; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing Draft UCSP (pCM 07-10) has been prepared and
incorporates revisions to the Public Review Draft UCSP, as described in the Public Hearing
Draft "Errata" based on public input and minor revisions to correct information; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a hearing
on said UCSP for October 11, 2006 and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on October
11, 2006 at 6:00 p.,ffi in the City C-eilllcil Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and after receiving public testimony said hearing was continued to a date to be
determined pending the November 2006 election outcome regarding Proposition 90; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a
subsequent hearing on said UCSP for March 28, 2007 and notice of said hearing, together with
its purpose, was given pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten
days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on March
28,2007 at 6:00 p,m.. in the City 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 the Public Hearing Draft UCSP, DEIR and FEIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAI THE PLANNING COMMISSION of
the City of Chula Vista, having independently reviewed and considered the information in the
Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No 06-01 and all reports,
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing recommends that the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order' that the UCSP has been prepared pursuant
to Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter's 1907 and Government Code Sections 65450-65457;
and
C:Z-3i9
Planning Commission Resolution No PCM 07.01
Page 4
BE II FURTHER RESOLVED THAI THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of
Chula Vista, having leviewed and considered the information in the Public Hellling Draft UCSP
(PCM 07.01) recommends that the City Council of the City of ChuIa Vista find, detelInine,
resolve and order that pmsuant to Government Code Section 65854 - 65855 the UCSP is
consistent with the2005 Genelal Plan as supported by the Public Hellling Dlaft UCSP (PCM 07-
01), Final EIR (No 06-01) and analysis including attachments to the stafI'Iepolt to the Planning
Commission for the October 11, 2006 and Milich 28, 2007 and is suppOlted by public necessity,
convenience, genelal welfllle, and good zoning Plactice; and
BE II FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of
Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hellling Draft UCSP
(PCM 07-01), Dlaft and Final EIR No.. 06-01 and allrepolts, evidence and testimony presented
at the public healing recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista fmd,
determine, resolve and order that the UCSP is in keeping with Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 19.80, as it lequires subsequent new development to provide adequate public selvices
and facilities commensUIate with their impact; and
- -
BE II FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance llInending the zoning map and approving
Public Hellling Dlaft UCSP (PCM 07-01) with all llInendments including the additional
recommendations made at the Planning Commission public hellling on Milich 28, 2007
specifiellHy to: 1) apply the alternative residential Plllking standllld, for subdistricts other than
those designated as Tlansit Focus Areas, that is based on the number ofbedIooms (Le. 1 parking
space for studios and one bedIoom units and 2 pmking spaces fOl two+ bedI.oom units) rather
than a uniform parking standaId of 1.5 parking spaces per unit; and 2) add two pm.cels located at
311-325 G Street to the V.3 West Village subdistrict The zoning legulations contained in the
Public Hearing Dlaft UCSP (pCM 07-01), specifically Chapter VI, will replace existing
Municipal Code zoning classifications for the plOpelties within the UCSP Subdistricts Area
(Attachment I) and will intr.oduce new zoning classifications for mixed-use (retail/office),
mixed-use with residential, and urban core residential (high-density lesidential) as identified by
the 2005 Genelal Plan and provide consistency between the 2005 General Plan and zoning as
required by CYMC 19..06..030
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of March, 2007 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Felber, T lipp, Spethman, Vinson, Clayton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Moctezuma, Bensoussan
ATTEST:
6/ -31 r
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM 07-01
Page 5
..
Diana Vargas
Secn:talY to the Panning Commission
cJ- 3s-0
a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 06-01)
FOR THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ACTIONS; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS;
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE. CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY EIR-06-01; AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM 07-01)
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2005 an update to the City's General Plan was approved
which provides a contemporary vision for the Urban Core, the traditional downtown of the City.
The General Plan Vision for the Urban Core of the City states that the Urban Core will contain
the greatest diversity of public, commercial, civic, financial, cultural, and residential uses
emphasizing its role as the hub of the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Vision for the traditional residential neighborhoods that
surround the Urban Core states that the attractiveness of living in these areas will be
enhanced by the Urban Core's diversity in character and architectural style and enhanced
access to facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan calls for the
Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), or other zoning regulations to implement the new land uses,
in particular mixed use and urban core residential zoning districts, to ensure the systematic
implementation of the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP will serve as the specific plan to direct and guide the
development of the Urban Core, including the Downtown and surrounding areas, towards this
goal by directly regulating land use and establishing a focused development scheme and
process for the area; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference
Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code that authorizes the local
legislative body to initiate the preparation of a specific plan to implement the policies of a
general plan; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to have zoning consistent with the City's General Plan is
established in CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860. The UCSP
is the first in a series of significant zoning documents that are anticipated to implement the
vision established by the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2003-236 to
initiate the preparation of the UCSP; and
~t0J
WHEREAS, in January 2004 the consulting firm of RRM Design Group was retained to
assist staff in the preparation of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004 the City Council appointed an 18 member Advisory
Committee to work with the City's staff and consultant team and the community in developing
some of the major components of the UCSP, and the UCSP Advisory Committee held it's first
meeting as a two day event on August 13 and 14, 2004 to begin preparation of the draft
UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in September 2004, a community workshop was held to gather public input
on matters related to the preparation of the draft UCSP; and
WHEREAS, based on input from Committee members and the public at these meetings,
draft "Vision Plans" were created to set the framework for developing the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, the draft Vision Plans were presented to the UCSP Advisory Committee
followed by presentation to a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on November
17, 2004, and a second community workshop. Based on the positive reaction to the Vision
Plans the staff and consultant team began developing major components of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, monthly meetings of the UCSP Advisory Committee were held from
January through June 2005. These well attended meetings held with the UCSP Advisory
Committee provided direction on significant planning issues such as new permitted land uses,
development standards, design guidelines, and gateway design elements; and
WHEREAS, in September 2005, the General Plan Draft EIR was released for public
review, followed by public hearings and approval of the General Plan on December 13, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005, a preliminary
"Public Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory Committee in March 2006. In
addition, a third community workshop, jointly sponsored by the Northwest Civic Association
and Crossroads II, was held to provide the community with an overview of the UCSP and
garner additional preliminary input on the draft UCSP. Feedback from both of these events
was considered and incorporated, as determined appropriate by staff and the consultant team,
into a "Public Review" Draft UCSP; and the Draft EIR was prepared for a 45 day public review
period; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government
Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all
the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 65451; and
WHEREAS, Chapters V, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP provide the plan and
mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent
development; and
~Cl-J-,
WHEREAS, the UCSP Environmental Impact Report 06-01 has been prepared as a
Program EIR and includes an evaluation of the growth management quality of life thresholds at
a programmatic level. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures that address provision
of public services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to contribute to
the provision of public services and facilities commensurate with their impact as development
occurs over the course of the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 06-01 for the Urban Core Specific Plan was issued for public
review on May 31,2006, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period for the DEIR, information
sessions/workshops were held with the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to provide an overview of the UCSP to these advisory
bodies in preparation of future public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public
hearing for Draft EIR 06-01 on July 13, 2006, to close the public review period, and following
the close of the public hearing, the public review period ended on July 13 2006; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-10) has been prepared and
incorporates revisions to the Public Review Draft UCSP, as described in the Public Hearing
Draft "Errata" based on public input and minor revisions to correct information; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 06-01) has been prepared on
the Urban Core Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated September 2006 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in Final EIR 06-01 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn,
the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement those measures. These findings are
not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted mitigation
measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "B" of this
Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, are expressed as conditions
of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the
process of implementing the Urban Core Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007 hearings were held at the time
and place as advertised before the Planning Commission. Based on input received at these
hearings, additional minor modifications were recommended to the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP. These modifications were reviewed, in the context of the FEIR, and it was determined
that the recommended changes Would not affect the impact analysis or significance
conclusions of the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a hearing
on said UCSP for April 26, 2007 and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
:Z~3
given pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten days prior to the
hearing.
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on April
26, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation and after receiving public testimony said hearing was
thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation considered all reports,
evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the Public Hearing
Draft UCSP, DEIR and FEIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION of the City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and
considered the information in the Final EIR, does hereby certify Final EIR-06-01 and
recommend that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order
as follows:
I. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation at their public hearing on Draft EIR-06-1 held on July 13, 2006, the minutes and
resolutions resulting from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation meetings of July 13,
2006, the minutes and resolutions resulting from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
meeting of April 26, 2007, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers,
including all documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(e(1)-
(11)), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code 921000 et seq.). Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), the City of Chula Vista specifies the Environmental
Review Coordinator of the City and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents which
constitute the records of proceedings.
II. FEIR 06-01 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 06-01 consists of the following:
1. Final EIR for the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan (including all technical
appendices); and
2. Comments on the Draft EIR and the Lead Agency's Responses to Comments; and
3. Errata
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 06-01")
~{V1
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 06-01
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WITH
CALIFORNIA
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby find that FEIR 06-01, the
Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution,
a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the
City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources
Code, S21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 S15000 et seq.),
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation finds that the FEIR 06-01 reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City of Chula Vista.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby approve,
accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and
every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 06-01 and in the Findings of
Fact for this Project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described and specifically
identified in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become
binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned
thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives and Selected Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 06-01 and in the Findings of
Fact, Section XIII, for the Project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Chula Vista Redevelopment
}ZiJv6
Corporation hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project which were
identified in FEIR-06-01, and selected mitigation measures, are determined to be
infeasible based on specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations. Section XIII identifies the factual basis for this conclusion, which
includes but is not limited to the determination that project alternatives and
selected mitigation measures do not reduce impacts to a less than significant
level or meet several project objectives.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any
feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental
effects caused by the Project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues and
approves, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit uA," a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifying the specific economic, legal,
social, technological and other considerations that render the unavoidable
significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during
project implementation, the City and any other responsible parties implement the
project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the
Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City
Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(e)(1)-(11), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any
claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (UCEQA") (Public Resources Code
921000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, having considered the information contained in the Final EIR, certifies EIR-
06-01 and recommends to the City Council that FEIR-06-01, the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit uA" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file
with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit
UB" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) have been
~~4,
prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, S21000 et
seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 S15000 et seq.),. and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and, therefore, should be
ce rtifred.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION of the City of Chula Vista, having independently reviewed and considered
the information in the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No. 06-01
and all reports, evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing recommends that the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the UCSP has
been prepared pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter's 19.07 and Government
Code Sections 65450-65457; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION of the City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in
the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) recommends that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the pursuant to Government Code Section
65854 - 65855 that the UCSP is consistent with the 2005 General Plan as supported by the
Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Final EIR (No.06-01) and analysis including
attachments to the agenda statement to the City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation, Redevelopment Agency and City Council dated April 26, 2007 and is supported
by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION of the City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in
the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No. 06-01 and all reports,
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing recommends that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the UCSP is in keeping with
Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.80, as it requires subsequent new development to
provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with their impact; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby recommend that the City Council
adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving Public Hearing Draft UCSP
(PCM 07-01) with all amendments including the additional recommendations made at the
Planning Commission public hearing on March 28, 2007. The zoning regulations contained in
the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), specifically Chapter VI, will replace existing
Municipal Code zoning classifications for the properties within the UCSP Subdistricts Area
(Attachment 1) and will introduce new zoning classifications for mixed-use (retail/office),
mixed-use with residential, and urban core residential (high-density residential) as identified by
the 2005 General Plan and provide consistency between the 2005 General Plan and zoning as
required by CVMC 19.06.030.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this April 26,2007 by the
following vote, to-wit:
A~1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Ann B. Hix, Secretary
~tL-f
Cheryl Cox, Chair
EXHIBIT A
:za--9
Final
CEQA Findings of Fact
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the
City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
ErR #06-01
SCH #2005081121
Lead Agency
City ofChula Vista
City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
December 2006
j tJ..; )1)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 In trod u cti 0 n .................. .:....... .......... .... .................... ....... ............. ..... ..... 1
1.1 Project Summary .............................................................................................1
1.2 Findings Required Under CEQA...................................................................4
1.3 Record of Proceedings .....................................................................................6
2.0 Findings on Significant Project Impacts......................................................... 8
2.1 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics .....................................................................8
2.2 Cu ltural Reso urces................ ........... .................. ..... ........................ ..... ..........11
2.3 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................16
2.4 Paleontological Resources .............................................................................17
2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................20
2.6 Traffic, Circulation .and Access ....................................................................22
2.7 Noise. .............................................................................................................30
2.8 Air Quality ......................................................................................................34
2.9 Pu blic Services... ...... .......... .......................... ................................. ..................38
2.10 Public Utilities ...............................................................................................44
2.11 Hazards/Risk of Upset ...................................................................................46
3.0 Findings on Significant Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 47
3.1 Cultural Reso urces. ................. ........... .................... ........... ......... .............. ......48
3.2 Traffic, Circulation and Access ..................................................................49
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................50
3.4 Energy ............................................................................................................50
4.0 Findings on Feasibility of Project Alternatives Considered in tbe
FEIR .. ... ..... ......... .... ... ... ............ ........ ............ ...... ... ...... .... ... ..... ..51
4.1 No Project Alternative...................................................................................54
4.2 Reduced Project Alternative.........................................................................56
4.3 Automobile Priority Alternative...................................................................58
5.0 Project Effects Found Not to be Significant................................................ 61
6.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations...................................................... 63
6.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...................................................63
d-tL)J
1
6.2 Considerations in Support of Overriding Considerations
63
1. Introduction
This document presents fmdings that must be made by the City of Chula Vista prior to
approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan, pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the
Public Resources Code. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency (City of Chula Vista) is
required to make written findings concerning each significant environmental impact
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
The FEIR prepared for the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan assessed the
environmental impacts of all the discretionary actions related to the adoption of the
Urban Core Specific Plan. In addition, the FEIR evaluated three CEQA alternatives to
the proposed project: the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative, and the
Automobile Priority Alternative.
The FEIR constitutes a Program EIR under the provisions of Section 15168 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. A Program EIR allows for review of a series of contemplated actions.
The City of Chula Vista and other agencies will be able to use information presented in
the Program FEIR to determine if additional environmental review is required for
subsequent actions linked to the project. The Program FEIR for the UCSP was prepared
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as
amended and the guidelines of the City ofChula Vista.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Urban Core Specific Plan, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on
this matter, the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Chula Vista (City) in its capacity as the
CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and
subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies
for the implementation of the Urban Core Specific Plan.
1.1 Project Summary
The proposed project is the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) which is intended to
govern the development and revitalization of the urban core of the City of Chula Vista.
The proposed UCSP was prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code
(Section 19.07, Specific Plans) and the California Government Code (Title 7, Division I,
Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457), and contains chapters pertaining to
Mobility Recommendations, Land Use and Development Regulations (zoning),
Development Design Guidelines, Public Realm Design Guidelines, Infrastructure and
Public Facilities, a Community Benefits Program, and Plan Implementation. Additional
chapters include information pertaining to the UCSP's background, vision, and existing
conditions.
:I. to )~
2
The proposed UCSP refmes and implements the VISIOn for downtown Chula Vista
expressed in the City's General Plan Update (GPU, 2005). The proposed UCSP fulfills
the role of providing detailed neighborhood-specific land use and development
regulations (zoning), development design guidelines, and numerous other mobility and
public realm guidelines, incentives and programs to revitalize the urban core in accord
with the general goals stated in the GPU. The UCSP additionally serves as the basis for a
variety of other actions, such as parkland acquisitions and transportation improvements.
Under the proposed UCSP, downtown Chula Vista at buildout would consist of an
integrated and connected network of three distinct neighborhoods and districts: the
Village, Urban Core and Corridors. (For planning purposes each of these three districts
are divided into a total of 26 subdistricts). Each district would contain a mix of primarily
low- to mid-rise (45 to 84 feet in height) high-density commercial, office, and residential
uses and various public amenities such as improved pedestrian streetscapes, bicycle and
transit facilities, public art, and parks, plazas and paseos. Two high-rise (up to 210 feet in
height) Transit Focus Areas would be permitted in the areas surrounding the existing E
and H Street trolley stations.
The new zoning, development standards, and design guidelines proposed in the UCSP
apply only to the 690-gross-acre UCSP Subdistricts Area. (The UCSP Subdistricts Area
lies within the larger 1700-acre UCSP study area. The existing stable residential
neighborhoods within the study area, outside of the Subdistricts Area, are exempt from
the regulatory provisions of the proposed UCSP.) The proposed UCSP regulatory
provisions would allow an ultimate buildout of 7,100 net new residential units over the
existing 3,700 for a total of up to 10,800 dwelling units in the Subdistricts Area by year
2030. Commercial retail square footage would increase by up to I million square feet
over the existing 3 million square feet for a total of up to 4 million square feet by 2030.
Commercial office space would increase by up to 1.3 million square feet over the existing
2.4 million square feet for a total of up to 3.7 million square feet by 2030. In addition, up
to 1.3 million square feet of new commercial visitor-serving uses would be allowed in the
Subdistricts Area by 2030.. This intensification of land use in the Subdistricts Area is
plarmed to accommodate GPU-projected resident and employment populations.
Discretionary Actions
The UCSP land use regulations would supersede existing Municipal Code Zoning as well
as the existing land use guidelines of the redevelopment plan areas that overlap the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. The specific discretionary actions to be considered by the Chula Vista
City Council associated with adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan are identified
below.
J\ rL )3
3
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
REQUIRED FOR UCSP
ADOPTION
IMPLEMENTATION
AND
Action
Urban Core Specific Plan
Adoption
Urban Core Specific Plan
Final EIR Certification
Town Centre
Redevelopment
Amendments
Town Centre I Land Use
Policy Repeal
Town Centre I Design
Manual Repeal
Agency
City of Chula Vista
City Council
City of Chula Vista
City Council
I
Plan
City of Chula Vista
City Council!
Redevelopment
Agency
City of Chula Vista
City Council!
Redevelopment
Agency
City of Chula Vista
City Council!
Redevelopment
Agency
Purpose
To implement the objectives and policies of the
recently updated Chula Vista General Plan
To comply with State-required environmental
review of the proposed Urban Core Specific
Plan
To delete existing land use regulations and
instead defer to the land use development and
design provisions of the Urban Core Specific
Plan
To defer regulation of permitted land uses
within the Chula Vista urban core to the Urban
Core Specific Plan Land Use Matrix
To defer the guidelines for design of
development within the Chula Vista urban core
to the Development Design Guidelines of the
Urban Core Specific Plan
Project Objectives
The Urban Core Specific Plan follows the direction provided in the City's General Plan
Update by establishing a more detailed vision, regulations, and guidelines for future
development and beautification of the traditional downtown area. The following .are the
primary objectives of the Urban Core Specific Plan:
. Create the tools necessary to implement the General Plan Update's vision for the
urban core through preparation of a comprehensive set of new zoning classifications
and updated development regulations and standards for mixed-use developments.
. Develop updated design guidelines unique to the individual districts in the urban core
that implement the urban form and create the active urban environment envisioned by
the General Plan Update.
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
. Facilitate revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and residential
areas by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that assures
quality outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
c::< rJ- ) f
4
1.2 Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides in relevant part, that "it is the policy of
the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same
statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public
agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects
and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or
substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on
to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make
infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may
be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and
principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part,
through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for
which ErRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a).)
For each significant environmental effect identified in an ErR for a proposed project, the
approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible
conclusions, together with a brief of the rationale for each finding.
. The first such finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final ErR." (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (a)(I).)
. The second permissible finding is that "[ s ]uch changes or alterations are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091,
subd. (a)(2).)
. The third potential finding is that "[ s ]pecific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines
section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta II") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.
410].) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183
Cal.Rptr. 898].) '''[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent
that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
,ArL- /6
5
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills
Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d
182].)
The CEQA Guidelines do not defme the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA
Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve proj ects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code, section 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to
reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be
mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978)
83 Cal.AppJd 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that
an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects
by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant
impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question
has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened
but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not explicitly require findings to
address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant,"
these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final
EIR.
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,
where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that
would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however,
where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project
lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible
;;: tL- ) ~
6
environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper fIndings,
may nevertheless approve the project if the agency fIrst adopts a statement of overriding
considerations setting forth the specifIc reasons why the agency found that the project's
"benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects,"
(CEQA Guidelines, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code,
section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he wisdom of
approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of
interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it
simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52
Ca1.3d 553, 576.)
Legal Effect of Findings
To the extent that these fIndings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the ErR are feasible and have not been modifIed, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties, require implementation of those measures. These fIndings, in other words,
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the
resolution(s) approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with
these fIndings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these fIndings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the
City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the
applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identifIed below. The program is described in the document entitled City of Chula Vista
Urban Core SpecifIc Plan Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The MMRP will
remain available for public review during the compliance period.
1.3 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the fIndings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall include but not
be limited to the following:
. The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the project;
. The Draft EIR for the project (ErR #06-01), including appendixes and technical
reports, as circulated for Public Review on May 30, 2006;
j~/1
7
. Comments received from members of the public and public agencies regarding the
Draft ErR that was circulated for Public Review on May 30, 2006 and responses
thereto;
. The Final ErR for the project (EIR #06-01), including appendixes and technical
reports, and documents incorporated by reference, and the;
. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the project;
. All documents and comments and correspondence submitted by members of the
public and public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on
the ErR for the project;
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate, with respect to this project or the ErR for the project;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public hearings for this proj ect;
. All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with this
project, including all resolutions by the Planning Commission and City Council, and
all documents cited or referred to therein;
. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which the members of the
City Council consider regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws
and regulations, and including but not limited to the following:
. City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, 2006.
. Water Supply Assessment for the Urban Core Specific Plan, 2005.
. City of Chula Vista General Plan Update ErR, 2005.
. City ofChula Vista General Plan Update, 2005.
. City of Chula Vista Municipal Code - Zoning, 200 I.
. City of Chula Vista Merged Redevelopment Plan, 2004.
. City ofChula Vista Town Center r Redevelopment Plan, 1978.
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code
section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record
of proceedings is the Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision
on the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, even if not every document was
formally presented to the City Councilor City Staff as part of the City files generated in
connection with the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan. Without exception,
any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two
categories. The first category is those documents that reflect prior planning or legislative
decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the City of Chula Vista
Urban Core Specific Plan. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation
Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v.
Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252
Cal.Rptr. 620].) The second category are those documents that influenced the expert
advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City
J.!0 )f
8
Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of City of Chula Vista Urban Core
Specific Plan. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-
Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866
[226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33
Ca1.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)
2.0 Findings on Significant Project Impacts
The FEIR identified the following significant environmental impacts that the proposed
UCSP would potentially cause: visual quality (aesthetics), cultural resources, geology
and soils, paleontological resources, water quality, traffic/circulation, noise, air quality
(plan inconsistency and cumulative net increase in pollutants), noise, public services,
public utilities (water treatment capacity and energy), and hazards/risk of upset. These
significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in FEIR #06-0 I in Table I-I
and in Chapter 5. Some of the impacts can be reduced below a level of significance with
the mitigation measures described in the FEIR and below. Certain impacts cannot be
substantially lessened or avoided with mitigation; but, as described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section 6.0 of this document), the City Council has
determined that the impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
As summarized in Section 5.0 of this document, potential impacts were evaluated in the
FEIR for the following issues and found not to be significant: land use, population and
housing, hydrology (groundwater depletion, drainagelflooding), public utilities (water
supply, waste management) biology, agriculture, and mineral resources.
The FEIR concluded that the proposed UCSP would be growth inducing because it
establishes land uses that can accommodate growth. Based on GPU projections, the
proposed UCSP would accommodate a population increase of 18,318 and a housing unit
increase of up to 7,100 units over existing conditions. The direct and indirect effects of
this growth are evaluated in each of the topical issue analyses. By extension, the
mitigation measures for the growth-inducing impacts of the UCSP are set forth in each of
the topical issue mitigation measures. The findings made below thus address the impacts
resulting from growth. The following subsections describe specific impacts as evaluated
in accordance with established criteria; the reasons why they are significant; and where
applicable, unavoidable; the mitigation measures, and/or why the mitigation measures
proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other considerations.
2.1 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
The Final EIR examined the Project's potential impact on Landform Alteration and
Visual Quality in Section 5.2.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed project would result in a significant impact to
landform alteration/aesthetics if it would:
;l, tL )1
9
. Criterion 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, and rock outcroppings
and historic buildings within a scenic highway.
. Criterion 2: Result in architecture, urban design, landscaping, or landforms that
negatively detract from the prevailing aesthetic character of the site or surrounding
area; or that substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of the site
(including blue sky views and solar access) and its surroundings.
. Criterion 3: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Impact (Criterion 2): The proposed project will result in architecture, urban design
or landscaping that potentially degrades existing visual character or quality of the
site (including blue sky views and solar access) and its surroundings. (FEIR Section
5.2.3.2, pages 5-60 - 5-72)
The UCSP was determined not to have significant impacts related to scenic vistas or
resources in accordance with Criterion I. However, the UCSP was determined to have a
potential significant impact resulting from the degradation of the visual character of the
Chula Vista urban core as evaluated in accordance with Criterion 2. The UCSP has the
potential to impact the visual environment through fundamental changes in land use
and/or to components of the landscape that contribute to visual quality. The proposed
UCSP allows for substantial intensification of existing land use and resulting urban visual
character, through greater building heights and mass, to accommodate the three-fold
increase in population projected for the urban core by the year 2030. Redevelopment and
new development within the Subdistricts Area as allowed in the UCSP would change the
existing visual character from mostly low-rise (up to 48 feet in height) single-use
commercial blocks surrounded by multi-family residential blocks, to a mix of low-rise
(up to 45 feet in height) and mid-rise (up to 84 feet in height) mixed-use
commercial/office and residential blocks, with high-rise structures (up to 210 feet in
height) allowed in the areas surrounding the existing E Street and H Street trolley
stations. Existing visual character, blue sky views, solar access, ventilation, and
glare/lighting conditions would be affected by this intensification in land use.
To ensure avoidance of potential visual character impacts, all subsequent development
projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be required to comply with relevant UCSP
provisions as outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-1.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.2.5-1: All subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area shall
comply with UCSP development regulations and design guidelines which are
necessary to reduce or avoid potential impacts to landform alteration and visual
quality (including blue sky views, solar access, and ventilation), and which may
include but not be limited to the special development regulations for mixed-use
projects (p. VI-43), the NTCD and TF A regulations (p' VI-40), and the siting and
architectural design guidelines for each district (Chapter VII). Prior to approval
of a subsequent development project, the Community Development Director or
d. tL.J. ()
10
Planning and Building Director of the City shall identify the specific provisions
of the UCSP which shall be included in the conditions of approval in order to
avoid or to reduce potential impacts to below significance.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: As identified in Section 5.0, Subsection 5.2 of the ErR, pursuant to section
15091 (a) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or are
incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
identified in the EIR to a level below significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed UCSP contains urban development
regulations and design guidelines to achieve a high quality pedestrian-scaled environment
consistent with policies in the GPU for the urban core. As stated in Mitigation Measure
5.2.5-1, all subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be
required to comply with the UCSP development regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and
development design guidelines (UCSP. Chapter VII) and other relevant provisions of the
UCSP, as part of the design review process, in order to avoid or reduce potential visual
character impacts to a level below significance. The design review process would occur
for new development and redevelopment within the UCSP Subdistricts Area to determine
their compliance with the objectives and specific requirements of the Plan.
Impact (Criterion 3): The proposed project will create a new source of light and
glare which will potentially adversely affect light sensitive resources. (FErR Section
5.2.3.3, pages 5-72 - 5-75)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 3, the proposed UCSP would allow for a
substantial intensification of existing land uses through taller building heights and greater
building massing. Light sensitive activities (e.g. sleeping) could potentially be adversely
impacted by light or glare in excess of baseline conditions due to buildout of the UCSP
and intensification of land use. To ensure avoidance of potential light and glare impacts,
all subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be required to
comply with the relevant UCSP provisions outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-2.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.2.5-2: All subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area shall
comply with UCSP development regulations and design guidelines which are
necessary to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts to light or glare and
which may include but not be limited to the provisions included in section
5.2.3.3 a through e of this EIR. Prior to approval of a subsequent development
project, the Community Development Director or Planning and Building
Director of the City shall identify the specific provisions of the UCSP which
shall be included in the conditions of approval in order to avoid or to reduce
potential light and glare impacts to below significance.
~ ~cJ. /
11
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: As identified in Section 5.0, Subsection 5.2 of tbe FEIR, pursuant to section
15091 (a) (1) of tbe CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or are
incorporated into, tbe proj ect tbat will substantially lessen or avoid tbe significant effect
identified in tbe EIR to a level below significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Various provisions in the UCSP development regulations
and design guidelines (UCSP Chapters VI and VII) serve to control light and glare
sources and ensure tbat light pollution and glare would be minimal. For example, the
special regulations for mixed-use projects require tbat all mixed-use projects "minimize
the effects of any exterior noise, odors, glare, and other potentially significant effects"
(UCSP, Chapter VI, Section H, p. VI-44). For each UCSP District, a set of private
development and public realm design guidelines (UCSP, Chapter VIII) include lighting
requirements to reduce glare, exposure or brightness, angle and deptb of field, and
duration. Many lighting sources are encouraged to be timed or motion-sensitized. As
stated in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-2, all subsequent development projects in the UCSP
Subdistricts Area will be required to comply witb the UCSP development regulations
(UCSP, Chapter VI) and development design guidelines (UCSP. Chapter VII) and other
relevant provisions ofthe UCSP, as part of tbe design review process, in order to avoid or
reduce potential light and glare impacts to a level below significance. Therefore, the
proposed UCSP would not result in a significant impact to the prevailing light and glare
conditions of the site or surrounding area.
2.2 Cultural Resources
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Cultural Resources in Section 5.3.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed Urban Core Specific Plan would result in a
significant impact to cultural resources if it would:
. Criterion I: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
architectural resource that is listed on, or determined to be eligible for listing on, the
National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources;
is listed on or determined to be eligible for listing on the Chula Vista List of Historic
Sites; or that meets any oftbe following Criterion:
o Is associated witb events tbat have made a significant contribution to tbe broad
patterns of history at tbe local, regional, state, or national level;
o Is associated with tbe lives of significant persons in tbe past on a local, regional,
state, or national level;
o Embodies tbe distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or metbod of
construction, or represents tbe work of a master, or possesses high artistic values;
or
o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
:< ~J.~
12
. Criterion 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an important
archaeological resource or disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Impact (Criterion 1): The proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical architectural resource. (FEIR Section 5.3.3.1, pages
5-95 - 5-99)
As evaluated pursuant to Criterion 1, future development in accordance with the UCSP
could have a significant impact on historic architectural resources through demolition or
substantial alteration of identified or as yet unidentified historic resources. A total of
eleven sites within the UCSP Subdistricts Area have thus far been locally designated or
determined to be eligible for local designation as historically significant. Six of the
eleven sites are currently listed on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. These six sites
comprise the homes or sites of early prominent Chula Vista persons (Greg Rogers House,
Orchard House, Mark Skinner House) or the sites of early important civic and business
functions (First Congregational Church, the First Women's Clubhouse, the Melville
Block). The other five sites were determined to be eligible for local listing in September
2005 by having met the National and California Register eligibility Criterion and the
CEQA Guidelines Criterion of historic significance. These five eligible sites are
commercial properties concentrated along Third Avenue in the UCSP Village District
and are representative of commercial development of the I 920s, 40s or 50s. The physical
demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of any of these eleven historic resources
or their immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would
be materially impaired under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2) would constitute a
significant and direct impact.
The potential for the existence of other as yet unidentified significant historic properties
within the UCSP Subdistricts Area is also considered potentially significant given the
number of older commercial structures and homes throughout the UCSP Subdistricts
Area.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings.
5.3.5-1 For a structure listed on, or eligible for listing on, the Chula Vista List of
Historic Sites or State and Federal historic registers, the project applicant shall
retain the structure in-place and maintain, repair, stabilize, rehabilitate, restore,
preserve or reconstruct the structure in a manner consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving. Rehabilitating. Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer ("Secretary's Standards").
Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit (UCDP) or other
discretionary permit, the proj ect applicant shall prepare detailed construction
plans under the supervision of a qualified architectural historian or historic
architect for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
The Community Development Director shall retain, at the project applicant's
~ tL:::/.3
13
expense, a qualified historic architect to review the plans and to certifY that the
project will comply with the Secretary's Standards and would not result in the
loss of the structure's listing, or eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
Federal register of historic resources.
5.3.5-2 Where there is substantial evidence that it is not feasible for a structure listed
on, or eligible for listing on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or State or
Federal historic registers to be retained in-place, the project applicant shall
provide for relocation and maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation,
restoration or preservation of the structure in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks
and Grimmer ("Secretary's Standards") at a new location subject to the approval
of the City. Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit (UCDP) or
other discretionary permit, the project applicant shall prepare detailed relocation
plans under the supervision of a qualified architectural historian or historic
architect for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
The Community Development Director shall retain, <;it the project applicant's
expense, a qualified historic architect to review the plans and to certifY that the
project will comply with the Secretary's Standards and would not result in the
loss of the structure's listing, or eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
federal register of historic resources.
5.3.5-3 Where there is substantial evidence that it is not feasible, as determined by
CEQA Section 15064.5, (b) (4), for a structure listed on or eligible for listing on
the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or State or Federal historic registers to be
retained in-place or to be relocated to another location satisfactory to the City,
the proj ect applicant shall:
Provide for documentation of the historical structure before it is removed from
the development site, including but not limited to photographic documentation
of the exterior and interior of the structure, and "as built" drawings of the
structure according to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey
(HABS, Level I). Such historical documentation shall be provided to the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRe) or Resource Conservation
Commission (RCe), as applicable, before a demolition permit is issued by the
City for the structure.
5.3.5-4 For those structures 45 years or older and not previously evaluated, a
determination of historic significance shall be made based on the significance
Criterion in Section 5.3.2 of this ErR (and repeated below) prior to the issuance
of a demolition permit.
A site or structure may be listed on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites if it
possesses integrity (oflocation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
and association) and meets at least one of the following criteria:
. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of history at the local, regional, state, or national
level;
~tL:<1
14
. Is associated with the lives of significant persons in the past on a
local, regional, state, or national level;
. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values; or
. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important III
history or prehistory.
If a resource is determined by the City to be historically significant pursuant to
the above listed criteria, Mitigation Measure 5.3.5-1, 5.3.5-2, or 5.3.5-3 shall be
implemented as applicable and determined by the Lead Agency in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a) and (b).
Significance After Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the EIR. While mitigation measure 5.3.5-3 is feasible
and will be completed, it may in some cases not lessen impacts to a level below
significance. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required
should the decision makers choose to approve the proposed proj ect.
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures 5.3.5-1, 5.3-5-2,
and 5.3.5-4 would reduce potential impacts to historic resources to below a level of
significance. In some circumstances, such as where economic constraints or social
considerations render implementation of mitigation measures 5.3.5-1, 5.3.5-2 infeasible,
implementation of mitigation measure 5.3.5-3 which provides for documentation of an
historic resource, may not mitigate significant impacts to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur. In that event, a potential impact to
historic resources may be significant and unavoidable. In the absence of site specific
development proposals the extent of impact as a result of implementation of mitigation
measure 5.3.5-3 (photo documentation) is speculative at this time.
Impact (Criterion 2): The proposed project would potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource or disturb human
remains. (FEIR Section 5.3.3.2, pages 5-99 - 5-100)
The UCSP Subdistricts Area is mapped as having low sensitivity for the occurrence of
archaeological resources. Although the likelihood of encountering significant
archaeological resources and human remains is low, the potential does exist. In the
unlikely event that prehistoric cultural materials are found during subsurface disturbance
resulting from future developments, there would be a significant archaeological impact as
evaluated in accordance with Criterion 2.
0<: ~C<6
15
Mitigation Measure: The following archaeological mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.3.5-5 The likelihood of encountering archaeological resources is low within the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. The following mitigation shall only be applied to projects
which involve subsurface excavation to the depth of greater than or equal to six
feet, or for any project site that has not had substantial previous excavation.
Prior to approval of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the
fust Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core Development Permit,
the Community Development Director shall verify that the requirements for
Archaeological Monitoring and Native American monitoring, if applicable,
have been noted on the appropriate construction documents.
. The applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Community
Development Director identifying the qualified Principal Investigator (PI)
for the project and the names of all persons involved in the archaeological
monitoring program, the areas to be monitored, and a construction schedule
indicating when and where monitoring will occur.
. During construction, the monitor shall be present full-time during soil
remediation and grading/excavation/trenching activities which could result
in impacts to archaeological resources, and shall document field activity and
in the case of any discoveries.
. In the event of a discovery, the Archaeological Monitor shall direct the
contractor to temporarily divert trenching activities in the area of discovery
and immediately notify the resident engineer or building inspector, as
appropriate. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless the
Monitor is the PI) of the discovery and the PI and Native American
representative, if applicable, shall evaluate the significance of the resource.
. Once encountered, artifacts associated with an archaeological feature or
deposit are required to be documented in place, analyzed in a laboratory
setting and prepared for curation in accordance CEQA provisions and local
guidelines.
. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and the
procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98)
and State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be undertaken.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources
would be avoided or reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of
an archaeological monitoring program, described above, during future projects'
subsurface excavation.
c!< ~~~
16
I
2.3 Geology and Soils
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Geology and Soils in Section 5.4.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would have a significant impact on
geology and soils ifit would:
. Criterion I: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(a) 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,
(b) Strong seismic ground shaking,
( c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or
(d) Landslides; or
. Criterion 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
. Criterion 3: Is 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;
. Criterion 4: Is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property; and
. Criterion 5: Has soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal
of waste water.
Impact (Criteria 1, 3 and 4): Implementation of the proposed project would
potentially expose people or structures to substantial risk or injury or loss of life or
destruction of property caused by soils, seismic, or other geologic hazards. (FElR
Section 5.4.3, pages 5-111 - 5-113)
The UCSP area is potentially subject to strong ground shaking by an earthquake along the
active Rose Canyon fault zone, or other active faults in the region. The Subdistricts Area
may additionally be subject to liquefaction along its western boundary. Compressible and
expansive soils also have the potential to be encountered by future development
throughout the UCSP Subdistricts Area. As evaluated in accordance with Criteria I, 3
and 4, buildout of the UCSP would result in an increase in housing, office space, retail
space, and hotels that would be subj ect to these potentially significant seismic and soils
hazards. Therefore, there would be a proportionate increase in the risk of personal and
property damage as the population within the urban core increases. The proposed
project was determined not to have significant impacts related to soil erosion or septic
tank use, as evaluated in accordance with Criteria 2 and 5.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.4.5-1 Prior to the approval of each subsequent development project, the project
applicant shall submit a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation of the
project site to the City Engineer and/or Building Official for review and
c{ tU:<1
17
approval. The evaluation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer
in order to identify site-specific conditions and to determine whether potential
soil and geologic hazards exist on the site. The evaluation shall include, but not
be limited to, a delineation of specific locations where liquefiable, compressive,
and expansive soils would affect structural stability and where graded slopes
would expose bedrock susceptible to instability. Liquefiable, expansive, or
compressive soils shall be removed from the site and shall be replaced with
compacted fill.
5.4.5-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each subsequent development
proj ect, the City Building Official shall verify that the design of all structures
proposed for a specific site comply with the requirements of all federal, state and
local building codes and regulations governing earthquake safety and structural
stability and with the standard practices of the Association of Structural
Engineers of California.
Significance After Mitigation: Not significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures
5.4.5-1 and 5.4.5-2 requiring comprehensive site-specific soil and geologic evaluations
and verification of building code and seismic safety compliance would reduce or avoid
potentially significant impacts resulting from groundshaking, liquefaction, and
compressible and expansive soils.
2.4 Paleontological Resources
The FEIR examined the DCSP's potential impact on Paleontological Resources III
Section 5.5.
Criterion of Significance: The proposed DCSP would have a significant impact on
paleontological resources if it would:
. Criterion 1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
Impact (Criterion 1): Implementation of the Urban Core Specific Plan would
potentially destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature. (FEIR Section 5.5.3, pages 5-118 - 5-119)
The DCSP area contains a large expanse of moderate paleontological resource sensitivity.
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion I, exposure or disturbance of unnamed
nearshore marine sandstone and the Linda Vista Formation would potentially
significantly impact paleontological resources. Because the DCSP area is fully developed
~tL:{?
18
with urban uses, future grading would typically be minimal except in areas with sub-
garages and sub-floors. Development proposed in areas of moderate sensitivity that
propose to grade in excess of 2,000 cubic yards and five feet deep require mitigation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval, and is made binding through these findings.
5.5-1 Subsequent development projects that propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic
yards and five feet depth in areas of moderate sensitivity for paleontological
resources shall be required to implement a pre-construction or construction
monitoring program, or both, as a condition of approval. All mitigation programs
shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined here as an
individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who has proven
experience in San Diego County paleontology and who is knowledgeable in
professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be
conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined here as an individual
who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
Pre-construction mitigation. This method of mitigation is only applicable to
instances where well-preserved and significant fossil remains, discovered in the
assessment phase, would be destroyed during initial clearing and equipment
move-on. The individual tasks of this program include:
1. Surface prospecting for exposed fossil remains, generally involving inspection
of existing bedrock outcrops but possibly also excavation of test trenches;
2. Surface collection of discovered fossil remains, typically involving simple
excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing of
large and/or fragile specimens or more elaborate quarry excavations of ricWy
fossiliferous deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the
recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of
fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic
section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting;
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains,
generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving
scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assigrunent of
catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains paleontological collections (including
the fossil specimens, copies of all field notes, maps, stratigraphic sections, and
photographs); and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods
used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the
significance of the curated collection.
c{iLcX1
19
Construction mitigation. Under this program, mitigation occurs while
excavation operations are underway. The scope and pace of excavation generally
dictate the scope and pace of mitigation. The individual tasks of a construction
mitigation program typically include:
I. Monitoring of excavation operations to discover unearthed fossil remains,
generally involving inspection of ongoing excavation exposures (e.g., sheet
graded pads, cut slopes, roadcuts, basement excavations, and trench
sidewalls);
2. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of
the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing .of large and/or
fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous
deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the
recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of
fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic
section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting;
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains,
generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving
scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of
catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains paleontological collections, including
the fossil specimens, copies of all field notes, maps, stratigraphic sections and
photographs; and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods
used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the
significance of the curated collection.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Exposure or disturbance of potentially significant
paleontological resources has the potential to occur in areas that are proposed to be
graded in excess of 2,000 cubic yards and five feet deep. Future projects that propose
grading in excess of these thresholds shall be required to implement a pre-construction or
construction monitoring program, or both, as a condition of subsequent project approval.
All mitigation programs are required to be performed by a qualified professional
paleontologist. Potential paleontological impacts arising from UCSP implementation
will thus be avoided or reduced to below significance.
~ tl- 3?>
20
2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
The FEIR examined the Project's potential impact on Hydrology and Water Quality in
Section 5.7.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in a significant impact to
hydrology and water quality if it would:
. Criterion I: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
. Criterion 2: Substantially deplete groundwater resources or aquifer recharge areas.
. Criterion 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or
substantially increase surface runoff in a manner which would result in on- or off-site
flooding or exceed capacity of existing drainage systems.
Impact (Criterion 1): The proposed UCSP would have potentially significant long
term and short term construction impacts to water quality. (FEIR Section 5.7.3.1,
pages 5-138-140)
The Plan was determined to have a significant impact resulting from the potential to
degrade water quality as evaluated in accordance with Criterion 1. No significant
hydrology/water quality impacts would result in accordance with Criteria 2 and 3.
Implementation of the proposed UCSP would allow for a three-fold increase in
population and associated intensification of existing urban land uses which will result in
an increase in direct runoff to drainage basins, municipal storm sewer systems, and
eventual drainage to surface water and/or the ocean. This runoff will contain typical
urban runoff pollutants such as sediment, pathogens, heavy metals, petroleum products,
nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) and trash. Therefore, this comprises a potentially
significant long-term water quality impact.
The construction activities of subsequent individual projects would also potentially cause
short-term water quality impacts through direct discharge of pollutants, soil
excavation/sedimentation, and through encountering of shallow groundwater during
subfloor grading. This comprises a potentially significant short-term water quality
impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these [mdings.
5.7-1 Prior to approval of subsequent individual development projects, compliance with
all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding water quality
(e.g. Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP), Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
and City Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Manual) shall
be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
~ a..- 3/
21
5.7-2 Prior to approval of subsequent individual development projects, project
applicants are required to identify storm water pollutants that are potentially
generated and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
proposed on-site storm drain systems fully mitigate drainage impacts and meet all
federal, state, and regional water quality objectives and all City standards and
requirements. Land development construction drawings and associated required
reports, i.e., a hydrology and water quality study, shall include details, notes, and
discussions relative to the required or recommended retention measures and Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Permanent storm water BMP requirements shall
be incorporated into the proj ect design and all subsequent individual development
projects are required to complete the applicable Storm Water Compliance Forms
and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual.
5.7-3 The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant
redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal
Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said permit, all projects falling under
the Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing
Criterion. Future projects shall comply with all applicable regulations,
established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as
set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations
adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and
requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (N0l) with the
State Water Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall
include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution
control measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for the maintenance of
post-construction control measures.
5.7-4 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development proj ects shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, conformance with
Mediterranean/indigenous landscaping and other relevant design
recommendations provided in UCSP Chapter VII Development Design
Guidelines.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
~ to 3;<,
22
Facts in Support of Finding: Potential short-term (construction) and long-term
(intensified urban runoff) water quality impacts would be avoided or reduced to below
significance through mitigation measures 5.7-1 through 5.7-4 which require future
project's demonstration of compliance with all applicable federal, state and local water
quality regulations, including preparation of project-specific hydrology and water quality
studies, implementation of pollution prevention design measures, construction and post-
construction pollution prevention and control measures, and compliance with relevant
landscaping design requirements.
2.6 Traffic, Circulation, and Access
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Traffic, Circulation, and Access in
Section 5.8.
Criteria of Significance: The significance criteria to evaluate the project impacts to
intersections are based on the City of Chula Vista's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies
in the City of Chula Vista, February 13, 2001 and on the City of Chula Vista's adopted
General Plan. At intersections, the measurement of effectiveness (MaE) is based on
allowable increases in delay. At roadway segments, the MaE is based on allowable
increases in the average daily traffic (ADT).
Intersections Criteria. Within the Urban Core of the City of Chula Vista, the goal is to
achieve level of service (LOS) D or better at all signalized and unsignalized intersections.
· A project-specific impact would occur if the operations at intersections are at LOS E
or F and the project trips comprise five percent or more of the entering volume.
. A cumulative impact would occur if the operations at intersections are at LOS Ear F
only.
Roadway Segments Criteria. The impact Criterion for Urban Core Circulation Element
roadways (Gateway Street, Urban Arterial, Commercial Boulevard, Downtown Promenade) are
as follows:
· A roadway segment that currently operates at LOS D or better and with the proposed
changes would operate at LOS E or F at General Plan buildout is considered a
significant impact.
· A roadway segment that currently operates at LOS E would operate at LOS F at
General Plan buildout, or which operates at LOS E or F and would worsen by 5
percent or more at General Plan buildout is considered a significant impact.
Impact: The UCSP will cause significant circulation impacts to intersections and
roadway segments. (FEIR Section 5.8.3.I-Pages 5-164 - 5-173)
As evaluated in accordance with intersections and roadway segments criteria, the
proposed UCSP would result in significant impacts to traffic. A substantial increase in
traffic on area roadways and at area intersections will result from planned population
growth in the urban core area over the next 25 years. For the year 2030 condition, 19
intersections (including nine freeway on/off ramps) are calculated to operate at LOS E or F.
~tL33
23
In addition, two roadway segments are calculated to operate at LOS E or F for the 2030
condition.
Mitigation measures are identified in the FEIR to avoid or reduce significant impacts to all
but three intersections and one roadway segment. Impacts to the three intersections and one
roadways segment would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings.
5.8.5 -1 Intersection Improvements. Impacts to the 19 affected intersections will be
mitigated to below significance by the implementation of improvements that
have been divided into three tiers for phased implementation based on need
and enhancement of the overall street network. Generally, time frames
associated with the tiered improvements are anticipated as short-, mid- and
long-term. In each tier, the City's existing TMP will determine the order in
which projects are implemented during the biannual Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) review. The Tier I improvements would be included in the
current CIP and subsequently monitored for improvement within the first five
years of implementation of the UCSP. It should be noted that three of the
intersections (#7, #16, and #21) are proposed as project features rather than as
needed to improve intersection LOS and most likely will be related to and
timed with implementation of streetscape improvements along Third Avenue.
The intersection numbers in the improvements described below correspond to
the intersection numbering system used in the TIA (Appendix C of the EIR):
a. Tier 1 Improvements
0#1 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street: Add an eastbound through
and right-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, and northbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) will be required for this improvement.
o #2 1-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a westbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement
o #7 Third A venue/E Street: Convert the northbound and southbound shared
right-through lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
o #16 Third Avenue/F Street: Separate the southbound shared through-right
lane into an exclusive through and right-turn lanes, convert the northbound
shared through-right lane into an exclusive right-turn lane.
o #21 Third Avenue/G Street: Convert the northbound/southbound shared
through-right lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
o #24 1-5 Southbound RamplH Street: Add a southbound left, eastbound
through and right-turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans will be required
for this improvement.
o #25 1-5 Northbound RamplH Street: Add a westbound through and right-
turn lane and restripe south approach to accommodate dual left-turn lanes.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
o #26 Woodlawn AvenuelH Street: Change Woodlawn Avenue to a one-
way couplet. This improvement is required to serve the intense
o?uf
24
redevelopment occurring on both sides of H Street. The couplet
improvement is not required mitigation further north toward E Street.
. #27 Broadway/H Street: Add an eastbound transit queue jumper lane and
westbound through and right-turn lanes.
. #28 Fifth Avenue/H Street: Change the northbound/southbound
approaches to include protective plus permissive phasing and add a
westbound right-turn lane.
. #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street: Add an eastbound/westbound right-turn lane.
. #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp: Add an eastbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
b. Tier 2 Improvements
. . #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp: Add a westbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
. #59 J Street/I-5 Northbound Ramp: Add an eastbound left-turn and
westbound right-turn lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for
this improvement.
#61 L Street/Bay Boulevard: Signalize the intersection, add a southbound
left-turn lane, and a northbound right-turn overlap phase to the traffic
signal.
. #63 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp: Signalize the intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
. #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramp: Signalize the
intersection. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
H Street from four lanes to six lanes from 1-5 to Broadway
c. Tier 3 Improvements
. #13 Broadway/F Street: Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
#45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street: Add a southbound right-turn overlap
phase to the traffic signal.
. #57 Second Avenue/D Street: Convert to an all-way stop controlled
intersection.
On an annual basis during buildout of the UCSP, the City shall apply the TMP
to monitor actual performance of the street system in the Subdistricts Area by
conducting roadway segment travel time studies in accordance with the City's
Growth Management Program and Traffic Threshold Standards. The results of
the annual study under the TMP will be used by the City to determine the
timing and need for implementation of improvements to the nineteen
intersections identified above as having potential significant impacts. The City
shall implement the intersection improvements in phases based on the results
of the annual IMP and on need and enhancement to the function of the overall
street network. In addition to determining timing and need, this systems and
operations monitoring approach should also be used to further ascertain final
design details of the intersection improvements and may include consideration
o(tL~
25
of the effects on traffic flow as well as the impactslbenefits to other travel
modes (e.g., pedestrians and bicycles) that are foundational to the successful
implementation of the Specific Plan.
5.8.5-2 Roadway Segment Improvements. During build-out of the UCSP, the City
shall apply the Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the Subdistricts Area by conducting
roadway segment travel time studies in accordance with the City's Growth
Management Program and Traffic Threshold Standards. The results of the
annual study under the TMP will be used by the City to determine the timing
and need for implementation of improvements to the street segments identified
as having potential significant impacts. The City shall implement the following
street segment improvements: I) based on the results of the annual TMP; or 2)
based on need and enhancement to the function of the overall street network;
and 3) in a manner that efficiently implements with phasing of necessary
adjacent intersection improvements.
I) H Street between 1-5 and Broadway would be reclassified as a six-lane
gateway. As a result, the acceptable ADT would increase and result in an
acceptable LOS.
2) Third Avenue between E Street and G Street would be constructed as a
two-lane downtown promenade to facilitate an enhanced pedestrian
environment along the traditional commercial village. As a result, the
acceptable ADT along the segment would decrease and result in an
unacceptable LOS. As such, impacts to Third Avenue will be significant
and unavoidable. However, the Third Avenue corridor intersections at E, F
and G Streets would all operate at an acceptable LOS.
5.8.5-3 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall prepare a traffic assessment to quantifY the
projects' potential traffic impacts. Subsequent projects will be required to
contribute their fair share to the Tiered Improvements listed above under
Mitigation 5.8.5.1. Mitigation may be in the form of:
I) Payment of Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as may be
established in the future for the western portion of the City;
2) Payment of existing Traffic Impact Signal Fee;
3) Construction of improvements within the project boundaries; and/or
4) Early advancement of improvements beyond the project boundaries,
subject to a reimbursement agreement.
The City's TDIF program for the west side of the City, including the Urban
Core is anticipated to be developed within the subsequent twelve months
following adoption of the UCSP. The TDIF will clearly establish the costs of
the improvements identified above as well as the fair share costs to be applied
to all subsequent development projects. Once the TDIF has been established,
the fee will be consistently applied to all subsequent development projects,
until such time that the TDIF is amended or rescinded. In the interim, if
subsequent development projects are processed and approved prior to the
establishment of a TDIF, a condition of approval will be included that prior to
olL~
26
issuance of building permits the project will contribute to the TDIF, as may be
established.
In addition, the City will participate in multi-jurisdictional efforts to improve freeway
ramps and segments in the Urban Core area as follows:
5.8.5-6
The City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort conducted by Caltrans
and SANDAG to assist in developing a detailed engineering study of the
freeway right-of-way that will identify transportation improvements along
with funding, including federal, state, regional, and local funding sources, and
phasing, that would reduce congestion consistent with Caltrans Standards on
the 1-5 South corridor from the State Route 54 (SR-54) interchange to State
Route 75 (SR-75)/Palm Avenue (the "1-5 South Corridor") (hereinafter, the
"Plan). Local funding sources may include fair share contributions by private
development based on nexus as well as other mechanisms. The Plan required
by this mitigation shall include the following:
I) The responsible entities (the "Entities") included in this effort will include,
but may not be limited to the City, the Port, SANDAG, and Caltrans.
Other entities may be included upon the concurrence of the foregoing
Entities.
2) The Plan will specifically identify physical and operational improvements
to 1-5, relevant arterial roads and transit facilities (the "Improvements"),
that are focused on specific transportation impacts and will also identify
the fair share responsibilities of each Entity for the construction and
financing for each Improvement. The Plan may also identify other
improvements necessary to address regional transportation needs, but for
purposes of this mitigation measure, the Improvements included in the
Plan need only be designed to mitigate the impacts created by the
Proposed Proj ect.
3) The Plan will set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria
for implementation of each Improvement.
4) The Plan will identify the total estimated design and construction cost for
each Improvement and the responsibility of each Entity for both
implementation and funding of such costs.
5) The Plan will include the parameters for any fair-share funding
contributions to be implemented, that would require private and/or public
developers to contribute to the costs, in a manner that will comply with
applicable law.
o{t2-31
27
6) In developing the Plan, the Entities shall also consider ways in which the
Improvements can be coordinated with existing local and regional
transportation and facilities fmancing plans and programs, in order to
avoid duplication of effort and expenditure; however, the existence of
such other plans and programs shall not relieve the Entities of their
collective obligation to develop and implement the Plan as set forth in this
mitigation measure. Nothing in the Plan shall be construed as relieving
any Entity (or any other entity) from its independent responsibility (if any)
for the implementation of any transportation improvement.
7) The City shall seek adoption of the Plan before the City Council upon the
completion of the multi-jurisdictional effort to develop the Plan. The City
shall report, to their governing bodies regarding the progress made to
develop the Plan within six months of the first meeting of the Entities.
Thereafter, the City shall report at least armually regarding the progress of
the Plan, for a period of not less than five years, which may be extended at
the request of the City Council.
8) The Plan shall also expressly include each Entity's pledge that it will
cooperate with each other in implementing the Plan.
The failure or refusal of any Entity other than the City to cooperate in the
implementation of this mitigation measure shall not constitute failure of the
City to implement this mitigation measure; however, the City shall use its best
efforts to obtain the cooperation of all responsible Entities to fully participate
in order to achieve the goals of the mitigation measure.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the FErR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The mitigation measures listed above are feasible and will
be completed, however they do not substantially lessen all of the significant traffic
impacts identified in the FEIR. The significant impacts to roadways and intersections
will be mitigated to below significance by implementation of the improvements
recommended in Mitigation Measures 5.8.5-1, 5.8.5-2 and 5.8.5-3, to all impacted
intersections and roadway segments except three intersections (#27 Broadway/H Street,
#33 Hilltop DrivelH Street and #54 Third Avenue/J Street) and one roadway segment
(Third Avenue between E and G Streets). Impacts to these 3 intersections and I roadway
segment would remain significant and unavoidable.
=< i2-3t
28
Recommendations at intersections #27 Broadway/H Street, #33 Hilltop DriveIH Street,
and #54 Third Avenue/J Street, do not improve conditions to an acceptable LOS due to
right-of-way (ROW) and design constraints. Measures to reduce these intersection
impacts to below significance are infeasible given the overriding social consideration of
an enhanced pedestrian environment. The following describes the constraints to
mitigating these three intersections:
. At the BroadwayIH Street intersection (#27), an additional northbound and
southbound through lane would be required in Bfder to achieve an acceptable LOS D
condition. However, this improvement would require extensive widening of
Broadway and H Street, beyond the existing 82-foot public right-of way, to allow
for lane' drops. Up to an additional 22 feet (11 feet per lane) would be required to
accommodate an additional northbound and southbound lane in an area currently
developed with commercial and office uses and where new development is planned
to maintain the same street wall frontage. Furthermore, the widening would create
longer pedestrian crossings (104-feet wide) which are contrary to the Project
Objective of creating a safe, walkable urban environment. As such, the
recommended improvements of the eastbound queue jumper lane and the additional
westbound through and right-turn lanes would improve the intersection from LOS F
to LOS E conditions.
. At the Hilltop DriveIH Street intersection (#33), no improvements would be
recommended due to ROW constraints. The poor LOS at this intersection is
primarily caused by the high traffic volumes in the eastbound/westbound
movements. Additional through and/or turn lanes would be required in order to
improve this intersection to an acceptable LOS. With no improvements, this
intersection would remain at LOS E during both peak periods.
. At the Third Avenue/J Street intersection (#54), the required improvement of an
additional southbound right-turn lane would impact the existing commercial building
(Henry's Marketplace), which is built adjacent to the sidewalk. Therefore, this
improvement is not recommended. As a result, the LOS would remain at LOS E.
However, if the property were to redevelop in the future, additional ROW could be
obtained for the southbound right-turn lane.
The significant and unavoidable impact to the roadway segment of Third Avenue
between E and G Streets results from the design of the project, which is intended to
reduce Third Avenue to a two-lane downtown promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the traditional commercial village. Although the planned
improvements would result in an unacceptable LOS, the planned improvement to Third
A venue has overriding benefits towards meeting the project objectives of creating a more
pedestrian friendly and active streetscape that accommodates multi-modes of
transportation rather than just accommodating the automobile. Although the turning
volumes in this segment of Third Avenue are less than other segments in the corridor,
turning lanes are proposed to remove turning traffic from the through traffic. Turning
vehicles would yield to anticipated high pedestrian traffic volumes and the turn lanes
allow these yielding vehicles to pull out of the through travel lanes and allow a right-turn
lane and a left turn lane to be provided. The intersection configuration would adequately
accommodate future traffic demands along Third Avenue while providing a significantly
~ tl-3f
29
enhanced pedestrian friendly streetscape. Measures to reduce traffic impacts to this
roadway segment to below significance would be counterproductive to achieving the
socially beneficial goal of safe, walkable streetscapes.
Issue (Nonautomotive Modes of Transportation): The proposed UCSP has the
potential to impact pedestrian, bicycle and public transit services. (FEIR Sections
5.8.3.2 through 5.8.3.4, pages 5- I 73-178)
While some intersection and street segment improvements may lower automotive LOS
for the segments, they serve to increase alternate forms of mobility by introducing traffic
calming elements, pedestrian improvements and paseos. The UCSP and City of ChuIa
Vista Bikeway Master Plan address deficiencies in the bikeway network and makes
recommendations for new and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both
recreational and commuting users.
The three-fold increase in population projected for the UCSP Subdistricts Area by 2030
would place greater demands on public transit services. A number of new and better
regional transit improvements are already planned that will adequately serve the UCSP
area. In addition, the UCSP incorporates smart growth strategies to lessen automobile
use and increase public transit and other mobility use by providing a mix of compatible
land uses, locating highest density near transit stations, utilizing compact building design
and creating walkable and bikeable communities. A West Side Shuttle is also proposed
to serve both the UCSP and the nearby Bayfront, which would complement existing and
planned future transit improvements.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval, and is made binding through these findings.
5.8.5-4 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit for subsequent
development projects, the traffic assessment prepared to quantify the projects'
potential traffic impacts will also identify how alternative modes of
transportation will be accommodated. Mitigation may be in the form of:
I) Compliance with the development regulations and design guidelines of the
UCSP to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and public transit; and
2) Where applicable, construction of improvements within the project
boundaries; and/or
3) Early advancement of improvements beyond the project boundaries, subject
to a reimbursement agreement.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l509l(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
~cZ 1()
30
Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to mitigation measure 5.8.5-4, future individual
projects within the UCSP will be required to identify how alternative modes of
transportation will be affected and accommodated. They will additionally be required to
comply with applicable pedestrian, bicycle and public transit regulations and design
guidelines of the UCSP as well as to possibly construct or contribute towards the
construction ofrelevant improvements.
Issue (Parking): The proposed UCSP has the potential to significantly increase
demand for off-street parking. (FEIRSection 5.8.3.5, pages 5-178-180)
The UCSP allows for an intensification of development in the urban core which will
create an increased demand for off-street parking. The Land Use and Development
Regulations of the UCSP include parking requirements that specify parking locations and
the number of parking spaces per land use. A projected total of 18,560 parking spaces
would be required to serve future development of the proposed UCSP at buildout. While
the majority of new development will provide on-site parking, there are specific location
such as within the Village District and transit focus areas that allow some parking needs
to be met off-site and/or through alternative means such as in-lieu fees and shared
parking arrangements. In addition, a number of other parking improvement strategies are
included in the UCSP including raking buffers, parking districts and parking structures.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval, and is made binding through these findings.
5.8.5-5 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall comply with the parking standards set forth in the
UCSP development regulations and design guidelines for the type and intensity
of development proposed.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measure 5.8.5-5 requires subsequent
development projects to comply with UCSP parking standards in order to avoid or reduce
parking impacts to below significance.
2.7 Noise
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Noise in Section 5.9.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in signjficant noise impacts
ifit would:
ol~ 1/ ·
31
. Criterion I: Result in exposure of receivers in the UCSP to exterior noise levels that
exceed the levels established by the GPu.
. Criterion 2: Result in interior noise levels that exceed 45 dB Community Noise
Equivalency Level (CNEL) due to exterior sources for habitable rooms in residences;
or
. Criterion 3: Result in noise levels that violate the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter
19.68.010 of the Municipal Zoning Code).
Impact (Criterion 1): The UCSP would result in exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise that exceeds the levels established by the GPU and the City's
noise control ordinance. (FEIR Section 5.9.3.1 - Pages 5-203 - 5-207)
Noise levels could exceed the standard established by the GPU for areas immediately
adjacent to circulation element roadways, freeways, and train and trolley lines.
Development pursuant to the UCSP would result in exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL in residential areas, if existing or
planned exterior use areas are adjacent to those roadways, and are unshielded by
buildings or other barriers. This comprises a significant exterior noise impact as
evaluated in accordance with Criterion 1. At such time that projects are proposed,
specific design review would be needed to assess compliance with the noise limits set by
the GPo.
Office and professional areas immediately adjacent to Interstate 5 would be exposed to
noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL, or 75 decibels for retail and wholesale commercial
areas, restaurants, and movie theaters. Therefore, impacts are significant.
. The siting of future parks has the potential to result in significant impacts. While park
sites have not been designated, it is possible that parks could be sited next to circulation
element roadways which generate noise in excess of 65 [to 70] decibels. This would be a
significant impact and would require mitigation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.9-1 Prior to the approval of individual development projects, projects within the UCSP
area shall demonstrate that required outdoor usable open space areas are
adequately shielded from transportation related noise sources so that noise levels
fall below the standards set by the General Plan Update or do not cause an increase
of greater than 3 dB(A) (A-weighted decibels) on an existing roadway. Noise
reduction measures may include building noise-attenuating berms, walls or other
attenuation measures. Future development of park facilities shall also, to the
extent feasible, incorporate mitigation measures such as siting, berms, walls or
other attenuation measures to reduce impacts to acceptable levels of 65-70 CNEL
or less. Indication that noise levels fall below this limit shall be made to the
satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, Building Official or
Community Development Director.
=? It 1o?
32
Because the only mitigation available to reduce exterior noise impacts to parks
resulting from roadway traffic is the insertion of a barrier between the source
(traffic) and receiver (park), and because parks are intended to remain open (i.e.,
not surrounded by walls) to the community, exterior noise impacts cannot be fully
mitigated. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate for the
potential for parks that are to be sited next to circulation element roadways which
generate noise in excess of 65-70 CNEL. Therefore, exterior noise impacts remain
significant and umnitigated.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the EIR to reduce noise impacts to below a level of
significance. While the mitigation measure made binding through this finding is feasible
and will be completed, it does not lessen the significant environmental effects of exterior
noise on future parks to below significance. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed proj ect.
Facts in Support of Finding: The siting of future parks has the potential to result in
significant exterior noise impacts. While park sites have not been designated, it is
possible that parks could be sited next to circulation element roadways which generate
noise in excess of 65 [to 70] decibels. Mitigating this impact would require the
construction of noise barriers. Required barrier heights may be achieved through the
construction of walls, berms, or walllberm combinations. While noise levels at a park
site could be reduced by the construction of such noise barriers, these barriers are
considered to be incompatible with park uses. The overriding social consideration of the
benefit of exterior park spaces, free of obtrusive barriers, outweighs the noise-attenuating
benefit that would arise from the construction of massive noise barriers surrounding
outdoor parks.
Impact (Criterion 2): The UCSP would result in interior noise levels that exceed 45
dB CNEL due to exterior sources for habitable rooms in residences. (FEIR Section
5.9.3.2 - Pages 5-207 - 5-208)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 2, the adoption of the UCSP would have a
significant noise impact prior to mitigation because it would result in interior noise levels
that exceed 45 dB CNEL due to exterior sources for habitable rooms in residences along
major transportation facilities.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.9-2 Prior to the approval of subsequent individual development projects, for any
residential use immediately adjacent to a circulation element roadway, trolley or
rail line, or Interstate 5, an acoustical analysis shall be completed demonstrating
4~13
33
to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, Community
Development Director or Building Official, that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources are 45 CNEL or less in any habitable room. For residential
projects where interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources exceed 45
CNEL, architectural and structural considerations such as improved window and
door acoustical performance, shall be identified.
5.9-3 Prior to the approval of individual development projects, projects where it is
necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City's and the Building Code interior standard of 45 CNEL shall
demonstrate that the design for these units includes a ventilation or air
conditioning system which provides a habitable interior environment with the
windows closed.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: To ensure that interior noise levels in habitable rooms do
not exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation measures 5.9-2 and 5.9-3 require subsequent individual
development proj ects to conduct acoustical analyses demonstrating compliance with
interior noise standards, and the inclusion of appropriate ventilation or air conditioning
systems into project design where it is deemed necessary for windows to remain closed.
Impact (Criterion 3): The UCSP could result in noise levels that violate the City's
Noise Ordinance. (FEIR Section 5.9.3.3, page 5-208)
Currently, specific uses at specific locations are unknown within the UCSP area. Much
of the project area is considered mixed use, and as such, there is the potential that
allowable commercial uses will occur in the same building as residential uses. These
commercial uses could encompass noise producing activities, such as live music. To the
extent that these activities are conducted within the allowable parameters of the
municipal code, adverse noise impacts will not occur. Until specific uses are identified,
conformance to the City's noise control ordinance code cannot be assured and impacts
associated with Criterion 3 may be significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.9-4 Prior to the approval of individual development projects, commercial uses that may
involve noise producing activities shall demonstrate compliance with the existing
performance standards provided in the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter
19.68.010 of the Municipal Zoning Code). Prior to project approval, subsequent
projects shall also demonstrate compliance with the mixed-use provisions of
Chapter VI of the UCSP that include minimization of the effects of any exterior
=fC0 #
34
noise impacts and provision of "internal compatibility between the different uses
within the project" (UCSP, VI-44).
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Future commercial development proposals in accordance
with the UCSP could include noise producing activities. Mitigation measure 5.9-4
requires that these activities be conducted within the allowable parameters of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code and demonstrate compliance with applicable noise performance
standards in order to avoid adverse noise impacts.
2.8 Air Quality
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Air Quality in Section 5.10.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in a significant impact to air
quality if it would:
· Criterion I: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.
. Criterion 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
. Criterion 3: 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 criteria for ozone precursors).
· Criterion 4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
. Criterion 5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact (Criterion 1): The Plan will conflict with the implementation of the
applicable air quality plan. (FEIR Section 5.10.3.1, pages 5-220 - 5-222)
The land uses proposed in the UCSP conform to the adopted GPU and are inconsistent
with the former General Plan upon which the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) were based. By changing land use designations
in certain areas, the recently adopted GPU failed to conform to the growth projections
used by SANDAG in their generation of the air quality management plan. Thus, adoption
of the proposed UCSP would result in significant conflict with an applicable air quality
plan as evaluated in conformance with Criterion I.
c:{ ~ is-
35
Mitigation Measure: The City will cooperate with SANDAG and APCD in developing
updated RAQS to insure their conformance with the adopted GPU and mitigation
measure 5.10.5-1 is provided as an advisory measure.
5.10.5-1 The City of Chula Vista shall recommend to SANDAG to update the RAQS in
the next triennial cycle to incorporate the increased land use densities of the
GPU and UCSP.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific changes
or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and
not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding: The only measure that can lessen the significant impact of
UCSP inconsistency with the adopted RAQS, is the review and revision of the RAQS
based on the recently adopted GPu. Because the updating of the RAQS is the
responsibility of SANDAG and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD), it
is outside of the authority of the City and thus no mitigation is available to the City to
avoid this impact.
Impact (Criterion 3): The UCSP would result in a significant impact as a result of a
cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. (FEIR Section 5.10.3.3,
pages 5-218-5-221)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 3, the UCSP would result in a significant
impact as a result of a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants.
Because the San Diego Air Basin is not in compliance with the 2.5-micron particulate
matter (PM2.5) and 10-micron particulate matter (PMIO) standards, and because the
average daily particulates emission is anticipated to increase with implementation of the
UCSP, impacts to criteria pollutants are considered significant, until the region is found
to bein compliance with all criteria pollutants.
Cumulative increases in emissions in criteria pollutants for which the San Diego Air
Basin (SDAB) is not in attainment, would result from short-term construction of projects
in conformance with the UCSP and from long-term emissions generated by both
stationary and mobile sources within the UCSP area. Stationary source pollutant
emissions would include those generated by the consumption of natural gas and
electricity and the burning of wood in residential fireplaces. Vehicle traffic on area roads
would generate mobiles source emissions including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
and hydrocarbons.
Mitigation is achievable for fugitive dust from short-term construction activities, but the
only measures that would effectively reduce those emissions from long-term daily
operations are those that reduce vehicle miles traveled on area roads. The UCSP includes
measures aimed at promoting alternative modes of travel including enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle activity, use of transit and reducing trip lengths by siting highest density
~'a.- f~
36
adjacent to key transit nodes. Mitigation measures 5.10.5-2, 5.10.5-3 and 5.10.5-4 ensure
that conformance to these provisions of the UCSP is satisfied prior to issuance of
subsequent project development permits.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.-10.5-2 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development projects shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, conformance with the
relevant land use and development regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and
development design guidelines (UCSP, Chapter VII) of the UCSP which
support smart growth principles such as providing a mix of compatible land
uses; locating highest density near transit; utilizing compact building design
and creating walkable communities; providing a range of infill housing
opportunities; and increasing transportation choices.
5.10.5-3 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development projects shall demonstrate
compliance with relevant land use and development regulations contained in
the UCSP to minimize air pollutant emissions. These include, but are not
limited to: measures aimed at promoting pedestrian activity (Chapter V, pp. V-
2- V-5); bicycle activity (Chapter V, pp. V-5 - V-7, V-9 - V-IO); public
transit facilities (Chapter V, pp. V8 - V-9), including the West Side Shuttle
(Chapter V, pp. V-II - V-12); and reintroduction of the traditional street grid
(Chapter V, pp. V-16 - V-19).
5.10.5-4 Prior to issuance of construction permits, including but not limited to, the first
Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core Development Permit, the
Community Development Director shall verify that the following active dust
control practices are to be employed during construction:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other
acceptable San Diego APCD dust control agents during dust-generating
activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable APCD
dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce
windblown dust and spills.
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly
as possible and as directed by the City and/or APCD to reduce dust
generation.
7. To the maximum extent feasible heavy-duty construction equipment with
modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be
~ fL, 11
37
utilized during grading and construction activities and catalytic reduction for
gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
8. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible.
9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible.
10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall
be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the EIR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed proj ect.
Facts in Support of Finding: With the application of mitigation measure 5.10.5-4
significant impacts resulting from projected short-term PMI 0 impacts from construction
would be mitigated. Long-term impacts resulting from daily operation would remain
significant despite implementation of mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 and 5.10.5-3, until the
region is determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards. Until
the region is determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards, no
other mitigation measures are applicable or feasible, as the UCSP's contribution,
regardless of volume, comprises a contribution to an existing regional condition of
noncompliance. Thus, operation-related impacts to cumulative air quality would remain
significant and unmitigated.
Impact (Criterion 4): The UCSP would expose sensitive receptors to air quality
impacts from diesel particulates emanating from Interstate 5 (FEIR Section 5.10.3.4,
pages 5-221-5-234)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 4, although there is no adopted standard for
sensitive receivers adjacent to Interstate 5, it was determined that air quality impacts from
diesel particulates emanating from Interstate 5 would be cumulatively significant given
current basin-wide noncompliance with particulate standards and projected future levels
of diesel particulates emanating from Interstate 5.
Mitigation Measures: Cumulatively significant diesel particulate impacts would be
reduced through mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 through 5.10.5-4 but not to below a level
of significance.
In addition, special design guidelines are provided in the UCSP Development Design
Guidelines (Chapter VII, Section G.5) to be considered by future redevelopment adjacent
to 1-5, where possible. These site design measures would help to minimize effects and
include siting residential uses away from the freeway to the extent possible, tiering
c1 fL, -je
38
residential structures back from the freeway, and incorporating mechanical and structural
measures into the building design. While these measures may serve to reduce the severity
of diesel particulate emissions impacts, implementation of diesel vehicles source control
measures by State authorities would be required to reduce cumulative impacts to below
significance.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a) (2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, any changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
Facts in Support of Finding: While mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 through 5.10.5-4 are
feasible and will be completed, they do not substantially lessen the severity of diesel
particulate emissions impacts as identified in the FEIR. As stated in Mitigation Measure
5.10.5-2 "Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development projects shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, conformance with the relevant
land use and development regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and development design
guidelines (UCSP, Chapter VII)." Therefore, site design measures would be considered
prior to the approval of future redevelopment adjacent to 1-5, where possible, to help
minimize effects. A mandatory application of the recommended design measures, such as
a 350-500 foot buffer zone, cannot be made at this time without consideration of the
implications on future development of the affected sites adjacent to the freeway. The
mandatory application of a 350-500 foot setback would unfairly and indiscriminately
impact both existing uses and any future redevelopment of individual properties,
proposed in a manner consistent with the General Plan, as it would be speculative at this
time to determine the specific use (commercial, residential, office) and site design of
parcels within the 350-500 foot area. Further, the mandatory application of a setback
would not achieve mitigation of the source of the impact. The only measure that can
substantially lessen the significant impact of diesel emissions from vehicles on Interstate
5, is the implementation of source (vehicle) controls. Because the regulation and
enforcement of vehicle emissions controls is outside the authority of the City, no
mitigation is available to the City to effectively avoid this impact. Implementation of
diesel vehicles source control measures by State authorities would be required to reduce
cumulative diesel particulate emissions impacts to below significance.
2.9 Public Services
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Public Services in Section 5.11.
Impacts were evaluated for the services of law enforcement, fire protection, schools,
libraries, and parks and recreation.
Law Enforcement
~ to 11
39
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
police services if it would:
. Criterion 1: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of law
enforcement service in accordance with the adopted standards and thresholds as
follows:
For emergency response, police units must respond to 81 percent of Priority One
emergency calls within seven minutes and maintain an average response time of 5.5
minutes or less.
For Priority Two Urgent calls, the police units must respond to 57 percent of the calls
within seven minutes with an average response time to all Priority Two calls within
7.5 minutes or less.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact to law enforcement services. (FEIR Section 5.11.1.3, pages 5-247
- 5-248)
As evaluated in accordance with law enforcement Criterion I, future development in
accordance with the proposed UCSP would result in a significant impact to law
enforcement services because of the anticipated increase in calls for service and the
additional travel time required to answer these calls. While the police facility at Fourth
Avenue and F Street is sufficient to meet the law enforcement needs created by increased
demand resulting from development, more police officers will be needed in order to
maintain response times. Significant impacts would result if timing of these provisions
does not coincide with projected increase in demand for services and populations growth.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.11.1-1 Subsequent development projects shall demonstrate that significant impacts to
police services resulting from an individual project are addressed prior to
approval of an Urban Core Development permit or other discretionary
approval. As part of project review, subsequent development projects shall
be evaluated for adequate access for police vehicles (pursuant to GPU Policy
PFS 6.1) and integration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) techniques (pursuant to GPU Policy PFS 6.3).
5.11.1-2 As a condition of project approval, individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees (PFDIF) at the rate in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
5.11.1- 3 As part of the annual budgeting process, the City shall assess the need for
additional police personnel to provide protection services consistent with
established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in
population.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l509l(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
c10M
40
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measures 5.11.1-1, 5.11.1-2 and 5.11.1-3
ensure that timing of additional police personnel and facilities coincide with the increase
in demand for services associated with buildout of the UCSP. .
Fire Protection
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
fire protection services if it would:
. Criterion I: Result in the inability for the City to provide an adequate level fire
protection service in accordance with the adopted standards and threshold:
For calls citywide, fire units must respond within seven minutes for 80 percent of
emergency calls.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact to fire protection services. (FEIR Section 5.11.2.3, page 5-251)
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for
response time for the City, including the UCSP Subdistricts area. Buildout of the UCSP
would increase demand for fire protection services. However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, additional fire protection personnel and fire protection equipment
and facilities would be provided. These provisions would help ensure adequate service
within the requirements of the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
threshold standards. As evaluated in accordance with fire protection Criterion I,
significant impacts would result if timing of these provisions does not coincide with
projected increase in demand for services and population growth.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.11.2-1 Prior to approval, subsequent individual development projects in the UCSP
shall demonstrate provision of adequate access and water pressure for new
buildings.
5.11.2-2 As a condition of project approval, individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees at the rate in effect at the time building
permits are issued.
5.11.2-3 As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will assess the need for
additional fire personnel to provide protection services consistent with
established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in
population.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
oftLS)
41
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measures 5.11.2-1, 5.11.2-2 and 5.11.2-3
ensure that timing of additional fire protection and emergency services personnel and
facilities coincide with the increase in demand for services associated with buildout of the
UCSP.
Schools
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
schools ifit would:
. Criterion I: Result in the inability of the public school system to provide adequate
schools and fail to meet current student/teacher and facilities ratios established in the
Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District
standards and thresholds.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact on educational facilities. (Section 5.11.3.3, pages 5-254 - 5-255)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion I, the land uses proposed for the UCSP would
result in a significant impact to schools unless construction of facilities coincide with
student generation and associated service demands. The proposed UCSP wilI result in a
three-fold increase in population within the Subdistricts Area at buildout and an
associated increase in demand for schools. The estimated number of students to be
generated by the proposed UCSP upon buildout was based on current student generation
factors of the two relevant school districts. At buildout, the UCSP is expected to generate
a net increase of approximately 3,877 students between elementary, middle school, and
high school grades. The generation of approximately 2,485 additional elementary
students would have a significant impact on existing elementary schools serving the area
because they are already at or near capacity. Using every available classroom seat, the
new development would require at least 59 additional elementary school classrooms.
(Potentially fewer students may result from UCSP buildout or interim conditions due to
the nature of the allowable development under the UCSP. New residents of the
intensified urban environment of mid- to high-rise mixed uses may likely be single or
potentially childless young couples, or empty nesters. Therefore, the identified impacts
may be overstated. Monitoring of these trends will be necessary to accurately plan for
new student enrollment.)
Provision of school facilities is the responsibility of the school district when additional
demand warrants. School services are addressed in the City's Growth Management
Thresholds and State Senate Bill 50 (Government Code 65995). Senate BilI 50 prohibits
local governments from requiring extra fees or the establishment of a Mello Roos from
new development to finance school The legislation provides that statutory fees are the
exclusive means of mitigating school impacts and payment of statutory fees constitutes
full and complete mitigation (Government Code 65996). Therefore payment of project
0( tt.,SoZ.
42
development fees in compliance with statutory requirements reduce significant impacts to
school districts below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.11.3-1 Prior to approval, subsequent development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate that significant impacts to public educational services resulting
from the individ\illl project have been addressed. As a condition of project
approval, individual developers shall pay the statutory school impact fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: While provision of school facilities is the responsibility of
the school district, mitigation measure 5.11.3-1 ensures that subsequent individual
projects' effects on public educational services are addressed prior to project approval,
thereby avoiding or substantially lessening potential impacts to area schools.
Libraries
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
library services if it would:
. Criterion I: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of library
services and facilities in accordance with adopted City standards and thresholds as
follows:
500 square feet of library facilities per 1,000 population for new development.
3.0 books per person for new development.
Impact: Implementation of the UCSP could result in significant impacts to library
services in the UCSP Subdistricts Area and citywide. (Section 5.11.4.3, pages 5-256-
5-257)
As evaluated in accordance with library services Criterion I, buildout of the UCSP may
require additional library space in order to meet and maintain the City Criterion of 500
square feet per 1,000 population and 3 books per person for new development. Based on
the expected net increase in population of 18,318 with buildout of the U CSP, increased
demand on existing library services would amount to approximately 9,159 square feet of
library facilities and 54,954 books. Existing library service conditions in the City are
inadequate and not in compliance with City standards. Additional library capacity is
planned by 2007, however, with the construction of the 30,000 square foot Rancho Del
of ~ .s-5
43
Rey Library. In the absence of this or other new library construction, any additional
demand on library services would comprise a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these [mdings.
5.11.4-1 Prior to approval, subsequent individual development projects in the UCSP
shall demonstrate that significant impacts to the provision of library services
resulting from individual projects have been addressed. As a condition of
project approval, individual developers shall pay the public facilities
development impact fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are
issued.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Potentially significant library impacts would be avoided
or reduced to below significance through mitigation measure 5.11.4-1 which requires
subsequent individual development projects in the UCSP to demonstrate that significant
library impacts have been addressed prior to project approval.
Parks and Recreation
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
parks and recreation if it would:
. Criterion I: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of park
and recreation service and facilities in accordance with the adopted standard of three
acres per 1,000 people; or as modified by the Growth Management Ordinance.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact on park facilities. (FEIR Section 5.11.5.3, pages 5-260 - 5-261)
Implementation of the proposed UCSP would generate increased demand for parks and
recreation facilities. As evaluated in accordance with parks and recreation Criterion I, a
significant impact could occur if dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities
does not coincide with project implementation and project population growth.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these [mdings.
5.11.5-1 Prior to approval of an Urban Core Development Permit, each subsequent
project shall establish to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director that the project meets the City's parkland dedication requirement. As
a condition of project approval, individual developers shall provide required
oft<-- sf
44
parkland and facilities on-site, if possible and consistent with potential site
locations identified in the UCSP and Parks Master Plan; or pay the applicable
parkland acquisition and parkland development fee and recreation facility
development impact fees at the rates in effect at the time building permits are
issued.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.10 (the Park
Development Ordinance - PDO) applies a standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000
people to all new development. Full buildout of the UCSP would be required to provide
up to approximately 55 acres of new parkland. This additional parkland would be
required incrementally and commensurate with new development as required in
mitigation measure 5.11.5-1.
2.10 Public Utilities
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Public Utilities in Section 5.12. The
four public utilities evaluated in the FEIR include the provision of water, wastewater,
solid waste, and energy. The FEIR determined that the proposed UCSP would not have
significant impacts to the utilities of water or solid waste. However, impacts to
wastewater and energy were identified, as explained below.
Wastewater
Criterion of Significance: Impacts to wastewater services would be significant if the
proposed UCSP would:
. Criterion I: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate planned capacity to
serve projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
Impact: The UCSP will place a significant demand on wastewater treatment
services. (FEIR Section 5.12.2.3, pages 5-277 - 278)
As evaluated in accordance with wastewater Criterion I, impacts to the provision of
sewer service resulting from implementation of the proposed UCSP are considered
significant Chula Vista owns capacity in the Metro system, which provides conveyance
of City wastewater flows. Increasing population will place additional demand on sewer
services. While it is the intent of the City to ensure that services are provided concurrent
with need, the provision of sewer services is not solely within its authority. Although the
=? t2.- 5' S-
45
City is in the process of acquiring additional capacity from Metro, that acquisition has not
yet been finalized. Based on GPU buildout projections, the City will be generating
approximately 26.2 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater citywide by 2030 and
would need to acquire additional 6.4 mgd of capacity rights by the year 2030 in order to
meet citywide projected demand. Of this total, 1.57 mgd are projected to be generated in
western Chula Vista, including a projected generation of 0.88 mgd for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. Therefore, impacts to the provision of sewer service are considered
significant
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.12.2-1 Prior to the approval of subsequent individual development projects, project
plans shall demonstrate that there is sufficient wastewater capacity availableto
serve the proposed project. Conditions of approval may require sewer capacity
fees to be contributed to mitigate project-related impacts.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: To avoid significant impacts to the provision of sewer
service, mitigation measure 5.12.2-1 requires that all subsequent individual development
projects demonstrate that sufficient wastewater capacity is available to serve the project
prior to proj ect approval.
Energy
Criterion of Significance: Impacts to energy would be significant if the proposed
project would:
. Criterionl: Result in the available supply of energy to fall below a level considered
sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities.
Impact: The UCSP has the potential to result in significant impacts to energy
supply as a result of anticipated growth. (FEIR Section 5.12.4.3, pages 5-282 - 5-284)
As evaluated in accordance with energy Criterion I, project impacts to energy are
considered significant because there is no long-term assurance that energy supplies will
be available at buildout of the UCSP.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.12.4-1 The City shall continue to implement the Energy Strategy Action Plan that
addresses demand side management, energy efficient and renewable energy
=< ~...j0
46
outreach programs for businesses and residents, energy acqUlsltJon, power
generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, and
continue to implement the CO2 Reduction Plan to lessen the impacts on energy.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the FEIR. While mitigation measure 5.12.4-1 is feasible
and will be implemented, it does not substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the FEIR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Because there is no assurance that energy resources will
be available to adequately serve the proposed UCSP, energy impacts remain significant
and unmitigated. Avoidance of energy impacts cannot be assured regardless of land use
designation or population size. Although subsequent individual projects would be subject
to the City's continuing Energy Strategy Action Plan and C02 (Carbon Dioxide)
Reduction Plan, and SANDAG's San Diego Regional Energy Plan and Transit First Plan
as stated in mitigation measure 5.12.4-1, implementation of the proposed land uses
identified in the UCSP has the potential to result in significant impacts to nonrenewable
and slowly renewable energy resources as a result of anticipated growth. The
environmental sustainability measures of the UCSP (Chapter VI, G.) may serve to further
reduce energy consumption associated with implementation of the UCSP, thereby
reducing energy demand and energy impacts; but not to below a level of significance.
2.11 Hazards/Risk of Upset
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Hazards/Risk of Upset in Section
5.13.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in a significant hazards/risk
of upset impact if it would:
. Criterion 1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials;
. Criterion 2: Place potential emitters of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or
substances in close proximity to sensitive receivers or be located in close proximity to
a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5;
. Criterion 3: Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact (Criterion 1): Hazardous materials which occur within the UCSP area could
pose significant public health and safety risks during construction or long-term use
of proposed development. (FEIR Section 5.13.3.1, pages 5-303 - 5-307)
=1 c:L.57
47
Hazardous materials occur within the UCSP area and pose significant public health and
safety risks during construction or long-term occupation of proposed development as
evaluated in accordance with Criterion I. Exposure to hazardous materials that exceed
state and/or federal standards can occur through contact with contaminated soil or
groundwater, through ingestion, skin contact or the inhalation of vapors or dust.
An approximate total of 103 sites of potential hazardous concern have been identified
from various federal, state and local databases as occurring within the Subdistricts Area.
In addition, due to the presence of numerous pre-1960s structures in the area, there is a
potential that during construction or demolition, workers may come into contact with
hazardous building materials (asbestos and lead).
Future development consistent with the proposed UCSP would result in significant
impacts if such development allows greater contact between humans and hazards.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.13-1 Prior to approval of subsequent individual development projects, any project
plans that propose land uses which use, transport, store, and dispose of
hazardous materials shall be conducted in compliance with the relevant
regulations of federal, state, and local agencies, including the EP A, California
Department of Heath Services (DHS), and California Department of
Transportation.
S.13 -2 A risk assessment shall be performed at all sites within the study area where
contamination has been identified or is discovered during future construction
activities, and at which soil is to be disturbed, to address risks posed by any
residual contamination, and to establish appropriate mitigation measures (e.g.,
natural attenuation, active remediation, engineering controls) that would be
protective of human health and the environment. All assessment and
remediation activities shall be conducted in accordance with a Work Plan that
is approved by the regulatory agency having oversight of the activities.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measures 5.13.1 and 5.13-2 ensure that future
development consistent with the proposed UCSP would not result in significant adverse
contact between humans and hazards.
=< CL .6-g
48
3.0 Findings on Significant Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects" (Pub. Resources Code section 21082.2, subd. (b)). The analysis in the
EIR for the UCSP relies on regional planning documents, in accordance with Section
15130(b)(I)(B), to serve as a basis for the majority of analysis of the cumulative effects
of the proposed General Plan Update. The cumulative impacts assessment in this section
primarily relies on the cumulative impact determinations in the Chula Vista GPU EIR.
Other regional plans used to assess cumulative impacts in this section include: the Chula
Vista General Plan; the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP); the Chula Vista
MSCP; the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin; the San Diego APCD
RAQS; and the Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. These plans are discussed in the
Environmental Impact Analysis, Section 5.0, of this EIR, and are incorporated by
reference in the cumulative analysis below. These documents are on file at the City of
Chula Vista and are available for review at the Chula Vista Planning Department at 276
Fourth Avenue and the Chula Vista Civic Center Library at 365 F Street in the City of
Chula Vista.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative
impacts have been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted
for the cumulative impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This
reflects the inability of the lead agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding
jurisdictions (i.e., City of San Diego, City of National City, Caltrans, and Mexico) and
the contribution of these jurisdictions to cumulative impacts.
Cumulative Impacts are discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the Final EIR. The UCSP will result
in the following irreversible cumulative environmental changes.
3.1 Cultural Resources
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIR.
Impact: Loss of cultural resources in the Urban Core Specific Plan area would
represent a cumulative impact.
The continued pressure to develop or redevelop areas would result in incremental impacts
to the historic record in the San Diego region. The RCP concluded that the loss of
historic or prehistoric resources from the past, present, and probable future projects in the
Southern California/Northern Baja areas would contribute to cumulatively significant
impacts to cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed UCSP, in conjunction with
other future projects, will result in a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 5.3.5-1 through 5.3.5-5 described above
would be required.
4 tG5/
49
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives to reduce cumulative cultural resources impacts to a level below significance.
While the mitigation measures to reduce direct cultural resources impacts are feasible and
will be completed, they do not substantially lessen the significant cumulative
environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed proj ecL
Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources remain
significant despite project-specific mitigation measures 5.3.5-1 through 5.3.5-5.
Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to cultural resources, the more that land within
the country that is converted to developed uses the greater the potential for impacts to
cultural resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct Joss of a
specific resource, the effect is considerable when considered cumulatively.
3.2 Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Cumulative impacts to traffic circulation and access are discussed in Section 6.6 of the
FEIR.
Impact: Cumulative impacts to roadway segments would occur with the adoption of
the Urban Core Specific Plan.
The long-term traffic analysis conducted for the proposed UCSP employed the regional
traffic database and modeling used by SANDAG and assumed 2030 buildout conditions
under the GPU. As such, it included the projected growth for the region, including both
growth in regional trips and anticipated expansion of the circulation system. Traffic
effects identified in Chapter 5.8 of the FEIR are significant. Nineteen intersections and
three roadway segments within the UCSP area would operate at unacceptable levels of
service. The traffic analyses included mitigation measures to reduce significant
cumulative traffic impacts. However, not all impacts would be mitigated to below a level
of significance. Therefore, significant and unmitigated cumulative traffic impacts are
noted for the street network.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 5.8.5-1 through 5.8.5-3 and 5.8-6 described
above would be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
proj ect alternatives identified in the FErR. While the mitigation measures to reduce
cl tLto
50
direct traffic impacts are feasible and will be completed, they do not substantially lessen
the significant cumulative environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. Adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers
choose to approve the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The mitigation measures presented above would reduce
some of the incremental cumulative impacts associated with the proposed UCSP;
however, these measures would not reduce the cumulative traffic impacts to below a level
of significance.
The Automobile Priority Alternative increases the roadway capacity for the impacted
intersections and roadway segment to acceptable LOS. As such, it would lessen
cumulative traffic impacts to below a level of significance. As discussed in Section 4.3
of these Findings, however, this alternative is infeasible. Pursuant to section 15091(a) (3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the Automobile Priority Alternative identified in the ElR. The alternative is
not considered environmentally preferable to the proposed Plan, nor would accomplish
some of the Plan's goals and objectives. The overriding social goals and objectives that
the Automobile Priority Alternative would not meet are detailed in Section 4.3 and 6.0 of
these findings.
3.3 Air Quality
Cumulative impacts to air quality are discussed in Section 6.7 of the FElR.
Impact: Implementation of the Urban Core Specific Plan would contribute to a
significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.
The San Diego Air Basin is in non-attainment for federal and state ozone standards,
federal and state PM2.5 standards, and state PMIO standards. Because the air basin is in
non-attainment for ozone, PM2.5, and PMIO, the allowable increase in residential units and
the activities associated with population growth, even as mitigated by the City in its CO2
Reduction Plan and Growth Management Program and by the Interstate 5 site design
recommendations in the UCSP, represents a cumulatively considerable and significant air
quality impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 5.10.5-1 through 5.1 0.5-4 described above
would be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives to reduce cumulative net increases to regional criteria air pollutants to below
significance. While mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 through 5.10.5-4 to reduce the UCSP's
emissions and severity of impact are feasible and will be completed, they would notm
0( tG /PI
51
reduce the significant cumulative environmental effect as identified in the FEIR to below
significant. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should
the decision makers choose to approve the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant
despite implementation of mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 and 5.10.5-3, until the region is
determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards. Until the region
is determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards, no other
mitigation measures are applicable or feasible, as the UCSP's contribution, regardless of
volume, comprises a contribution to an existing regional condition of noncompliance.
3.4 Energy
Cumulative impacts to energy are discussed in Section 6.9.4 of the ElR.
Impact: Implementation of the proposed UCSP has the potential to result in
cumulative impacts to energy resources.
Buildout of the UCSP would directly increase the demand for both electricity and natural
gas, and would contribute to significant cumulative demands on energy. Impacts to
energy are considered significant because there is no long-term assurance that energy
supplies will be available at buildout of the UCSP. Avoidance of energy impacts thus
cannot be assured regardless of land use designation or population size.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 5.12.4-1 described above would be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Fiuding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the FEIR. While mitigation measure 5.12.4-1 is feasible
and will be completed, it does not reduce the significant environmental effect as
identified in the FEIR to below a level of significance. Adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve
the proposed proj ect.
Facts in Support of Finding: The UCSP has the potential to add incrementally to the
demand for energy supplies which cannot be assured in the future, thus representing an
unavoidable significant cumulative impact. The energy mitigation measures identified in
Section 2.1 0 of this document would reduce significant energy impacts, but not to below
a level of significance. Because future energy supplies cannot be assured, cumulative
energy impacts would remain significant and unrnitigated.
c1tL~
52
4.0 Findings on Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Considered in the Final EIR
Because the project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as
outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternative to the project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or
more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant
environmental effects. Where, as in this proj ect, significant environmental effects remain
even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, the
decision makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Under
these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where
the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation
to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts
would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated. Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376 [253
Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83
Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]. Accordingly, for this project,
in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are infeasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to
the project, the decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the
project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain
the basic objectives of the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR
to examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these
alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives"
(CEQA Guidelines, section 15126).
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected a reasonable range of project
alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition
of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "Feasible" means capable
of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." [Pub.
Resources Code section 21061.1] The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of
"feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364
states, "The lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or
mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social,
or technological factor." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].)
c;{ <<- ?3
53
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a
different meaning as it may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement
under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency
shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been
certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would
occur if the proj ect is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
(I) "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd.
(a)(I)]
(2) "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency. [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(2)]
(3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3)]
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaI.App.3d 410, 417 [183
Cal.Rptr. 898]) '" [F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v.
City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704,715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182])
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in
significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and
other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the
finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to
meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the project best meets the finally
approved project objectives with the least environmental impact.
The detailed discussions in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 demonstrate that all but five significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided
through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional,
formal mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR. The remaining unmitigated
impacts include the following:
. Cultural resources
. Traffic
c1 tL ("f
54
. Noise
. Air quality
. Energy
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any
alternatives identified in the FEIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with
respect to the impacts listed above. (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527; [147
Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr.
426].) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both
feasible and environmentally superior with respect to unmitigated impacts.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects, and the extent to which
particular alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to
them, these findings will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also
address the environmental merits of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of
impacts--even though such a far-ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The
findings will also assess whether each alternative is feasible in light of the City's
objectives for the Urban Core Specific Plan.
The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce
potential impacts associated with the UCSP, while still achieving the basic objectives of
the project. The City's primary objectives are included in Section III above. The City
evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative, the
Reduced Project Alternative, and the Automobile Priority Alternative. Each of these
alternatives is discussed below.
4.1 No Project Alternative
Section 15126, subdivision (d)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the
"No Project" Alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as
well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services."
The No Project alternative would continue to implement the current adopted Municipal
Code Zoning in the Subdistricts Area of the UCSP. Under the No Project Alternative, it
is estimated that approximately 1,000 additional residential units could be built in the
690-acre Subdistricts Area. This number was estimated from the GPU FEIR No Project
alternative (page 617) which identified capacity for approximately 1,429 additional
residential units allowed under the "former" 1989 General Plan and implementing zoning
when compared to the existing condition. This remaining residential capacity of 1,429
related to the Urban Core Subarea of the Northwest Planning Area of the GPU. The
extent of the UCSP Subdistrict Area is approximately 67 percent of the larger Urban Core
c2~~
55
Subarea described in the GPU FEIR as 1,031 acres. In addition, the No Project
Alternative is anticipated to allow additional commercial and office growth compared to
the existing condition, considering the underutilized extent of many of the commercially
zoned properties throughout the UCSP Subdistricts Area.
Imoacts:
The current zoning conforms to the former General Plan, rather than the currently
adopted General Plan Update (GPU). California law requires zoning ordinances to be
consistent with the adopted GPU. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in
the zoning for the Subdistricts Area of the UCSP being inconsistent with the GPU.
Impacts to land use resulting from implementation of the No Project Alternative would
thus be greater than those identified for the proposed UCSP because of inconsistency of
existing Municipal Code Zoning with the adopted GPD.
Proportional to the decrease in allowable population and building intensity, the No
Project Alternative would reduce impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics, hydrology
and water quality, traffic circulation and access, air quality, noise, and public services and
utilities compared to the proposed UCSP. Impacts associated with cultural resources,
geology and soils, paleontological resources, and hazards/risk of upset would be roughly
equivalent to those identified for the proposed UCSP given that the footprint of the
impact area is roughly the same for both scenarios. The basis for concluding no
significant population and housing impacts for the No Project Alternative would be the
same as that for the proposed UCSP. In both scenarios, displacement of people and
housing which might occur during new development and redevelopment would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Because the No Project
Alternative still entails growth within the City, cumulatively significant impacts to
cultural resources, air quality and energy, although reduced, would remain significant and
unavoidable. And while direct significant unavoidable impacts to air quality and energy
may be lessened in the No Project Alternative compared to the proposed UCSP, these
environmental effects would remain significant and unmitigable given existing
noncompliance and resource limits.
Findinl!s:
Although the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the
proposed project given the reduction in impacts to aesthetics, water quality, traffic, noise,
air quality, public services, and public utilities, it would not accomplish any of the
primary objectives of the proposed project and it would be inconsistent with the adopted
General Plan Update. The No Project Alternative would not meet the following
objectives:
. Create the tools necessary to implement the General Plan Update's vision for the
urban core through preparation of a comprehensive set of new zoning classifications
and updated development regulations and standards for mixed-use developments.
The No Project Alternative comprises zoning which implements the former, outdated,
General Plan and not the adopted General Plan Update. In order to accomplish the
~ 4--4?
56
GPU vision for the urban core, new mixed-use zoning classifications and land use
development regulations are needed. Current zoning classifications and development
regulations prohibit mixed use and are thus in conflict with the adopted General Plan
Update and California law which requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the
relevant adopted general plan.
. Develop updated design guidelines unique to the individual districts in the urban core
that implement the urban form and create the active urban environment envisioned by
the General Plan Update.
Updated design guidelines for implementing the GPU vision for the urban core are
not provided in the No Project Alternative. In the absence of the proposed project,
development design for the urban core is guided by the outdated former general plan
and/or, for the portion of the project area overlain by a redevelopment plan, the
existing Town Centre I Design Manual and guidelines in the Merged Plan Summary.
In either case, guidelines are not provided that implement the urban form envisioned
in the GPU for the urban core or create a vibrant, distinct, pedestrian-friendly urban
environment, a key objective of the GPU and UCSP.
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
The No Project Alternative represents less mixed use than the proposed UCSP. As
such, it fails to provide the necessary mix ofland uses sufficient to support exemplary
community services, facilities, and amenities. The proposed UCSP represents a
substantial increase in commercial square footage and multi-family residential units
over the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative provides less
of an opportunity for the expansion of the local economy and makes it more difficult
to sustain a strong economic base. Furthermore, a Reduction in density, as allowed
under the No Project Alternative, would provide insufficient density in the urban core
to support transit facilities and to promote pedestrian-oriented land use design.
. Facilitate revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and
residential areas by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that
assures quality outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
The No Project Alternative would retain the existing land use zoning classifications in
the urban core. This results in land use regulations that support substantially fewer
residential units and commercial square footage in the urban core relative to the
proposed Plan thereby making it less likely that redevelopment and revitalization
would occur.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project Alternative is not
feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
c:1?L ~ 1
57
Cal.AppAth at 715.) For additional discussion regarding the No Project Alternative, see
Chapter 10.1 of the FEIR.
4.2 Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative represents less residential development than the
proposed project in areas currently restricted to retail use along the downtown segments
of Third Avenue, along E Street in the vicinity of Third and Fourth Avenues, and
decreased residential and transit-oriented uses in the vicinity of major transit corridors,
over the proposed UCSP.
The Reduced Project Alternative comprises a 25 percent reduction in the projected
buildout of the proposed UCSP through 2030. This alternative does not change the
proposed land uses, nor affect land use density. Under this alternative, a total of 9,025
residential units could be built in the UCSP Subdistricts Area rather than the 10,800
projected under the GPU and implemented by the proposed UCSP. This would result in a
net increase of 5,325 residential units within the UCSP Subdistricts Area, compared to
the net increase of 7,100 allowed in the proposed UCSP. Table 10-2 provides a
comparison of projected buildout under the Reduced Project Alternative and the proposed
UCSP.
The purpose of this alternative is to reduce the impacts that would result from the
adoption of the proposed plan as they relate to intensity of use.
Impacts:
Proportional to the decrease in intensity proposed under the Reduced Project Alternative,
impacts would be reduced to landform alteration/aesthetics, traffic circulation and access,
noise, air quality, public services, and public utilities. Significant impacts associated with
cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, and hazards/risk of upset
would be equivalent to those identified for the proposed UCSP given that the footprint of
the impact area is roughly the same in both scenarios. Significant water quality impacts
would also be roughly equivalent, given the approximate sameness in impermeable
surface area. As with the proposed UCSP, the Reduced Project Alternative would not
result in significant land use or population and housing impacts. In both scenarios, new
zoning would conform to the adopted General Plan and displacement of people and
housing which might occur during new development and redevelopment would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. While significant direct
impacts to cultural resources, traffic, air quality, noise and energy may be lessened in the
Reduced Project Alternative, environmental effects would remain significant and
unmitigable for cultural resources, air quality and energy given existing noncompliance
and resource limits. Because the Reduced Project Alternative accommodates growth
within the City, cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources, air quality and
energy, although reduced, would also remain significant and unavoidable.
Findine:s:
c:ld- to3
58
This alternative would specifically reduce impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics,
traffic, air quality, noise, and public utilities and services. Although the Reduced Project
Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project, it would fail
to meet the most critical Project Objectives related to smart growth principles such as
infill development and reduction of urban sprawl as described below. The City rejects the
Alternative because it does not meet most of the basic Project Objectives as effectively as
the Project.
. Create the tools necessary to implement the General Plan Update's vision for the
urban core through preparation of a comprehensive set of new zoning classifications
and updated development regulations and standards for mixed-use developments.
In order to accomplish the GPU vision for the urban core, new mixed-use zoning and
higher density residential classifications and land use development regulations as
outlined in the GPU are provided for in the UCSP. While the Reduced Project
Alternative would retain similar land use classifications, it would not provide for
buildout as envisioned by the adopted General Plan Update. The Reduced Project
Alternative would be unlikely to achieve some of the most critical objectives of the
entire Project. Specifically, this alternative would make it more difficult to achieve
the infill/smart growth objectives of the Project. The lowering of allowable intensities
could slacken development interest in the community becauseallowing for higher-
density development is a key factor associated with successfully achieving infill
development. If allowable development capacity is reduced to a point where it is
comparable with levels allowable in the subilrban areas, development is more likely
to occur there since it is generally more expensive and difficult to build in an
urbanized area. As such, the alternative would likely lead to greater urban sprawl in
the eastern portions of the City. The Reduced Project Alternative would also be in
conflict with the California State Planning and Zoning Law that requires zoning
ordinances to be consistent with the relevant adopted general plan.
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
Recognizing that revenue is proportional to intensity of use, reduced intensity, as
represented by the Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced revenues and
make it more difficult for the City to sustain services, facilities and amenities. While
this alternative permits mixed uses, doing so in a lesser intensity than that envisioned
in the proposed Plan may limit the ability of the City to support the transit and
pedestrian improvements envisioned in the GPU and proposed UCSP because of
reduced population and building intensity. Higher population and building intensity
help promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development. By limiting
commercial and residential opportunities and reducing critical mass relative to the
proposed Plan, the Reduced Project Alternative provides diminished opportunity and
incentive for revitalization that in turn helps facilitate the provision of needed public
improvements and amenities in an area determined to be blighted.
c1 c:e.. ~ 'I
59
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that development consistent with the
Reduced Project Alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d
at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 715.) For additional discussion of the
Reduced Project Alternative, see Section 10.2 of the FEIR.
4.3 Automobile Priority Alternative
The Automobile Priority Alternative involves the design and designation of area
roadways such that the adverse traffic effects identified for the proposed UCSP would be
lessened and traffic flow would take priority over pedestrian oriented design. Under this
alternative, land use densities and intensities would be the _same as with the proposed
UCSP, but certain pedestrian-oriented streetscape design features would be eliminated in
order to maximize traffic flow. The only impacts that would change in this alternative
would be related to traffic flow. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce impacts
associated with automobile traffic, circulation and access to a level below significant.
The proposed UCSP identifies roadway improvements that would result in UCSP
intersections and street segments operating at LOS D or better. As indicated in the traffic
analysis conducted for the UCSP, even with the suggested improvements, the roadway
segment of Third Avenue between E and G Streets and three intersections would operate
at LOS E. These intersections include:
. Broadway/H Street
. Hilltop Drive/H Street
. Third A venue/] Street
Additional traffic improvements to mitigate decline in the LOS for these intersections and
street segment was not included in the proposed UCSP because of conflicts with plan
objectives and right-of-way constraints. Guiding principles of the UCSP are based on
smart growth strategies, SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan (or MOBILITY
2030), and SANDAG's Congestion Management Program, which advise new
development to maximize density, reduce automobile congestion by increasing
pedestrian, cycling, and public transit activity, and allow residents to enjoy short walking
distances to and from employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, and different
modes of transportation. In order to fully mitigate traffic impacts within the Subdistricts
Area, the UCSP would have had to implement a traffic mitigation measure that conflicts
with the plan's primary objective, thus sacrificing pedestrian-friendly design for
automobile-preferred design. In addition, some of these improvements could require
additional right-of way that is currently developed with existing commercial and
residential uses, which could not be assured at this time.
At the Broadway/H Street intersection (Int. #27), an additional northbound and
southbound through lane would be required in order to achieve an acceptable LOS D
c< 4- 1G)
60
conditions. However, this improvement would require extensive widening of Broadway
and H Street to allow for lane drops. The Automobile Priority Alternative would include
this widening. It would, as a result, create longer pedestrian crossings.
At the Hilltop Drive/H Street intersection, the proposed UCSP includes no improvements
due to right-of way constraints. The poor LOS at this intersection is primarily caused by
the high traffic volumes in the eastbound/westbound movements. Additional through
and/or turn lanes would be required in order to improve this intersection to an acceptable
LOS. The Automobile Priority Alternative would include this improvement.
At the Third Avenue/J Street intersection, the proposed UCSP includes no improvements
due to right-of way constraints. The required improvement is an additional southbound
right-turn lane. The Automobile Priority Alternative would include this improvement.
Impacts:
The Automobile Priority Alternative would reduce impacts associated with automobile
traffic, circulation and access to a level below significant. This impact was determined
to be significant and unmitigable for the proposed UCSP. All other environmental
impacts would be identical to those associated with the proposed UCSP, including
landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontolgoical
resources, water quality, noise, air quality, public services, energy, and hazards/risk of
upset.
Findinl!:s:
While significant, unmitigated traffic impacts would be avoided by the Automobile
Priority Alternative, key Project Objectives, as described below, would not be
accomplished. The City rejects the Alternative because it does not meet most of the basic
Project Objectives as effectively as the Project.
. Develop updated design guidelines unique to the individual districts in the urban core
that implement the urban form and create the active urban environment envisioned by
the General Plan Update.
The GPU envisions a lively, pedestrian-friendly environment for the urban core, and
borrows from smart growth principles contained in the Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Regional Transportation Plan. These principles outline the need for different
transportation modalities including pedestrian, bicycling, and public transit. Smart
growth principles place priority on non-automotive forms of mobility as a means to
promote higher quality of life and wiser use of limited natural resources. By
including design provisions that maximize traffic flow and prioritize the automobile
experience, the Automobile Priority Alternative limits the City's ability to implement
the pedestrian-friendly streetscape and other improvements envisioned in the GPU
and proposed UCSP.
cla-1J
61
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
By including design provisions that maximize traffic flow and pnontlze the
automobile experience, the Automobile Priority Alternative limits the City's ability
to implement the pedestrian-friendly streets cape improvements, diminishes
opportunities to provide other modes of transport (walking, bicycles, and transit),
and other public amenities envisioned in the GPU and proposed UCSP.
. Facilitate revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and
residential areas by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that
assures quality outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
A strategy inherent in this objective is the design of roadways and streetscapes that
slow traffic down and allow a friendly pedestrian experience that invites greater
patronage of streetside businesses. The Automobile Priority Alternative, by placing
emphasis on increasing traffic flow through the Plan area, would contradict this key
objective.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that development consistent with the
Automobile Priority Alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133
Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.AppAth at 715.) For additional
discussion of the Automobile Priority Alternative, see Section 10.3 of the FEIR.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an FEIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all
of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. If the No Project
alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the FEIR also shall identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the FEIR indicates,
through a comparison of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternatives and the
proposed Project, that the Reduced Project Alternative would be environmentally
superior because impacts identified for the proposed Project would be reduced.
However, the Reduced Project Alternative would not fully implement the City's General
Plan Update, which is a primary objective of the project. The findings as to the
infeasibility of selecting the Reduced Project Alternative are provided above in 4.2.
Reduced Project Alternative.
c!~ 7~
62
5.0 Project Effects Found Not to be Significant
impacts related to the following criteria were found not to be significant, as a result of the
analysis conducted for the FEIR. The basis for the conclusion as to the effect relative to
those criteria is provided on the referenced pages of the FEIR.
Pa!!e Location in FEIR
Land Use
Criterion 1: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 5-19 through 5-34
policy, or regulation of 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.
Criterion 2: Physically divide or adversely affect the 5-35 through 5-45
community character of an established community.
Landform Alternation! Aesthetics
Criterion 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, 5-57 through 5-60
or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, and rock outcroppings and historic buildings
within a scenic highway.
Population and Housing
Criterion I: Induces substantial population growth in an 5-126 through 5-127
area, either directly or indirectly
Criterion 2: Displaces substantial numbers of existing 5-127 through 5-128
I. housing, necessitating the construction or replacement of
housing elsewhere
Criterion 3: Displaces substantial numbers of people, 5-128
necessitating the construction or replacement of housing
elsewhere
Hydrology and Water Quality
Criterion 2: Substantially deplete groundwater resources or 5-141
aquifer recharge areas
Criterion 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 5-141 through 5-142
of the site or area or substantially increase surface runoff in a
manner which would result in on-or off-site flooding or
exceed capacity of existing drainat1e systems
Air Quality
Criterion 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute 5-220
substantially to an existing or proiected air quality violation.
Criterion 5: Create objectionable odors affecting a 5-238
substantial number of people.
Public Utilities - Water
Criterion 1: Result in insufficient supplies of potable water 5-271 through 5-272
to meet the potential demands represented bv the
=fa.. 1--5
63
implementation of projects completed in conformance to the
UCSP.
Criterion 2: Require or result in the construction of new 5-272 through 5-273
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Public Utilities - Integrated Waste Mana2:ement
Criterion 1 : Be served by landfills with insufficient 5-281
permitted capacity to accommodate the proj ecl' s solid waste
disposal needs.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Criterion 2: Place potential hazardous emitters or materials in 5-307
close proximity to sensitive receivers or be located in close
proximity to a hazardous materials site.
Criterion 3: Impair the implementation of or physically 5-307 through 5-308
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Mineral Resources 9-1
Biological Resources 9-1
Agriculture 9-1
o? tL 11-
64
6.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA allows a public agency to approve a project with significant, unavoidable impacts
if the agency finds that the project will provide overriding economic, social, or other
benefits.
6.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas,
described in detail in these Findings of Fact:
. Cultural resources
. Traffic, circulation and access
. Noise
. Air quality
. Energy
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these
significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not, in some cases, fully avoid the
impacts. .
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives meet project
objectives.
Despite the occurrence of significant adverse unavoidable environmental impacts, the
City Council chooses to approve the Project because, in its view, the economic, social,
and other benefits that the project will provide will render the significant effects
acceptable.
The City has adopted this "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to cite a
project's economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the
occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided.
6.2 Considerations in Support of Overriding Considerations
The following statement explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits
outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the
California and Federal Clean Air Act) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain
actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does not
relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decisionmaker has
recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the final ErR,
c{c01S
65
recogmzmg that other resource agencIes have the ability to Impose more stringent
standards or measures.
Although CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an
EIR, the City Council recognizes that decisionmakers benefit from information about
project benefits and has cited these benefits here, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15093.
Anyone of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the
Proj ect. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the
preceding Findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the
documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section 1.3.
The City finds that the project would have the following substantial social,
environmental, and economic benefits:
1. Growth will be targeted to serve community need and enhance the quality of
life. The project will offer opportunities to live in safe and attractive
neighborhoods; share in vibrant urban activities; work in healthy business
environments; and enjoy ample cultural and civic amenities and recreational
facilities. The pattern of development established by the UCSP - focuses on
"smart growth principles" established by the 2005 General Plan Update to
improve the quality of life for City residents and to reduce urban sprawl by
providing well planned infill development Citywide, allowing for increased
density in selected areas along established transportation corridors. Growth will
be targeted to areas of Chula Vista that are well served by public traJlsit and that
provide opportunities for residences, retail businesses, and employment centers to
be located close to one another. This approach to development encourages street-
level economic development by putting pedestrians in close proximity to retail,
restaurant, and commercial/office uses. Residents could work, live, shop, and play
in transit-oriented areas, thereby encouraging economic growth and reducing
automobile dependence. In this way, the Project promotes smart growth principles
that call for compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that minimize the
amount of open space lands that would be converted to urban uses. This approach
to development reduces new vehicle trips resulting from new development and
correspondingly, reduces traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. In this
respect, this pattern of development benefits Chula Vista as well as the
surrounding region.
2. The project will provide for a vibrant urban area. The project lays the
foundation for providing a mixture of commercial, residential, civic and cultural
amenities which will add to Chula Vista's character and secure its standing as the
primary hub of the South Bay area.
3. The project will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing
through the provision of additional housing. SANDAG housing capacity
studies indicate a shortage of housing will occur in the region within the next 20
years. The project would allow the development of an additional 7,100 dwelling
=fa. 1~
66
units. Reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land, the cost of housing has
risen disproportionately in recent years to the cost of other uses in the project area
(e.g., commercial, industrial). Because the project will increase the spatial extent
and density of land designated for residential development by providing for mixed
use zoning that allows residential uses to co-occupy blocks or parcels previously
confined to commercial and office uses, it may additionally help to reduce the
regional cost of housing. Thus, the Urban Core Specific Plan will result in
additional housing that will promote affordability and socioeconomic diversity,
two features the City finds both important and desirable.
4. The project will connect and integrate the urban core activity centers and
neighborhoods with the bayfront and eastern Chula Vista. Through a network
of local transportation services such as the trolley, intra-city express and shuttle
loops, and expanded bus routes, the project will re-connect and integrate the urban
core activity centers and neighborhoods with the bayfront and eastern Chula
Vista. The Urban Core Specific Plan will also provide a system of bicycle and
pedestrian paths that connect neighborhoods, activity centers, and recreation
facilities throughout the urban core.
5. The project will provide the tools necessary to implement the General Plan
Update. The vision established for the urban core through preparation of the
General Plan Update will be implemented through a comprehensive set of new
zoning classifications and updated development regulations and standards for
mixed-use developments; develop updated design guidelines unique to the
individual districts in the urban core that implement the urban form and create the
active urban environment envisioned by the General Plan Update; and facilitate
revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and residential areas
by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that assures quality
outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
6. Land use and transportation policy will help grow the local economy and
create opportunities for new businesses. The UCSP allows for up to 3.6 million
square feet of net new nonresidential development in the form of commercial,
office, and visitor serving uses. This additional space will add opportunities to
create new jobs, building improvements, retention of the existing companies, a
diverse economy, and infrastructure. Chula Vista's growth has resulted in many
beneficial effects, principally the development of businesses that provide jobs and
economic stability, creation of housing units affordable to a broad range of
household incomes, the growth of educational institutions, and the vibrancy that
results from a diverse, multi-ethnic and cultural community.
7. The project reduces adverse impacts to air quality and automobile
congestion. The project area currently exceeds federal and state air quality
standards for a number of emissions factors, including ozone and carbon
monoxide. A substantial majority of these emissions are attributable to motor
vehicles. In order to comply with the federal and California Clean Air Acts, the
o?a.. 71
67
San Diego region must reduce these sources. The project is designed to reduce
the adverse impact to air quality and automobile congestion by encouraging use of
alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking and the use of public
transit.
8. Implementation of the project will promote the use of conservation
technologies and sustainability practices that reduce or eliminate the use of
non-renewable resources. The Urban Core Specific Plan requires the submittal
of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) scorecard with
application for an Urban Core Development Permit. Projects that meet selected
green building Criterion will be awarded incentives. The project thus promotes
local non-polluting and renewable energy, water, and material resources in a way
that allows the City to meet their present needs while ensuring future generations
the ability to meet their needs.
9. Implementation of the project will provide significant community facilities.
The project will establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of
significant community facilities and benefits such as public infrastructure,
mobility improvements, and urban amenities that enhance the quality of life for
the community. As the plan is implemented, it will be responsible for
constructing public facilities and infrastructure to serve the Urban Core Specific
Plan area. These facilities include:
a. Improvements to the local circulation system;
b. Schools serving western Chula Vista;
c. Public parks and urban green spaces;
d. Water line, drainage, and sewer infrastructure improvements.
For these reasons, the City Council finds there are economic, social, and other
considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's
unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, considers the adverse
unavoidable effects acceptable.
c{?t.. 1?
68
EXHIBIT B
o? t:V 11
CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula
Vista Urban Core Specific Plan to comply with Public Resources Code section 21081.6,
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.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista
designates the Environment Review Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of
the documents or their material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which
its decision is based.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the
mitigation identified in the EIR and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
. Monitor qualifications
. Specific monitoring activities
. Reporting system
. Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project is the adoption of the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan
(UCSP). The UCSP would govern the development and revitalization of the urban core
of the City of Chula Vista. The UCSP includes land use objectives, development
regulations (zoning), and development design guidelines to implement the adopted
General Plan vision for the urban core. The UCSP's planning horizon is the year 2030.
The City of Chula Vista is located in southern San Diego County, between National City
and the southernmost portion of the City of San Diego which abuts the U.S.-Mexican
border. The UCSP area occupies 1,700 acres in the northwest portion of the City. A
smaller, 690-gross-acre Subdistricts Area was determined to be most in need of
revitalization and is the focus of all the regulatory land use provisions of the UCSP. The
new zoning, development standards, and design guidelines proposed in the UCSP will
apply only to the Subdistricts Area of the UCSP. Existing zoning and land use
regulations will not be changed in the remaining portion of the UCSP study area outside
the Subdistricts Area. The UCSP Subdistricts Area comprises the traditional downtown
area east of 1-5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street.
1
c2 tL eft'
Under the proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, the urban core would be
organized into three planning districts (Urban Core, Village, and Corridors) and 26
subdistricts.
The proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan is described in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) text. The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on
issues determined to be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues
addressed in the EIR include land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources,
geology and soils, paleontological resources, population and housing, hydrology and
water quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services, public
utilities, and hazards/risk of upset. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of
the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant
impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of recommended
mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified
for landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological
resources, water quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services,
public utilities (energy), and hazards/risk of upset.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts
identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Urban
Core Specific Plan therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas
identified above.
Miticiation Monitorinq Team
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached
MMRP table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula
Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
. Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated
experience in working under trying field circumstances;
. Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
. Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of
cost-effective mitigation options; and
. Excellent communication skills.
Proqram Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should 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 greater detail will be
2
d Ii- gj
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. All
parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted
and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort.
Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City
of Chuia Vista would include the City of Chula Vista and its Mitigation Monitor. The
Mitigation Monitor would distribute to each Environmentai Specialist and Environmental
Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks
and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring
report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form.
Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing
the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and
file it with the MM fOllowing the monitoring activity. The MM will then inciude the
conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to
be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major
accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in
achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems,
and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if
appropriate, each Environmental Monitor or Environmental Specialist will be required to
fill out and submit a daily log report to the Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be
used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or
monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs
and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda,
telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula Vista
to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on
the project.
Actions 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 warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or
task delay; and
. Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
3
c;( a.., g-;;{
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
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 on-site monitors. Decisions regarding
actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR
are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language
appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific
Plan has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated
monitor, the City of Chula Vista, will further refine the mitigation measures.
4
~t2 P3
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Aesthet/csNisuaf Character. To
accommodate a three-fold increase in
population projected for the urban core
by the year 2030, redevelopment and
new development within the UCSP
Subdistricts Area would change the
existing visual character from mostly
low-rise (up to 48 feet in height) single-
use commercial blocks surrounded by
multi-family residential blocks, to a mix
of low-rise (up to 45 feet in height) and
mid-rise (up to 84 feet in height) mixed-
use commercial/office and residential
blocks, with high-rise structures (up to
210 feet in height) allowed in the areas
surrounding the existing E Street and H
Street trolley stations. Potentially
significant changes to existing visual
character, blue sky views, solar
access, and ventilation conditions
would result from this intensification in
land use.
To ensure avoidance of potentially
significant visual character impacts, all
subsequent development projects in
the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be
required to comply with relevant UCSP
provisions, as outlined in Mitigation
Measure 5.2.5-1.
Mitigation Measures
5.2.5-1: All subsequent development projects in the
UCSP Subdistricts Area shall comply with
UCSP development regulations and design
guidelines which are necessary to reduce or
avoid potential impacts to landform alteration
and visual quality (including blue sky views,
solar access, and ventilation), and which
may include but not be limited to the special
development regulations for mixed-use
projects (p. VI-43), the NTCD and TFA
regulations (p. VI-40), and the siting and
architectural design guidelines for each
district (Chapter VII). Prior to approval of a
subsequent development project, the
Community Development Director or
Planning and Building Director of the City
shall identify the specific provisions of the
UCSP which shall be included in the
conditions of approval in order to avoid or to
reduce potential impacts to below
significance.
5
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
~
~
~
l
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
~111l. IJlttl. .. 0. ~ JC1l LP11Xt::!1l'l'Jitt:::ttG:!1li
Light and Glare Effects. Light 5.2.5-2: All subsequent development projects in the
sensitive activities (e.g. sleeping) could UCSP Subdistricts Area shall comply with
potentially be adversely impacted by UCSP development regulations and design
light or glare in excess of baseline guidelines which are necessary to reduce or
conditions due to buildout of the UCSP avoid potential adverse impacts to light or
and intensification of land use. glare and which may include but not be
However, various provisions in the limited to the provisions included in section
UCSP development regulations and 5.2.3.3 a through e of this EIR. Prior to
design guidelines (UCSP Chapters VI approval of a subsequent development
and VII) serve to control light and glare project, the Community Development
sources and ensure that light pollution Director or Planning and Building Director of
and glare would be minimal. the City shall identify the specific provisions
T 'd f t r I r ht of the UCSP which shall be included in the
oden,sureavOl tance"o Pbo en la t Ig conditions of approval in order to avoid or to
an g are Impac s, a su sequen d' II' d I .
d I t. t . th UCSP re uce potentia Ight an g are Impacts to
eve opmen proJec s In e I . 'f'
S bd' t . t A '11 b . d t be ow slgnl Icance.
U IS rle s rea WI e require 0
comply with relevant UCSP provisions
as outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-
2.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
6
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Architectural Resources. So far
eleven buildings or sites within the
UCSP Subdistricts Area have been
locally designated or determined to be
eligible to be designated as historically
significant as defined in the CEQA
Guidelines. Six of the eleven sites are
currently listed on the Chula Vista List
of Historic Sites. The other five sites
were determined by a focused survey
in September 2005 to be eligible for
local listing. Without mitigation,
demolition or substantial alteration of
any of these eleven historic resources
as a result of future development in
accordance with the proposed UCSP
would comprise a significant historical
architectural resources impact.
The area around Third Avenue and F
Street is considered the traditional
heart of the City and includes important
elements of the early residential and
business activities of the City. The
potential for the existence of other
unidentified historic properties is highly
probable given the number of older
commercial and residential structures
throughout the UCSP Subdistricts
Mitigation Measures
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
5.3.5-1: For a structure listed on, or eligible for listing
on, the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or
State and Federal historic registers, the
project applicant shall retain the structure in-
piace and maintain, repair, stabilize,
rehabilitate, restore, preserve or reconstruct
the structure in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring and Reconstructing Historic
Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer
("Secretary's Standards"). Prior to issuance
of an Urban Core Development Permit
(UCDP) or other discretionary permit, the
project applicant shall prepare detailed
construction plans under the supervision of a
qualified architectural historian or historic
architect for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director shall
retain, at the project applicant's expense, a
qualified historic architect to review the plans
and to certify that the project will comply with
the Secretary's Standards and would not
result in the loss of the structure's listing, or
eli9ibility for listing, on the City, State or
Federal register of historic resources.
7
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Area. If significant historic resources
occur among these unidentified
structures, their loss or substantial
alteration would comprise a significant
historical architectural resources
impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
5.3.5-1, 5.3.5-2 and 5.3.5-4 wouid
reduce potential impacts to historic
resources to below a level of
significance. In some circumstances,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
5.3.5-3, which provides for
documentation of an historic resource,
would not mitigate significant impacts
to a point where clearly no significant
effect on the environment would occur.
In that event, a potential impact to
historic resources may be significant
and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.3.5-2: Where there is substantiai evidence that it is
not feasible for a structure listed on or
eiigible for listing on the Chula Vista List of
Historic Sites or State or Federal historic
registers to be retained in-place, the project
applicant shall provide for relocation and
maintenance, repair, stabilization,
rehabilitation, restoration or preservation of
the structure in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the interior's Standards for the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Proper-ties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995),
Weeks and Grimmer ("Secretary's
Standards") at a new location subject to the
approval of the City. Prior to issuance of an
Urban Core Development Permit (UCDP) or
other discretionary permit, the project
appiicant shall prepare detailed relocation
plans under the supervision of a qualified
architectural historian or historic architect for
review and approval by the Community
Development Director. The Community
Development Director shall retain, at the
project applicant's expense, a qualified
historic architect to review the plans and to
8
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
certify that the project will comply with the
Secretary's Standards and would not result
in the loss of the structure's listing, or
eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
Federal register of historic resources.
5.3.5-3: Where there is substantial evidence, as
determined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5 (b) (4), that it is not feasible for a
structure listed on Of eligible for listing on the
Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or State or
Federal historic registers to be retained in-
place or to be relocated to another location
satisfactory to the City, the project applicant
shall:
Provide for documentation of the
historical structure before it is removed
from the development site, including but
not limited to photographic documentation
of the exterior and interior of the structure,
and "as built" drawings of the structure
according to the standards of the Historic
American Building Survey (HABS, Level
I). Such historical documentation shall be
provided to the CVRC or RCC, as
applicable, before a demolition permit is
issued by the City for the structure.
9
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
~i!!('lIJ~~~~~;
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
Mitigation Measures
5.3.5-4: For those structures 45 years or older and
not previously evaluated, a determination of
historic significance shall be made based on
the significance criteria in Section 5.3.2 (and
repeated below) prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit.
A site or structure may be listed on the
Chula Vista List of Historic Sites if it
possesses integrity (of location, design,
setting, materiais, workmanship, feeling and
association), and meets at least qne of the
following criteria:
. Is associated with events that have made
a significant contribu\ion to the broad
patterns of history at the local, regional,
state or nationai level.
. Is associated with the lives of significant
persons in the past on a local, regional,
state or national level.
. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values.
10
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Archaeological Resources. The
UCSP Subdistricts Area is mapped as
having low sensitivity for the
occurrence of archaeological
resources. Although the likelihood of
encountering significant archaeological
resources and human remains is low,
the potential does exist. In the unlikely
event that prehistoric cultural materials
are found during subsurface
disturbance resulting from future
developments, there would be a
significant archaeological impact.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
. Has yielded or may be likely to yield,
information important in history or
prehistory.
If a resource is determined by the City to be
historically significant pursuant to the above
listed criteria, Mitigation Measure 5.3.5-2,
5.3.5-3, or 5.3.5-4 shall be implemented as
applicable.
5.3.5-5: The likelihood of encountering
archaeological resources is low within the
UCSP Subdistricts Area. The following
mitigation shall only be applied to projects
which involve subsurface excavation to the
depth of greater than or equal to six feet, or
for any project site that has not had
substantial previous excavation. Prior to
approval of any construction permits,
including but not limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit, the Community
Development Director shall verify that the
requirements for Archaeological Monitoring
and Native American monitoring, if
applicable, have been noted on the
appropriate construction documents.
11
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTiNG PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
. The applicant/developer shall submit
documentation to the Community
Development Director identifying the
qualified Principal Investigator (PI) for the
project and the names of all persons
involved in the archaeological monitoring
program, the areas to be monitored, and
a construction schedule indicating when
and where monitoring will occur.
. During construction, the monitor shall be
present full-time during soil remediation
and grading/excavation/trenching
activities which could result in impacts to
archaeologicai resources, and shall
document field activity and in the case of
any discoveries.
. In the event of a discovery, the
Archaeological Monitor shall direct the
contractor to temporarily divert trenching
activities in the area of discovery and
immediately notify the resident engineer
or building inspector, as appropriate. The
monitor shall immediately notify the PI
(unless the Monitor is the PI) of the
discovery and the Pi and Native American
representative, if applicable, shall
evaluate the significance of the resource.
12
Time Frame of
Mitigation
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Time Frame of
Mitigation
. Once encountered, artifacts associated
with an archaeological feature or deposit
are required to be documented in place,
analyzed in a laboratory setting and
prepared for curation in accordance with
CEQA provisions and local guidelines.
. If human remains are discovered, work
shall halt in that area and the procedures
set forth in the California Public
Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and
State Health and Safety Code (Sec.
7050.5) shall be undertaken.
13
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Geologic Hazards. The UCSP area is
potentially subject to strong ground
shaking by an earthquake along the
aclive Rose Canyon fault zone, or
other active faults in the region. The
UCSP Subdistricls Area may
additionally be subject to liquefaction
along its western boundary.
Compressible and expansive soils also
have the potential to be encountered
by future development throughout the
Subdistricts Area. Buildout of the
UCSP would result in an increase in
housing, office space, retail space, and
hotels that would be subjeclto these
potentially significant seismic and soils
hazards. Therefore, there would be a
proportionate increase in personal and
property damage as the population
within the urban core increases.
Mitigation Measures
5.4.5-1: Prior to the approval of each subsequent
development project, the project applicant
shall submit a comprehensive soil and
geologic evaluation of the project site to the
City Engineer and/or Building Official for
review and approval. The evaluation shall
be prepared by a licensed geotechnical
engineer in order to identify site-specific
conditions and to determine whether
potential soil and geologic hazards exist on
the site. The evaluation shall include, but
not be limited to, a delineation of specific
locations where liquefiable, compressive,
and expansive soils would affect structural
stability and where graded slopes would
expose bedrock susceptible to instability.
Liquefiable, expansive, or compressive soils
shall be removed from the site and shall be
replaced with compacted fill.
14
Prior to the approval of
any building permits,
including but not
limited to the Urban
Core Development
Permit (UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Agency
llI"'llfl!\_______,,'<'<__d,,__
~_wJj~4't1_~SJi
Implementation of project-specific 5.4.5-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
mitigation measures would be required each subsequent development project, the any building permits, (CCV)
to reduce or avoid significant impacts City Buiiding Official shall verify that the including but not
resulting from groundshaking, design of all structures proposed for a limited to the Urban
liquefaction, and compressible and specific site comply with the requirements of Core Development
expansive soils. all federal, state and iocal buiiding codes Permit (UCDP).
and regulations governing earthquake safety
and structural stability and with the standard
practices of the Association of Structural
Engineers of California.
Construction on liquefiable soils could
result in injuries or loss of property
during ground shaking of sufficient
magnitude and duration. Expansive
soils within pavement, foundation, or
slab subgrade could heave when
wetted, resulting in cracking or failure
of these development improvements.
Development on compressible soils
could potentially sellle under increased
load and damage structures, roads,
and property.
15
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Paleontolgical Sensitivity. The UCSP
area contains a large expanse of
moderate paleontological resource
sensitivity. Exposure or disturbance of
unnamed nearshore marine sandstone
and the Linda Vista Formation would
potentially significantly impact
paleontological resources. Because the
UCSP area is fully developed with
urban uses, future grading would
typically be minimal except in areas
with sub-garages and sub-floors.
Development proposed in areas of
moderate sensitivity that propose to
grade in excess of 2000 cubic yards
and five feet deep will require
mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
5.5-1: Subsequent development projects that
propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic
yards and five feet depth in areas of moderate
sensitivity for paieontoiogical resources shall
be required to implement a pre-construction
or construction monitoring program, or both,
as a condition of approval. All mitigation
programs shall be performed by a qualified
professional paleontologist, defined here as
an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who has proven
experience in San Diego County paleontology
and who is knowledgeable in professionai
paleontological procedures and techniques.
Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, defined here as an
individual who has experience in the
collection and saivage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor shall always work
under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
16
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~.
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Pre-construction mitigation. This method of
mitigation is only applicable to instances
where well-preserved and significant fossil
remains, discovered in the assessment
phase, would be destroyed during initial
ciearing and equipment move-on. The
individual tasks of this program include:
1. Surface prospecting for exposed fossil
remains, generally involving inspectionof
existing bedrock outcrops but possibly also
excavation of test trenches;
2. Surface collection of discovered fossil
remains, typically involving simple
excavation of the exposed specimen but
possibly also plaster jacketing of large
and/or fragile specimens or more elaborate
quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous
deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data
to provide a context for the recovered fossil
remains, typically including description of
lithologies of fossil-bearing strata.
measurement and description of the overall
stratigraphic section, and photographic
documentation of the geologic setting;
17
}
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and
repair) of collected fossil remains,
generally involving removal of enclosing
rock material, stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues and other
hardeners), and repair of broken
specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared
fossil remains, typically involving scientific
identification of specimens, inventory of
specimens, assignment of catalog
numbers, and entry of data into an
inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil
remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains
paleontological collections (including the
fossil specimens, copies of all field notes,
maps, stratigraphic sections, and
photographs); and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing
the field and laboratory methods used, the
stratigraphic units inspected, the types of
fossils recovered, and the significance of
the curated collection.
18
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
ejG. . U'BE$Sl~Cl
Mitigation Measures
Construction mitigation. Under this program,
mitigation occurs while excavation operations
are underway. The scope and pace of
excavation generally dictate the scope and
pace of mitigation. The individual tasks of a
construction mitigation program typically
include:
1. Monitoring of excavation operations to
discover unearthed fossil remains,
generally involving inspection of ongoing
excavation exposures (e.g., sheet graded
pads, cut slopes, roadcuts, basement
excavations, and trench sidewalls);
2. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains,
typically involving simple excavation of the
exposed specimen but possibly also plaster
jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens,
or more elaborate quarry excavations of
richly fossiliferous deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data
to provide a context for the recovered fossil
remains, typically including description of
lithologies of fossil-bearing strata,
measurement and description of the overall
stratigraphic section, and photographic
documentation of the geologic setting;
19
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and
repair) of collected fossil remains, generally
involving removal of enclosing rock
material, stabilization of fragile specimens
(using glues and other hardeners), and
repair of broken specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared
fossil remains, typically involving scientific
identification of specimens, inventory of
specimens, assignment of catalog
numbers, and entry of data into an
inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil
remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains
paleontological collections, including the
fossil specimens, copies of all field notes,
maps, stratigraphic sections and
photographs; and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing
the field and laboratory methods used, the
stratigraphic units inspected, the types of
fossils recovered, and the significance of
the curated collection.
20
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Surface and Ground Water Quality.
Implementation of the proposed UCSP
would allow a three-fold increase in
population and associated
intensification of existing urban land
uses which would likely result in a
substantial increase in direct runoff to
drainage basins, municipal storm
sewer systems, and eventual drainage
to surface water andlor the ocean. This
runoff will likely contain typical urban
runoff pollutants such as sediment,
pathogens, heavy metals, petroleum
products, nutrients (phosphates and
nitrates) and trash. This comprises a
potentially significant long-term water
quality impact.
The potential long-term impacts to
water quality which may result from
implementation of the proposed UCSP
would be required to be reduced to
acceptable levels through the
mandatory controls imposed by local,
state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measures
5.7-1: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, compliance with ali
applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations regarding water quality (e.g.
JURMP, SUSMP, NPDES, SWPP, and City
Deveiopment and Redevelopment Projects
Storm Water Manuai) shall be demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
21
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
""-
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Selected provisions of the UCSP that
allow and encourage native plant
landscaping and sustainable building
practices (water input and waste
efficiencies, living roofs, bioswales,
etc.) would potentially lessen future
runoff volumes, flow rate and pollutant
concentration.
The construction activities of
subsequent individual projects would
also potentially cause short-term water
quality impacts through direct
discharge of pollutants, soil
excavation/sedimentation, and through
encountering of shallow groundwater
during subfloor grading. This
comprises a potentially significant
short-term water quality impact.
5.7-2: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, project applicants shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that the proposed on-site storm
drain systems fully mitigate drainage impacts
and meet all federal, state, and regional water
quality objectives and all City standards and
requirements. Land development
construction drawings and associated reports
shall include details, notes, and discussions
relative to the required or recommended Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Permanent
storm water BMP requirements shall be
incorporated into the project design and all
subsequent individual development projects
are required to complete the applicable Storm
Water Compliance Form and comply with the
City of Chuia Vista's Storm Water
Management Standards Requirements
Manual.
22
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, inciuding but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.7-3: The City of Chula Vista requires that all new
development and significant redevelopment
projects comply with the requirements of the
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01.
According to said permit, all projects falling
under the Priority Development Project
Categories are required to comply with the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans
(SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. Future
projects shall comply with all applicable
regulations, established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit requirements for urban runoff and
storm water discharge, and any regulations
adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to
the NPDES regulations and requirements.
Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of
Intent (NO I) with the State Water Resource
Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall
23
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
",
~
(}J
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities, The
SWPP shall include both construction and
post-construction pollution prevention and
pollution control measures, and shall identify
funding mechanisms for the maintenance of
post-construction control measures.
5.7-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development
projects shall demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director,
conformance with Mediterranean/indigenous
landscaping and other relevant design
recommendations provided in UCSP Chapter
VII Development Design Guidelines.
24
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
'--
~
"t.-
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Road Segments and Intersections
Level of Service. A substantial
increase in traffic on area roadways
and at area intersections will result
from planned population growth in the
urban core area over the next 25
years. Without the intersection and
roadway improvements envisioned in
the proposed UCSP, by year 2030
conditions, 2 road segments and 19
intersections would operate at
unacceptable LOS E or worse during
peak traffic periods. This comprises a
significant traffic impact prior to
mitigation.
The significant impacts to intersections
will be mitigated to below significance
by implementation of the improvements
recommended in Mitigation Measure
5.8.5-1, with the exception of #27
Broadway/H Street, #33 Hilltop Drive/H
Street and #54 Third Avenue/J Street.
Impacts to these 3 intersections would
remain significant and unmitigated.
Mitigation Measures
5.8.5 -1: Intersection Improvements. Impacts to the
19 affected intersections will be mitigated to
below significance by the implementation of
improvements that have been divided into
three tiers for phased implementation based
on need and enhancement of the overall
street network. Generally, time frames
associated with the tiered improvements are
anticipated as short-, mid- and long-term. In
each tier, the City's existing TMP will
determine the order in which projects are
implemented during the biannual CIP
program review. The Tier 1 improvements
would be included in the current CIP and
subsequently monitored for improvement
within the first five years of implementation
of the UCSP. It should be noted that three of
the intersections (#7, #16, and #21) are
proposed as project features rather than as
needed to improve intersection LOS and
most likely will be related to and timed with
impiementation of streetscape
improvements along Third Avenue.
25
Three-tiered phasing
of implementation
based on need. Tier 1,
short-term,
improvements are to
occur within the first
five years of
implementation of the
UCSP or as may be
modified by results of
the annual Traffic
Monitoring Program
(TMP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
f>
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
JBt:;;~:I(j ,!lont;
Recommendations at intersections
#27, #33, and #54 do not improve
conditions to an acceptable LOS due to
ROWand design constraints. The
following describes the constraints at
the three intersections:
. At the Broadway/H Street
intersection (#27), an additional
northbound and southbound through
lane would be required in order to
achieve an acceptable LOS D
conditions. However, this
improvement would require
extensive widening of Broadway
and H Street to allow for lane drops.
Furthermore, this widening wouid
create longer pedestrian crossings.
As such, the recommended
improvements of the eastbound
queue jumper lane and the
additional westbound through and
right-turn lanes would improve the
intersection from LOS F to LOS E
conditions.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
The intersection numbers in the
improvements described below correspond
to the intersection numbering system used in
the TIA (Appendix C of this EIR):
a. Tier 1 Improvements
. #1 Bay Boulevardll-5 Southbound
Ramp/E Street: Add an eastbound
through and right-turn lane, southbound
right-turn lane, and northbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #2 1-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a
westbound right-turn lane. Coordination
with Caltrans will be required for this
improvement
. #7 Third Avenue/E Street: Convert the
northbound and southbound shared right-
through lane into exclusive right-turn
lanes.
. #16 Third Avenue/F Street: Separate the
southbound shared through-right lane into
an exciusive through and right-turn lanes,
convert the northbound shared through-
right lane into an exclusive right-turn lane.
26
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
. At the Hilltop Drive/H Street
intersection (#33), no improvements
would be recommended due to
ROW constraints. The poor LOS at
this intersection is primarily caused
by the high traffic volumes in the
eastbound/westbound movements.
Additional through and/or turn lanes
would be required in order to
improve this intersection to an
acceptable LOS. With no
improvements, this intersection
would remain at LOS E during bolh
peak periods.
. At the Third Avenue/J Street
intersection (#54), the required
improvement of an additional
southbound right-turn lane would
impact the existing commercial
building (Henry's Marketplace),
which is buill adjacent to the
sidewalk. Therefore, this
improvement is not recommended.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
. #21 Third Avenue/G Street: Convert the
northbound/southbound shared through-
right lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
. #24 1-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street: Add
a southbound left, eastbound through and
right-turn ianes. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
. #25 1-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street: Add
a westbound through and right-turn lane
and restripe south approach to
accommodate dual left-turn lanes.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street: Change
Woodlawn Avenue to a one-way couplet.
This improvement is required to serve the
intense redevelopment occurring on both
sides of H Street. The couplet
improvement is not required mitigation
further north toward E Street.
. #27 Broadway/H Street: Add an
eastbound transit queue jumper lane and
westbound through and right-turn lanes.
27
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
!ilii~ !~ i~).!t"'1
As a result, the LOS would remain
at LOS E. However, if the property
were to redevelop in the future,
additional ROW could be obtained
for the southbound right-turn lane.
While existing TransNet funding is
expected to cover some of the costs of
roadway and transit improvements and
existing traffic signal fees currently
collected as new development occurs
would be applied, as appropriate, to
identified signal-phasing
improvements, the Facilities
Implementation Analysis (FIA) has
identified proposed development fees
that may be needed to fund some of
the recommended traffic
improvements. In addition, some of the
improvements will require right of way
dedications either as part of the
development process or concurrent
with capital improvements, and/or
coordination with Caltrans.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
. #28 Fifth Avenue/H Street: Change the
northbound/southbound approaches to
include protective plus permissive
phasing and add a westbound right-turn
lane.
. #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street: Add an
eastbound/westbound righHurn lane.
. #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound
Ramp: Add an eastbound "righHurn iane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
b. Tier 2 Improvements
. . #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp:
Add a westbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #59 J StreeUI-5 Northbound Ramp: Add
an eastbound ieft-turn and westbound
right-turn lane. Coordination with Caltrans
will be required for this improvement.
28
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
. #61 L StreeUBay Boulevard: Signalize the
intersection, add a southbound left-turn
lane, and a northbound right-turn overlap
phase to the traffic signal.
. #63 Bay Boulevardll-5 Southbound
Ramp: Signalize the intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-5 Northbound
Ramp: Signalize th.e intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. H Street from four lanes to six lanes from
1-5 to Broadway
c. Tier 3 Improvements
. #13 Broadway/F Street: Add an
eastbound right-turn lane.
. #45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street: Add
a southbound right-turn overlap phase to
the traffic signal.
. #57 Second Avenue/D Street: Convert to
an all-way stop controlled intersection.
29
}
'-
<::::,.
'-.J)
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
On an annual basis during buildout of the
UCSP, the City shall apply the TMP to
monitor actual performance of the street
system in the Subdistricts Area by conducting
roadway segment travel time studies in
accordance with the City's Growth
Management Program and Traffic Threshold
Standards. The results of the annual study
under the TMP will be used by the City to
determine the timing and need for
implementation of improvements to the
nineteen intersections identified above as
having potential significant impacts. The City
shall implement the intersection
improvements in phases based on the results
of the annual TMP and on need and
enhancement to the function of the overall
street network. In addition to determining
timing and need, this systems and operations
monitoring approach should also be used to
further ascertain final design details of the
intersection improvements and may include
consideration of the effects on traffic flow as
well as the impacts/benefits to other travel
modes (e.g., pedestrians and bicycles) that
are foundational to the successful
implementation of the Specific Plan.
30
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
JF j\}"
The potential significant impacts to
street segments will be mitigated to
below significance by implementation
of the improvements recommended in
Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-2, with the
exception of Third Avenue between E
and G Streets. The significant and
unavoidable impact to this street
segment result from the design of the
project, which is intended to reduce
Third Avenue to a two-lane downtown
promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the
traditional commercial village. Although
the planned improvements would result
in an unacceptable LOS, they would
meet the project objectives of creating
a more pedestrian friendly and active
streetscape that will accommodate
multi-modes of transportation rather
than accommodating only the
automobile.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.8.5-2: Segment Improvements. During buiid-out of
the UCSP, the City shall appiy the Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the
Subdistricts Area by conducting roadway
segment travei time studies in accordance
with the City's Growth Management
Program and Traffic Threshold Standards.
The results of the annual study under the
TMP will be used by the City to determine
the timing and need for implementation of
improvements to the street segments
identified as having potential significant
impacts. The City shall implement the
following street segment improvements:
(1) based on the results of the annual TMP;
or (2) based on need and enhancement to
the function of the overall street network;
and (3) in a manner that efficiently
implements with phasing of necessary
adjacent intersection improvements.
31
Timing of
implementation based
on (1) results of the
annual Traffic
Monitoring Program
(TMP); (2) need and
enhancement to the
function of the overall
street network; and
(3) in a manner that
efficiently implements
with phasing of
necessary adjacent
intersection
improvements.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
-.........:
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
1) H Street between 1-5 and Broadway
would be reclassified as a six-lane
gateway. As a result, the acceptable ADT
would increase and result in an
acceptable LOS.
2) Third Avenue between E Street and G
Street would be constructed as a two-lane
downtown promenade to facilitate' an
enhanced pedestrian environment along
the traditional commercial village. As a
result, the acceptable ADT along the
segment would decrease and result in an
unacceptable LOS. As such, impacts to
Third Avenue will be significant and
unavoidable. However, the Third Avenue
corridor intersections at E, F and G
Streets would all operate at an acceptable
LOS.
32
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
J
Due to the long-term nature of some of
the improvements, the fee program
and coordination have either not been
implemented or begun, respectively,
whereas the right of way exactions
would occur with redevelopment. While
these improvements are intended to be
implemented when necessary and
within the Tiers noted above, their
long-term implementation cannot be
assured at this time. Identified
significant impacts will be partially
mitigated but due to the lack of funding
assurances at this time, future
coordination with CAl TRANS and
SANDAG, and future right of way
exactions, Impacts are considered
significant and unmitigated.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.8.5- 3:Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall prepare a traffic
assessment to quantify the projects'
potential traffic impacts. Subsequent
projects will be required to contribute their
fair share to the Tiered Improvements listed
above under Mitigation 5.8.5.1. Mitigation
may be in the form of:
1. Payment of Transportation Development
Impact Fee (TDIF), as may be
established in the future for the western
portion of the City;
2. Payment of existing Traffic Impact Signal
Fee;
3. Construction of improvements within the
project boundaries; and/or
4. Early advancement of improvements
beyond the project boundaries, subject to
a reimbursement agreement.
33
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
G
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
The City's TDIF program for the west side of
the City, including the Urban Core is
anticipated to be developed within the
subsequent twelve months following
adoption of the UCSP. The TOIF will clearly
establish the costs of the improvements
identified above as well as the fair share
costs to be applied to all subsequent
development projects. Once the TOIF has
been established, the fee will be consistently
applied to all subsequent development
projects, until such time that the TOIF is
amended or rescinded. In the interim, if
subsequent development projects are
processed and approved prior to the
establishment of a TOIF, a condition of
approval will be included that prior to
issuance of building permits the project will
contribute to the TOIF, as may be
established.
34
~
~
"-
"-
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Pedestrian, Bicycling and Public
Transit. The three-fold increase in
population projected for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area by 2030 would place
greater demands on public transit
services. However, provisions of the
UCSP serve to benefit, rather than to
deteriorate, mobility conditions for
pedestrians, bicyclists and public
transit users. Additionally, the UCSP
does not conflict with any adopted
plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation.
Impacts to alternative forms of
transportation as a result of the
proposed UCSP would not be
significant nor adverse given
adherence of subsequent projects to
relevant regulations and guidelines of
the UCSP as outlined in Mitigation
Measure 5.8.5-4.
5.8.5-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit for subsequent
development projects, the traffic assessment
prepared to quantify the projects' potential
traffic impacts will also identify how
alternative modes of transportation will be
accommodated. Mitigation may be in the
form of:
1) Compliance with the development
regulations and design guidelines of the
UCSP to accommodate pedestrians,
bicyclists and public transit; and
2) Where applicable, construction of
improvements within the project
boundaries; and/or
3) Eariy advancement of improvements
beyond the project boundaries, subject to
a reimbursement agreement.
35
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
0\
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
A~ JG)l\iiT gQ~ti
Parking. A projected total of 18,56(1
parking spaces would be required to
serve future development of the
proposed UCSP at build out.
Potential significant impacts to parking
would be reduced to below significance
by the incorporation of these
development regulations and design
guidelines into subsequent
development projects, as required as
part of the UCSP design review
process. Parking improvements will
either be made on-site (i.e. where
required of subsequent development
projects), or off-site (i.e. in coordination
with the City's Parking District or in
Lieu Fee program). A number of other
parking improvement strategies are
included in the UCSP including raking
buffers, parking districts and parking
structures.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.8.5-5: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall comply with the
parking standards set forth in the UCSP
development reguiations and design
. guidelines for the type and intensity of
development proposed.
36
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
'\'--
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Multi-Jurisdictional Efforts_ The
proposed UCSP will result in both
direct and cumulatively significant
traffic impacts to, study area freeway
segments and ramps. As described
above under Road Segments and
Intersections Level of Service, the
following freeway interchanges would
be significantly impacted by the
proposed UCSP:
. #1: Bay Boulevardll-5 SB ramp at E
Street (LOS E - AM Peak, LOS F -
PM Peak);
. #2: 1-5 NB Ramp at E Street (LOS E
-AM and PM Peak);
. #24: 1-5 SB Ramp at H Street (LOS F
- PM Peak);
. #25: 1-5 NB Ramp at H Street (LOS F
- PM Peak);
. #34: Broadway at SR-54 WB Ramp
(LOS F -AM Peak);
. #44: Fourth Avenue at SR-54 EB
Ramp (LOS F - PM Peak);
Mitigation Measures
5.8.5-6: The City shall participate in a multi-
jurisdictional effort conducted by Caltrans
and SANDAG to assist in developing a
detailed engineering study of the freeway
right-of-way that will identify transportation
improvements aiong with funding, inciuding
federal, state, regionai, and local funding
sources, and phasing, that would reduce
congestion consistent with Caltrans
Standards on the 1-5 South corridor from the
State Route 54 (SR-54) interchange to State
Route 75 (SR-75)/Palm Avenue (the "1-5
South Corridor") (hereinafter, the "Plan).
Local funding sources may include fair share
contributions by private development based
on nexus as well as other mechanisms. The
Plan required by this mitigation shall include
the following:
1) The responsible entities (the "Entities")
included in this effort will include, but may
not be limited to the City, the Port,
SANDAG, and Caltrans. Other entities
may be included upon the concurrence of
the foregoing Entities.
37
To coincide with multi-
year planning effort
that began June 2005,
is ongoing and
scheduled to conclude
in three to five years.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV), in cooperation
with other
jurisdictions.
~
fJ
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITo.RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
~ R "JIll:! iI~fff,.
. #59: J Street at 1-5 NB Ramp (LOS F
- AM Peak, LOS E - PM Peak);
. #63: Bay Boulevard at 1-5 SB Ramp
(LOS F - AM and PM Peak); and
. #64: Industrial Boulevard at 1-5 NB
Ramp (LOS F - PM Peak).
The monitoring of traffic as stipulated
by Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-1 will
assist in establishing the need and
timing for transportation improvements,
including freeway-related
improvements, serving the UCSP area.
In addition, Mitigation MeasUre 5.8.5-3
requires subsequent development
projects to prepare a traffic
assessment to quantify the project's
potential traffic impacts. Subsequent
projects will also be required to
contribute their fair share to the Tiered
Improvements listed above under
Mitigation 5.8.5.1.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
2) The Plan will specifically identify physical
and operational improvements to 1-5,
relevant arterial roads and transit facilities
(the "Improvements"), that are focused on
specific transportation impacts and will
aiso identify the fair share responsibilities
of each Entity for the construction and
financing for each Improvement. The
Plan may also identify other
improvements necessary to address
regional transportation needs, but for
purposes of this mitigation measure, the
Improvements included in the Plan need
only be designed to mitigate the impacts
created by the Proposed Project.
3) The Plan will set forth a timeline and other
agreed-upon relevant criteria for
implementation of each Improvement.
38
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
tll
Mitigation of impacts will require
development and regional acceptance
of a feasible program to improve
freeway segments and ramps in the
Urban Core area. The City, along with
Caltrans, and SANDAG will continue to
pursue and promote improvement of
the 1-5 freeway facilities adjacent to the
UCSP area. The concept of
promoting/requiring "fair-share"
contributions on the part of developers
for improvements to the freeway
system will need to be addressed as
part of the implementation of an
acceptable program to improve
freeway segments and ramps. As
such, the specification of such
requirements cannot be determined at
this time. Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-6
was developed to ensure the continued
participation in regional transportation
planning efforts by the City, Caltrans,
SANDAG, and other entities as may be
identified.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
4) The Plan will identify the total estimated
design and construction cost for each
Improvement and the responsibility of
each Entity for both implementation and
funding of such costs.
5) The Plan will include the parameters for
any fair-share funding contributions to be
implemented, that would require private
and/or public developers to contribute to
the costs, in a manner that will comply
with applicable law.
6) In developing the Plan, the Entities shall
also consider ways in which the
Improvements can be coordinated with
existing local and regional transportation
and facilities financing plans and
programs, in order to avoid duplication of
effort and expenditure; however, the
existence of such other plans and
programs shall not relieve the Entities of
their collective obligation to develop and
implement the Plan as set forth in this
mitigation measure. Nothing in the Plan
shall be construed as relieving any Entity
(or any other entity) from its independent
responsibility (if any) for the
implementation of any transportation
improvement.
39
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
.Il 11ft i~:!IL~ illtfU
The City of Chula Vista shall continue
to work with SANDAG and Caltrans on
an ongoing basis to identify sources
and obtain funding for a variety of
transportation system improvements.
Future residential growth in the Urban
Core will be subject to the Regional
Transportation Congestion
Improvement Program, as stipulated by
the Transnet legislation and will provide
additional funds for improvement of the
regional arterial system.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
7) The City shall seek adoption of the Plan
before the City Councii upon the
completion of the muiti-jurisdictional effort
to develop the Plan. The City shall report,
to their governing bodies regarding the
progress made to develop the Plan within
six months of the first meeting of the
Entities. Thereafter, the City shall report
at least annually regarding the progress
of the Plan, for a period of not less than
five years, which may be extended at the
request of the City Council.
8) The Plan shall also expressly include
each Entity's pledge that it will cooperate
with each other in impiementing the Plan.
The failure or refusal of any Entity other than
the City to cooperate in the implementation of
this mitigation measure shall not constitute
failure of the City to implement this mitigation
measure; however, the City shall use its best
efforts to obtain the cooperation of all
responsible Entities to fully participate in order
to achieve the goals of the mitigation
measure.
40
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Exterior Noise. The UCSP would
result in a significant exterior noise
impact because it would result in
exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise levels that
exceed the levels established by the
GPU and the City's noise control
ordinance. The noise threshold include
exterior limits of 65 CNEL in residential
areas, outdoor use areas,
neighborhood parks, and playgrounds,
70 CNEL in office and professional
areas, or 75 decibels for retail and
wholesale commercial areas,
restaurants, and movie theaters.
5.9-1: Exterior Noise Mitigation Measure. Prior to
the approval of Individual development
projects, projects within the UCSP area shall
demonstrate that required outdoor usable
open space areas are adequately shielded
from transportation related noise sources so
that noise levels fall below the standards set
by the General Plan Update (see Figure 5.9-1
and Table 5.9-1) or do not cause an increase
of greater than 3 dB(A) on an existing
roadway. Noise reduction measures may
include building noise-attenuating berms,
walls or other attenuation measures. Future
development of park facilities shall also, to the
extent feasible, incorporate mitigation
measures such as siting, berms, walls or
other attenuation measures to reduce impacts
to acceptable levels of 65-70 CNEL or less.
Indication that noise levels fall below this limit
shall be made to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director, Building
Official or Community Development Director.
41
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
"-..
~
"'-.
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
The siting of future parks has the
potential to result in significant impacts.
While park sites have not been
designated, it is possible that parks
could be sited next to circulation
element roadways which generate
noise in excess of 65 [to 70] decibels.
This would be a significant impact and
would require mitigation. Mitigating
this impact would require the
construction of noise barriers.
Required barrier heights may be
achieved through the construction of
walls, berms, or wall/berm
combinations. While noise levels at a
park site would be reduced by the
construction of noise barriers, these
barriers are incompatible with park
uses.
Because the only mitigation available to
reduce exterior noise impacts to parks
resulting from roadway traffic is the insertion
of a bariier between the source (traffic) and
receiver (park), and because parks are
intended to remain open (i.e., not surrounded
by walls) to the community, exterior noise
impacts cannot be fully mitigated. There are
no feasible mitigation measures available to
mitigate for the potential for parks that are to
be sited next to circulation element roadways
which generate noise in excess of 65-70
CNEL. Therefore, exterior noise impacts
remain significant and unmitigated.
42
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Interior Noise. The adoption of the
UCSP would have a significant noise
impact prior to mitigation because it
would result in interior noise levels that
exceed 45 dB CNEL due to exterior
sources for habitable rooms in
residences.
5.9-2: Interior Noise Mitigation Measure. Prior to the
approval of subsequent individual
development projects, for any residential use
immediately adjacent to a circulation element
roadway, trolley or rail line, or Interstate 5, an
acoustical analysis shall be compieted
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director, Community
Development Director or Building Officiai, that
interior noise levels due to exterior sources
are 45 CNEL or less in any habitable room.
For residential projects where interior noise
levels due to exterior noise sources exceed
45 CNEL, architectural and structural
considerations such as improved window and
door acoustical performance, shall be
identified.
5.9-3: Interior Noise Mitigation Measure. Prior to the
approval of individual development projects,
projects where it is necessary for the windows
to remain closed to ensure that interior noise
levels meet the City's and the Buiiding Code
interior standard of 45 CNEL shall
demonstrate that the design for these units
includes a ventilation or air conditioning
system which provides a habitable interior
environment with the windows closed.
43
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
(i;
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City Noise Ordinance. Untii specific
uses are identified, conformance to the
City's noise control ordinance code
cannot be assured and impacts
associated with this criterion are
significant.
The UCSP would result in a significant
noise impact because it would result in
exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise levels that
exceed the levels established by the
City's noise control ordinance. These
include exterior limits of 65 CNEL in
residential areas, outdoor use areas,
neighborhood parks, and playgrounds,
70 CNEL in office and professional
areas, or 75 decibels for retail and
wholesale commercial areas,
restaurants, and movie theaters.
Mitigation Measures
5.9-4: Noise Ordinance Mitigation Measure. Prior to
the approval of individual development
projects, commercial uses that may involve
noise producing activities shail demonstrate
compliance with the existing performance
standards provided in the City's Noise
Ordinance (Chapter 19.68.010 of the
Municipal Zoning Code). Prior to project
approval, subsequent projects shail also
demonstrate compliance with the mixed-use
provisions of Chapter VI of the UCSP that
include minimization of the effects of any
exterior noise impacts and provision of
"internal compatibility between the different
uses within the project" (UCSP, VI-44).
44
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
-t
'{:..
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Moniloring Reporting
Agency
Air Quality Plan Consistency. The
land uses proposed in he UCSP
conform to the adopted GPU and are
inconsistent with the former general
plan upon which the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS)
were based. By changing land use
designations in certain areas, the
recently adopted GPU failed to
conform with the growth projections
used by SANDAG in their generation of
the air quality management plan. This
is a significant adverse impact.
Because the significant air impact
stems from an inconsistency belween
the land uses envisioned in the
currently adopted GPU and the former
general plan upon which the RAQS
were based, the only measure that can
lessen this impact is the review and
revision of the RAQS based on the
recently adopted GPU. The RAQS are
updated every three years, and will be
updated again in 2007. This effort is
the responsibility of SANDAG and the
APCD.
Mitigation Measures
The only measure that can lessen this impact to a
level below significance is the review and revision of
the RAQS based on the recently adopted GPU.
Since the updating of the air plan is outside of the
authority of the City, no mitigation is available to the
City to avoid this impact. Nonetheless, the City will
cooperate with SANDAG and APCD in developing
updated RAQS to insure their conformance with the
adopted GPU and mitigation measure 5.10.5-1 is
provided as an advisory measure.
5.10.5-1: The City of Chula Vista shall recommend to
SANDAG to update the RAQS in the next
triennial cycle to incorporate the increased
land use densities of the GPU and UCSP.
45
To coincide with
SANDAG's 2007
update of the RAQS.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV) in cooperation
with SANDAG.
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
[4
Cumulatively Considerable Net
Increase. Cumulative increases in
emissions in criteria pollutants for
which the SDAB is not in attainment,
would result from short-term
construction of projects in conformance
with the UCSP and from long-term
emissions generated by both stationary
and mobile sources within the UCSP
area. Since the region is not in
compliance with the PM,.. and PM10
standard, and because the average
daily emission is anticipated to
increase, impacts are considered
significant, until the region is in
compliance.
Stationary source pollutant emissions
would include those generated by the
consumption of natural gas and
electricity and the burning of wood in
residential fireplaces. Vehicle traffic on
area roads would generate mobiles
source emissions including carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and
hydrocarbons.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.10.5-2: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual
development projects shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, conformance with
the relevant land use and development
reguiations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and
development design guidelines (UCSP,
Chapter VII) of the UCSP which support
smart growth principles such as providing a
mix of compatible land uses; locating
highest density near transit; utilizing
compact building design and creating
walkable communities; providing a range of
infill housing opportunities; and increasing
transportation choices.
46
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
\'-.
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
I;J
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.10.5-3: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual
development projects shall demonstrate
compliance with relevant land use and
development regulations contained in the
UCSP to minimize air pollutant emissions.
These include, but are not limited to:
measures aimed at promoting. pedestrian
activity (Chapter V, pp. V-2- V-5); bicycle
activity (Chapter V, pp. V-5 - V-7, V-9 - V-
10); public transit facilities (Chapter V, pp.
VB - V-9), including the West Side Shuttle
(Chapter V, pp. V-11 - V-12); and
reintroduction of the traditional street grid
(Chapter V, pp. V-16 - V-19).
47
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
'I.i iJj[l,l1lnl.
Mitigation is achievable for fugitive dust
from shorHerm construction activities,
but the only measures that would
reduce those emissions from long-term
daily operations are those that reduce
vehicle miles traveled on area roads,
The UCSP includes measures aimed
at promoting alternative modes of
travel including enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle activity, use of transit and
reducing trip lengths by siting highest
density 'adjacent to key transit nodes.
Implementation of mitigation measures
will ensure that conformance to these
provisions of the UCSP is satisfied
prior to issuance of subsequent project
development permits.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.10.5-4: Prior to issuance of construction permits,
including but not limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit, the Community
Development Director shall verify that the
following active dust control practices are
to be employed during construction:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be
sprinkled with water or other acceptable
San Diego APCD dust control agents
during dust-generating activities to
reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or acceptable APCD dust
control agents shall be applied during
dry weather or windy days until dust
emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be
properly covered to reduce windblown
dust and spills.
48
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Deveiopment Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on
unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto
paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce resuspension of
particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach routes to
construction sites shall be cleaned daily
of construction-related dirt in dry
weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material
shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded,
landscaped, or developed as quickly as
possible and as directed by the City
and/or APCD to reduce dust generation.
7. To the maximum extent feasible heavy-
duty construction equipment with
modified combustion/fuel injection
systems for emissions control shall be
utilized during grading and construction
activities and catalytic reduction for
gasoline-powered equipment shall be
used.
49
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
'I
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
8. Equip construction equipment with
prechamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) together with proper
maintenance and operation to reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the
extent available and feasible.
9. Electrical construction equipment shall
be used to the extent feasible.
10. The simultaneous operations of
multiple construction equipment units
shall be minimized (i.e., phase
construction to minimize impacts).
With the application of these measures,
significant impacts resulting from projected
PM,o impacts from construction would be
mitigated. Impacts resulting from daily
operation would remain significant until the
region is determined to be in compliance
with the standard.
50
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Ii
Sensitive Receptors. The Health
Risk Assessment prepared for the
proposed UCSP identified cumulativeiy
significant particulate emissions for
sensitive receptors adjacent to
Interstate 5. (See cumulative air
quality discussion above).
Although there is no adopted standard
for sensitive receivers adjacent to
Interstate 5, it was determined that air
quality impacts from diesel particulates
emanating from Interstate 5 would be
cumulatively significant given current
basin-wide noncompliance with
particulate standards and projected
future levels of diesel particulates
emanating from 1-5.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Cumulatively significant diesel particuiate impacts
would be reduced through mitigation measures 5.10-
5-2 and 5.10.5-3 above, but not to below a level of
significance.
51
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
"-..:.
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Law Enforcement. Future
development in accordance with the
proposed UCSP would result in a
significant impact to law enforcement
services because of the anticipated
increase in calls for service and the
additional travel time required to
answer these calls. While the police
facility at Fourth Avenue and F Street
is sufficient to meet the law
enforcement needs created by
increased demand resulting from
development, more police officers will
be needed in order to maintain
response times. Significant impacts
would result if timing of these
provisions does not coincide with
projected increase in demand for
services and populations growth.
Implementation of mitigation measures
5.11-1-1 through 5.11.1-3 would
mitigate impacts to the provisions of
adequate law enforcement services
resulting from the adoption of the
UCSP to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures
5.11.1-1: Subsequent deveiopment projects shall
demonstrate that significant impacts to
police services resuiting from an individual
project are addressed prior to approval of
an Urban Core Development permit or
other discretionary approval. As part of
project review, subsequent development
projects shall be evaluated for adequate
access for police vehicles (pursuant to
GPU Policy PFS 6.1) and integration of
Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) techniques (pursuant to
GPU Policy PFS 6.3).
5.11.1-2: As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the public
facilities deveiopment impact fees (PFDIF)
at the rate in effect at the time building
permits are issued.
5.11.1-3: As part of the annual budgeting process,
the City shall assess the need for
additional police personnel to provide
protection services consistent with
established City service levels and
commensurate with the increase in
population.
52
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Needs assessed
during annual City
budget review.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
MitigatiDn
MDnitDring RepDrting
Agency
Fire Protection. The Chula Vista Fire
Department dDes nDt currently meet
the threshDld standard fDr respDnse
time for the City, including the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. BuildDUt Df the
prDpDsed UCSP wDuld increase
demand for fire protectiDn services.
HDwever, as pDpulatiDn growth in the
service area warrants, additiDnal fire
protectiDn persDnnel and fire prDtectiDn
equipment and facilities wDuld be
provided tD help ensure adequate
service within the requirements of the
GMOC threshDld standards.
Significant impacts tD fire protectiDn
services would result if timing Df these
prDvisiDns dDes nDt coincide with
projected increase in demand fDr
services and pDpulatiDn grDwth.
With the implementatiDn Df mitigatiDn
measures 5.11.2-1 thrDugh 5.11.2-3,
significant impacts tD the provisiDn Df
fire protectiDn services wDuld be
mitigated tD less than significant.
MitigatiDn Measures
5.11.2-1: Prior tD apprDval, subsequent individual
develDpment prDjects in the UCSP shall
demDnstrate provisiDn Df adequate access
and water pressure fDr new buildings.
5.11.2-2: As a cDnditiDn Df prDject approval,
individual develDpers shall pay the public
facilities develDpment impact fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
5.11.2-3: As part Df the annual budgeting prDcess,
the City will assess the need fDr additiDnal
fire persDnnel tD prDvide protectiDn
services cDnsistent with established City
service levels and CDmmensurate with the
increase in pDpulatiDn.
53
PriDr tD the apprDval Df
an Urban CDre
DevelDpment Permit
(UCDP) Dr Dther
discretiDnary permit.
PriDr tD the approval Df
an Urban CDre
DevelDpment Permit
(UCDP) Dr Dther
discretiDnary permit.
Needs assessed
during annual City
budget review.
City Df Chula Vista
(CCV)
City Df Chula Vista
(CCV)
City Df Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
()J
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
!i
Schools. The proposed UCSP will
result in a three-fold increase in popu-
lation within the Subdistricts Area at
buildout and an associated increase in
demand for schools. At buildout, the
UCSP is expected to generate a net
increase of approximately 3,877
students between elementary, middle
school, and high school grades. The
generation of approximately 2,485 addi-
tional elementary students would have a
significant impact on existing elemen-
tary schools serving the area because
they are already at or near capacity.
New students generated by the UCSP
would require at least 59 additional
elementary school classrooms.
However, potentially fewer students
may result from UCSP build out or
interim conditions due to the intensified
urban environment of the UCSP, with
new mid- to high-rise mixed uses likely
to be occupied by single or childless
young couples, or empty nesters.
Therefore, the impacts may be
overstated and will be monitored to
accurately plan for new student
enrollment.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.11.3-1: Prior to approval, subsequent deveiopment
projects in the UCSP shall demonstrate
that significant impacts to public
educational services resulting from the
individual project have been addressed.
As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the
statutory school impact fees at the rate in
effect at the time building permits are
issued.
54
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
'tt
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Ii'JI l(lIJli\!)l~1
Libraries. Buildout of the UCSP may
require additional library space in order
to meet and maintain the City criteria of
500 square feet per 1,000 population
and 3 books per person for new
development. Based on the expected
net increase in population of 18,318
with buiJdout of the UCSP, increased
demand on existing library services
would amount to approximately g, 159
square feet of library facilities and
54,954 books. Existing library service
conditions in the City are inadequate
and not in compliance with City
standards. Additional library capacity
is planned by 2007, however, with the
construction of the 30,000-square-foot
Rancho Del Rey Library. In the
absence of this or other new library
construction, any additional demand on
library services would comprise a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
The following mitigation measure will mitigate library
impacts resulting from the adoption of the UCSP to
below a level of significance.
5.11.4-1: Prior to approval, subsequent individual
development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate that significant impacts to the
provision of library services resulting from
individual projects have been addressed.
As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
55
Prior to the approvai of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
Tim.e Frame of
Mitigation
Parks and Recreation.
Implementation of the proposed UCSP
would generate increased demand for
parks and recreation facilities. Full
buildout of the UCSP wouid be
required to provide up to approximately
55 acres of new parkland
(incrementally and commensurate with
new development) in order to meet the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Park
Development Ordinance standard of 3
acres of parkland for every 1,000
people. A significant impact could
occur if dedication of parkland and
construction of new facilities does not
coincide with project implementation
and project population growth.
Implementation of mitigation measure
5.11.5-1 would reduce impacts to the
provisions of park and recreation
services and facilities resulting from the
adoption of the UCSP to below a level
of significance.
5.11.5-1: Prior to approval of an Urban Core
Development Permit, each subsequent
project shall establish to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director that
the project meets the City's parkland
dedication requirement. As a condition of
project approval, individual developers
shall provide required parkland and
facilities on-site, if possible and consistent
with potential site locations identified in the
UCSP and Parks Master Plan; or pay the
applicable parkland acquisition and
parkland development fee and recreation
facility development impact fees at the
rates in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
56
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
G
{'-.
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
{continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Wastewater Treatment Capacity.
Based on buildout projections, impacts
to the provision of sewer service would
be significant. Chula Vista owns
capacity in the Metro system, which
provides conveyance of City
wastewater flows. Increasing
population will place additional demand
on sewer services. While it is the intent
of the City to ensure that services are
provided concurrent with need, the
provision of sewer services is not
solely within its authority. Although the
City is in the process of acquiring
additional capacity from Metro, that
acquisition has not yet been finalized.
Based on GPU buildout projections,
the City will be generating
approximately 26.2 mgd of wastewater
citywide by 2030 and would need to
acquire additional 6.4 mgd of capacity
rights by the year 2030 in order to meet
citywide projected demand. Of this
total, 1.57 mgd are projected to be
generated in western Chula Vista,
including a projected generation of
0.88 mgd for the UCSP Subdistricts
Area.
Mitigation Measures
5.12.2-1: Prior to the approval of subsequent
individual development projects, project
plans shall demonstrate that there is
sufficient wastewater capacity available to
serve the proposed project. Conditions of
approval may require sewer capacity fees
to be contributed to mitigate project-related
impacts.
57
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
t
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
JJ
Energy. Impacts to energy are
considered significant because there is
no long-term assurance that energy
supplies will be available at buildout of
the UCSP. Avoidance of energy
impacts cannot be assured regardless
of land use designation or population
size. Although changes to planned
land uses in the City would continue to
implement the Energy Strategy Action
Plan, San Diego Regional Energy Plan
and Transit First Plan, implementation
of the proposed land uses identified in
the UCSP has the potential to result in
significant impacts to nonrenewable
and slowly renewable energy
resources as a result of anticipated
growth.
The environmental sustainability
measures of the UCSP(Chapter VI, G.)
may further serve to reduce energy
consumption associated with
construction and occupation of
structures within the UCSP area.
Mitigation Measures
5.12.4-1: The City shall continue to implement the
Energy Strategy Action Plan that
addresses demand side management,
energy efficient and renewable energy
outreach programs for businesses and
residents, energy acquisition, power
generation, and distributed energy
resources and legislative actions, and
continue to implement the CO, Reduction
Plan to lessen the impacts on energy.
While implementation of the above
mitigation measure reduces energy related
impacts, because there is no assurance that
energy resources will be available to
adequately serve the projected increase in
population resulting from adoption of the
UCSP, the impact remains significant.
58
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
~
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigalion
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Hazardous Materials Transport, Use
Disposal or Release. Hazardous
materials occur within the UCSP area
and pose significant public health and
safety risks during construction or long-
term occupation of proposed
development. Exposure to hazardous
materials that exceed state andlor
federal standards can occur through
contact with contaminated soil or
groundwater, through ingestion, skin
contact or the inhalation of vapors or
dust.
An approximate total of 103 sites of
potential hazardous concern have
been identified from various federal,
state and local databases as occurring
within the Subdistricts Area.
Mitigation Measures
5.13-1: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, any project plans that
propose land uses which use, transport,
store, and dispose of hazardous materials
shall be conducted in compliance with the
relevant regulations of federal, state, and
iocal agencies, including the EPA, California
Department of Heath Services (DHS), and
California Department of Transportation.
5.13-2: A risk assessment shall be performed at all
sites within the study area where
contamination has been identified or is
discovered during future construction
activities, and at which soil is to be
disturbed, to address risks posed by any
residual contamination, and to establish
appropriate mitigation measures (e.g.,
natural attenuation, active remediation,
engineering controls) that would be
protective of human health and the
environment. All assessment and
remediation activities shall be conducted in
accordance with a Work Plan that is
approved by the regulatory agency having
oversight of the activities.
59
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City of Ohula Vista
(CCV)
~
~
'Ui
~
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Due to the presence of numerous pre-
1960s structures in the area, there is a
potential that during construction or
demolition, workers may come into
contact with hazardous building
materials{ asbestos and lead).
Future development consistent with the
proposed UCSP would result in
significant impacts if such deveiopment
allows greater contact between
humans and hazards.
Mitigation Measures
A hazardous building materials survey
should be performed at buildings in the
study area prior to demolition or renovation
activities. This type of survey typically
addresses lead-based paint (LBP),
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs),
PCBs in electrical equipment, mercury
switches, and heating/cooling systems. Such
a survey should be conducted under the
direct supervision of a State of California
Certified Asbestos Consultant and EPA lead
assessor. Prior to demolition or renovation
work that would disturb identified ACMs,
LBP, or other hazardous materials, a
iicensed abatement removal contractor
should remove and properly dispose of the
hazardous material(s) in accordance with
applicable local, state and federal
regulations. A California certified consultant
should prepare a bid specification document,
and perform abatement project planning, site
and air monitoring, oversight activities, and
reporting activities.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
any demolition or
renovation activities or
construction permits,
including but not
limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core Develop-
ment Permit (UCDP)
or other discretionary
permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
60
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPT THE 2007 AMENDMENT
OF THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted the original
Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") on July 6, 1976, by Ordinance No.
1691 and has subsequently amended the Redevelopment Plan on five separate occasions, on July
17,1979, by Ordinance No. 1872, April 22, 1986, by Ordinance No. 2146, January 4,1994, by
Ordinance No. 2585, November 8, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2609, and on June 23, 1998, by
Ordinance No. 2735, incorporated herein by reference, and has designated the Redevelopment
Plan as the official redevelopment plan for the Town Centre I Project; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Core Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") will refine and implement a
vision for downtown Chula Vista as expressed in the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law ("Law") (Health and Safety Code
33000, et seq.) Section 33331, a redevelopment plan must conform to the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission")
has reviewed the Specific Plan and has determined that it is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") and the City
Council will consider the 2007 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2007 Amendment") in
order to bring land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Project Area
("Project Area") into conformance with the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and the local procedures adopted by the Agency
pursuant thereto, the City has prepared and completed a proposed Environmental Impact Report
for the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has previously certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared
in connection with the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33452 of the Law, public notice has been duly given, and a
full and fair public hearing has been held on the proposed 2007 Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DOES
RECOMMEND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council adopt the 2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment No.1 and incorporated
herein by this reference, which has been prepared pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code 33000, et seq.).
01/:;/
- 1 -
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cheryl Cox
Chairman
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
O?~~
-2-
I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a meeting thereof held on the
day of ,2007, and that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy
of said Resolution, and has not been amended or repealed.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
o?j3
- 3 -
CHUlAVl'STA
i'l
j.
;
TolN CENTRI
REDEVELOPMENT
--
PLAN ...A
~bf ~.
IAB~E OE CONIsNI~
Article Paqe
INTRODUCTION 1
II GENERAL DEFINITIONS 2
III PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES 4
IV PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) 7
V CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAN 11
VI PERMITTED USES AND CONTROLS 12
VII METHODS FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT 15
VIII ACTIONS BY THE CITY 17
IX ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN 18
X DURATION OF THE PLAN 18
XI AMENDMENT 19
XII NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ELEMENT 19
APPENDIX
Exhibit
A BOUNDARY MAP
B PL/\N DIJ\GR/\M
~)y6
ARTICLE I - INTRODUCTION
Section 100
100.1
Section 110
Section 120
Format and Preparation
The Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District of the
City of Chula Vista consists of Part I: Plan Text, and Part II:
Appendices. The Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, California,
pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of
California; the Charter of the City of Chula Vista; the By-Laws of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista; and all
applicable local ordinances and State statutes.
Proiect Goal
The goal of this redevelopment project is to revitalize the Town
Centre area as the commercial-civic focus of the City.
The obiectives of the Plan are:
A. Eliminate blighting influences, including incompatible and
noxious land uses, obsolete structures and inadequate
parking facilities.
B. Eliminate environmental deficiencies including, among
others, small and irregular lot and block subdivisions, several
poorly planned streets, and economic and social
deficiencies.
C. The strengthening of the mercantile posture of Town Centre
and the improvement of retail trade therein.
D. The renewal of Town Centre's physical plant and the
improvement of its land use patterns and spatial
relationships.
E. The retention and expansion of viable land uses, commercial
enterprises, and public facilities within the area.
F. The attraction of capital and new business enterprises to the
core area.
G. The comprehensive beautification of the area, including its
buildings, open space, streetscape, and street furniture.
:JiJ~
H. The encouragement of multi-family, middle-income
residential units in and near the core area.
I. The possible accommodation of future local and regional
mass transit and related facilities; improvement of off-street
parking areas and provision for a mini-transit intra-project
system.
J. The establishment of Town Centre as the South Bay's
principal center for specialty goods and services.
K. The eetablishment of design standards to ::tesum desirable
site design and environmental quality.
hK The reorientation of the people of Chula Vista to their core
area, and the resultant promotion of a sense of "towness"
(towness is a unique feeling spawned by an emotional
relationship between people and their city. This feeling is
founded upon a sense of belonging. When the people feel
that they belong to their city and that their city belongs to
them, a state oftowness exists).
ARTICLE II - GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Section 200
200.1
200.2
200.3
200.1
200.4
200.5
200.6
As used in this Plan, the following words shall mean:
"Aqencv" - The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista,
California
"Citv" - The City of Chula Vista, California
"City Council" - The City Council of the City of Chula Vista
"Committee" Chul::t Vist::t Town Centre Committee, mandated by
the Rede'/elopment Law to advise the I\gency prior to plan
adoption and during the implementation st::tge of the project
"Planninq Commission" - The City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission
"Plan" - The Town Centre Redevelopment Project Plan
"Proiect Area" - The redevelopment project was previously known
as the "Third Avenue Redevelopment Project." Whenever and
wherever this name appears, it shall mean the same as the "Chula
2/J 7
200.7
200.8
200.9
200.10
200.12
200.13
200.11
200.15
Vista Town Centre Redevelopment Project". The legal description
of this area is contained in Section 300 of this document.
"Redevelopment Law" - The Community Redevelopment Law of the
State of California (California State Health and Safety Code,
Section 33000 et. seq.)
"Specific Plan" - A precise plan primarilv desianated to implement
the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre area
"State" - The State of California
"Urban Core" - The heart of the City of Chula Vista. The urban core
includes the Central Business District and the Civic Center, and
lands immediately peripheral thereto. The Town Centre Project
Area is part of this core
"Zonina Plan" ^ specific plan under '.vhich building heights,
building bulk, ;]nd land use ;]re regul;]ted, ;]nd under whioh territory
is partitioned into regulatory districts or zones. Unless otherwise
provided, the zoning plan shall mean the zoning maps and
regulations of the City of Chula Vista
"Desian ReviO'.\I (Committee) Board" ,^. Design Review Board
consisting of highly qualified persons with an interest in tho fields of
urb3n design and represent3tives from City staff is proposed to be
cre3ted to Lldvise the assooiated oommittees and Agenoy. The
Board will evaluate development proposals as they relate to the
Design M3nual ;]nd the intent of this plan
"Desian M3nual" The ,^.goncy's offioial statement of design policy
for the , and embodies developmental criteria and guidelines
therefDre. It is the's to'.\lnsoape plan, 3nd adaresses such ffiLltters
as texture, spatiGl relationships, amenity, aesthetic quality,
I3ndsc3ping, courtyards, plazas, parl<ing design, etc.
"Procedures Manual" .^. procedures manual shLlII be est;]blished
for the use and guid3nce of the City/Agency staff, the Agoncy and
developers/particip3nts for the purpose of establishing and
maintaining development proposal schedules, processing Lind
roviO'N
JJ.iJF
ARTICLE III - PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES
Section 300
Boundary Description
300.1
The boundaries of the Project Area are shown on the boundary
map attached hereto as Exhibit A in the Appendix of this plan. A
legal description of the boundaries of this project follows:
All those portions of Quarter Sections 137 and 138 of Rancho de la
Nadon according to Map thereof No. 505, filed in the office of the
County Recorder County of San Diego, State of California on
March 13, 1888, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of "E" Street and
Garrett Avenue per Record of Survey 1097 filed in the office of
the County Recorder, San Diego County, State of California on
April 6, 1944; thence northwesterly 49.91 feet :!: to the
intersection of the northerly right of way of said "E" Street and
the westerly right of way of said Garrett Avenue, said
intersection being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence
northeasterly along said northerly right of way of "E" Street,
1196.07 feet:!: to a point on the extension of the easterly right of
way of the alley between Church Avenue and Del Mar Avenue;
thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way and its
extension, 700.85 feet:!: to a point on the northerly right of way
of Davidson Street; thence southwesterly along said northerly
right of way 10.00 feet; thence leaving said northerly right of way
southeasterly along the line midway and between Church
Avenue and Del Mar Avenue, 520.00 feet :!: to the corner
common to Lot 40 and Lot 41 of Map #1871 filed in the office of
the County Recorder, San Diego County, State of California, on
December 23, 1925; thence northeasterly along the northerly
line of said Lot 41, 25.00 feet:!: to the northeasterly corner of
said Lot 41; thence southeasterly along easterly line of said Lot
41, 100.90 feet:!: to a point on the northerly right of way of "F"
Street; thence northeasterly along said northerly right of way
170.52 feet:!: to a point on the easterly right of way of Del Mar
Avenue; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way
1400.84 feet:!: to a point on the southerly right of way of "G"
Street; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way
335.00 feet:!: to a point on the easterly right of way of Church
Avenue; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way,
761.15 feet:!: to a point on the northerly right of way of Alvarado
Street; thence southwesterly along said northerly right of way
315.00 feet:!: to a point on the easterly right of way of Third
Avenue; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way,
~b9
481.27 feet :I:: to a point on the northerly right of way of "H"
Street; thence northeasterly along said northerly right of way
200.00 feet; thence leaving said northerly right of way
southeasterly, parallel to and 240 feet easterly of the centerline
of Third Avenue 370.00 feet :I:: to a point on the northerly
boundary of Map No. 2277, filed in the office of the County
Recorder, San Diego County, State of California, on September
15, 1942; thence southwesterly along said northerly boundary
82.76 feet:l:: to the northeasterly corner of Lot 2 of said Map No.
2277; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 2,
160.79 feet:l:: to a point on the southerly right of way of Shasta
Street; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way
4.16 feet:l:: to the northeasterly corner of Lot 91 of said Map No.
2277; thence leaving said southerly right of way and
southeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 91, 105.00 feet
:I:: to a point on the northerly line of Lot 88 of said Map No. 2277;
thence northeasterly along said northerly line 7.00 feet :I:: to the
northeast corner of said Lot 88; thence southeasterly along
easterly line of said Lot 88, 159.74 feet :I:: radially to a point on
the 200 foot radius curve concave southwesterly, said curve
being also the southerly right of way of Whitney Street; thence
southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 17.73
feet :I:: to the northeast corner of Lot 98 of said Map No. 2277;-
thence leaving said curve radially inward and along the easterly
line of said Lot 98, 122.84 feet :I:: to the northerly most corner of
the Park in said Map No. 2277; thence southeasterly along the
northeasterly line of said Park 68.19 feet :I:: to the southerly most
corner of Lot 101 of said Map No. 2277, said corner being a
common corner with the said Park; thence southeasterly along
the easterly line of said Park, 68.05 feet :I:: to a point on the
southerly boundary of said Map No. 2277; thence southwesterly
along said southerly boundary 10.00 feet; thence southeasterly,
parallel to and 165 feet easterly of the centerline of Third
Avenue 291.03 feet :I:: to a point on the northerly right of way of
"I" Street; thence southwesterly along said northerly right of
way, 595.00 feet; thence northwesterly leaving said northerly
right of way, parallel to and 430 feet westerly of the centerline of
Third Avenue, 290.00 feet; thence southwesterly 260 feet :I:: to
the southeast corner of Lot 19, Map No. 1799 filed in the office
of the County Recorder, San Diego County, State of California
on July 10, 1924, said southeast corner being a common corner
with the right of way of Garrett Avenue; thence northwesterly
along westerly right of way of said Garrett Avenue 301.02 feet :I::
to a point on the southerly right of way of Mankato Street, said
point being also the northeast corner of Lot 24 of said Map No.
1799; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way,
5 d...6//)
230.38 feet .:t to a point on the northerly line of Lot 13, of said
Map No. 1799, said point being the intersection of said southerly
right of way with the extension of the westerly right of way of
Glover Avenue; thence northwesterly along said westerly right of
way 732.24 feet .:t to a point on the northerly right of way of "H"
Street; thence northeasterly along said northerly right of way
355.92 feet .:t to the southeast corner of Lot 11, Map No. 1718
filed in the office of the County Recorder, County of San Diego,
State of California on April 22, 1921; thence northwesterly
leaving said northerly right of way along the easterly line of said
Lot 11, 200.00 feet; thence northeasterly parallel to and 240 feet
northerly of the centerline of "H" Street 94.00 feet; thence
northwesterly parallel to and 472 feet westerly of the centerline
of Third Avenue, 87.40 feet .:t to a point on the northerly
boundary of said Map No. 1718; thence northeasterly along said
boundary 122.00 feet.:t to the southwest corner of the East Half
of Lot 10 per Record of Survey 3269 filed in the office of the
County Recorder, County of San Diego, State of California on
Decernber 30, 1953; thence northwesterly along the westerly
line of said East Half of Lot 10, 165.40 feet .:t to the center of
said Lot 10; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of the
South Half of Lot 10, 170.00 feet; thence northwesterly parallel
to and 180.54 feet westerly of the centerline of Third Avenue,
135.54 feet .:t to the southerly right of way of Roosevelt Street;
thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way 9.46 feet;
thence northwesterly leaving said southerly right of way parallel
to and 190 feet westerly of the centerline of Third Avenue
210.00 feet thence southwesterly parallel to and 180 feet
northerly of the centerline of said Roosevelt Street; 140.00 feet;
thence northwesterly parallel to and 330 feet westerly of said
centerline of Third Avenue 150.00 feet; thence northeasterly
parallel to and 330 feet northerly of the centerline of said
Roosevelt Street, 191.00 feet; thence northwesterly parallel to
and 139 feet westerly of the centerline of said Third Avenue
290.00 feet .:t to a point on the southerly right of way of "G"
Street; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way
34.31 feet.:t to a point on the extension of the centerline of the
alley between Garrett Avenue and Third Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said centerline and its extension, 210.00
feet; thence southwesterly leaving said centerline parallel to and
120.43 feet southerly of the southerly right of way of Park Way
107.50 feet; thence northwesterly parallel to and 107.50 feet
westerly of the centerline of said alley, 120.43 feet .:t to a point
on the southerly right of way of said Park Way; thence
southwesterly along said southerly right of way 1080.00 feet.:t to
a point on the westerly right of way of Fourth Avenue; thence
6d!JJ/
northwesterly along said westerly right of way 1069.00 feet ~ to
a point on the northerly right of way of "F" Street; thence
northeasterly along said northerly right of way 670.00 feet ~ to a
point on the westerly right of way of Garrett Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said westerly right of way, 1320.00 feet:t to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ARTICLE IV - PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY)
Section 400
400.1
Section 410
410.1
410.2
General Summarv
In order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the
Agency proposes to undertake and implement the following actions:
A. Owner and Tenant Participation (Section 410)
B. Cooperation with Public Entities (Section 420)
C. Property Management (Section 430)
D. Relocation of Residents and Businesses (Section 440)
E. Demolition, Clearance, Public Improvements and Site
Preparation (Section 450)
F. Acquisition of Property (Section 460)
G. Property Disposition (Section 470)
Owner and Tenant Participation
Whenever possible, persons who are owners of real property in the
Project Area shall be given the opportunity, pursuant to the rules
promulgated by the Agency, to participate in redevelopment by the
retention of all or a portion of their property, or by the acquisition of
adjacent or other property from the Agency by purchase or
exchange. Such participation in each case is contingent upon the
execution by the owner of a binding agreement by which the
property retained or acquired will be developed in conformity with
the Plan and subject to the provisions thereof.
Owner participation will be subject to such factors as, but not
limited to, the condition of the improvements, the reduction in the
total number of parking spaces within the Project Area, the
elimination of certain land uses, the vacation of streets, the
7
c2lJ/::(
410.3
Section 420
420.1
420.2
Section 430
430.1
Section 440
440.1
440.2
construction of new public improvements, and the ability of owners
to finance acquisition and development in accordance with the plan.
The Agency shall also extend reasonable preference to persons
who are engaged in business in the Project Area to re-enter into
business within the Project Area if they otherwise meet the
requirements prescribed by the Plan.
Cooperation with Public Entities
Certain public entities are authorized by State law to cooperate with
or without consideration in the planning and undertaking of the
construction or operation of this project. The Agency shall seek the
aid and cooperation of public bodies such as the Downtown
Parking District and shall attempt to coordinate this Plan with the
activities of such public bodies in order to accomplish the purposes
of redevelopment in the highest public good.
The Agency is authorized but not required to make payments in lieu
of property taxes to one or more taxing agencies. The Agency
recognizes that the power contained in Section 33670 of the
Redevelopment Law can affect the capacity of taxing agencies to
provide public services. Accordingly, the Agency will conduct
studies to determine possible means to minimize such impact upon
taxing agencies.
Property Manaqement
During such time as property in the Project Area is owned by the
Agency, said property shall be under the management and control
of the Agency. Subject property may be rented or leased by the
Agency pending its disposition for redevelopment.
Relocation of Residents and Businesses
Displaced residents shall be relocated by the Agency pursuant to
the relocation plan approved by the Agency. The relocation plan
may be amended by the Agency as necessary to accomplish the
purposes set forth in this Plan.
The Agency or its designated agent shall assist all who may be
displaced by project activities in finding other dwellings or business
locations. In order to carry out the project with a minimum of
hardship to persons displaced from their homes, individuals and
families shall be assisted in finding housing that is decent, safe,
8 c1 J /3
440.3
Section 450
450.1
450.2
450.3
450.4
450.5
450.6
Section 460
460.1
and sanitary, within their financial means, reasonably convenient in
location and otherwise suitable to their needs.
The Agency shall make relocation payments to displaced persons
including families, business concerns and others for moving
expenses and other direct losses of personal property or any other
benefits as required by the California Uniform Relocation Law.
Demolition. Clearance. Public Improvements and Site Preparation
The Agency is authorized to clear buildings, structures, and other
improvements from any real property in the Project Area as
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Plan.
The Agency is authorized to cause, provide, undertake or to make
provisions with any person or public entity for the installation or
construction of such public improvements or public utilities, either
within or outside of the Project Area as are necessary to carry out
the Plan. Such public improvements include, but are not limited to,
streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, sewers, storm
drains, traffic signals, street trees, electrical distribution systems,
natural gas distribution systems, water distribution systems, fire
hydrants, parks, plazas, motor vehicle parking facilities,
landscaping and pedestrian malls.
The Agency is authorized to prepare or cause to be prepared as a
building site any real property owned by the Agency within the limits
of applicable law.
The Agency is authorized to rehabilitate any building or structure
owned by the Agency within the limits of applicable law.
The Agency is authorized to assist, through advice and
encouragement, the owners of real property within the Project Area
to conserve or rehabilitate their premises.
In accordance with City regulations, and as necessary in carrying
out the Plan, the Agency is authorized to move or cause to be
moved any structure or building to a location within or outside of the
Project Area.
Acquisition of Property
The Agency may acquire, but is not compelled to acquire, all real
property located within the Project Area. The Agency may acquire
9016/f
460.2
460.3
460.4
460.5
460.6
460.7
Section 470
470.1
real property by gift, device, exchange, purchase, eminent domain,
or any other lawful means.
In order to eliminate the conditions within the Project Area which
make redevelopment necessary, and in order to implement the
Redevelopment Plan, it is necessary, and in the public interest, for
the Agency to use its power of eminent domain to acquire real
property in the Project Area.
The Agency shall not acquire interest in oil, gas, or other mineral
substances within the Project Area except where necessary to
preclude drilling or excavation within the Project Area.
The Agency is not authorized to acquire publicly owned land in the
Project Area in the absence of the involved public agency's
consent. However, the Agency is authorized to acquire public
property if it becomes private property by deed, lease, or otherwise,
before the Agency completes land acquisition within the entire
Project Area.
The Agency is authorized to acquire any or all interests in real
property or structures, including but not limited to, fee titles, deeds
and easements.
The Agency may not acquire real property upon which an existing
building is located unless the Agency proposes to rehabilitate,
redevelop, or reorganize the real property in question, and the
property owner has not agreed to the execution of an official owner
participation agreement.
The Agency shall generally not acquire personal property.
However, where necessary in the implementation of the Plan, the
Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the project by
any lawful means except eminent domain.
Propertv Disposition
In order to provide adequate safeguards that the process of
redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the Plan, agreements
for the disposition of land by the Agency, including owner
participation agreements, shall include provisions recognizing and
requiring that:
A. The purchase of leasing of land is for redevelopment and not
for speculation and reserving to the Agency such powers
10 ~.6/6-
and controls as may be necessary to prevent transfer,
retention or use of the property for speculation purposes.
B. The land shall be built upon and/or improved in conformity
with development standards of the Plan and any' declaration
of restrictions.
C. In order to insure that development and construction will be
carried out in a manner which will effectuate the purposes of
the Plan, all developers and owner participants shall submit
preliminary architectural plans, site and landscape plans,
and final plans including landscaping and sign plans and
specifications of the improvements proposed to be
constructed on the land for architectural approval by the
Agency. As a part of such plans and specifications,
developers, and if required by the Agency, owner
participants, shall submit time schedules for the
commencement and completion of such improvements. All
such plans and schedules shall be submitted within the time
specified in the respective agreements with such developers
and owner participants.
D. By and for the contracting parties, their heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns, there shall be no discrimination
against, or segregation of, any person or group of persons
on account of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry,
in the sale, lease, sub-lease, transfer, use, occupancy, or
enjoyment of the premises therein described, nor shall the
contracting parties. or any persons claiming under or through
them establish or permit any such practice or practices of
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection,
location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sub-
lessees, or vendees, on the premises described.
ARTICLE V - CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLANJPRELlMINARY PLAN
Section 500
500.1
500.2
General Statement of Conformity
This Plan shall conform to, and is a more detailed refinement of, Ll
portion of the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista, adopted by
the City Council on December 15, 1970, and comprehensively
updated on December 13, 2005, and any amendments or revisions
thereto.
This Plan is based upon, and carries out the Preliminary Plan,
heretofore adopted by the Planning Commission. I
11 d.6J~
ARTICLE VI - PERMITTED USES AND CONTROLS
Section 600
600.1
600.2
600.3
600.1
600.5
600.6
600.7
PlanninQ ::md Land Use Consideratiens
The Plan Diagram, Exhibit "B", graphically depicts the projected
patterns of land use and circulation within the.
/\11 of the arem: desi€lnateEl "central commercial" on the plan may
be used as a mixture of commercial uses, including but not limited
to retail, office, hotel, service, entertainment, educational, and
auxiliarj uses. The f,gency, upon spacial request, may allow
residential development in the "central commercial" area, provided
that the proposed residential development is compatible with
surrounding areas, and manif-osts adequate internal residential
order and 3menity.
,1\11 of the 3reas designated "residential" on Exhibit "8" m3Y include
residenti31 bnd uses and professional and administrative offices.
The ,I\gency shall encourage the development of a wide range of
housing types in the residential areas of the, 3nd shall endeavor to
achieve a mixture of housing fer all economic segments of the City
of Chub Vis13 therein.
The shall be regarded as the principal specific pbn of the and
shall take precedence where it is in conflict with other specific
plans, regubtions and standards.
Streets, alleys, and other public rights of way may be altered,
vac3ted, narro'Ned, decked over, extended, or closed where such
action is essential to the orderly implementation and execution of
the plan. If the implementation of the plan requires additional
streets, e3soments, or other rights of W3Y, they may be acquired by
the Agency or the City.
The Agency m3Y 3uthorize the private use of air rights over public
rights of way. This use may take the form of buildings, platforms,
decks, or other structures. Such air rights may also be used for
vehicular and/or pedeetrian circubtion, tmnsit, public 3nd priv3te
utilities, or other public improvements.
The Agency ie authorized to permit the m:tablishment and
expansion of public or quasi public uees and mcilities, euch as but
not limited to parks, recreational facilities, libraries, schoo Ie, and
chari13ble inetitutions, within tho.
12dl..o/1
Section @.W 600 General Controls and Limitations
600.1 This Plan shall conform to all other zonina and land use reaulations
as adooted bv the City Council.
600.2 All real orooertv within the Proiect Area is subiect to the orovisions.
controls. and reauirements of the Plan. No real orooertv shall be
develooed. redevelooed. rehabilitated. or otherwise chanaed after
the date of adootion of the Plan. exceot where such develooment.
redevelooment. rehabilitation. or other substantial chanae conforms
with the orovisions of the Plan., and the guidelines embodied in the
Design M::mual.
600.3 All new construction shall comolv with all aoolicable State statutes
and locallv adooted Buildina. Electrical. Heatina and Ventilation.
Housina and Public Codes.
600.4 The Aaencv shall endeavor to substantiallv increase the area of
oublic and orivate ooen soace within the Proiect Area. aDen soace
may take the form of Darks. vest-Docket Darks. olav areas. olazas.
fountains. enclosures. oatios. and similar landscaoed enclaves.
600.5 In areas where aoorooriate. sufficient ooen soace between
buildinas and clusters of buildinas shall be maintained to orovide
adeauate sunliaht. ventilation. orivacv. fire safety. and aeneral
livabilitv.
600.6 All sians shall conform to the standards of the City's sian
ordinance., ::md tho guidelines of the Design M::mual.
600.7 The Aaencv shall assure adeauate off-street oarkina.
600.8 The Aaencv shall reauire all utilitv lines and structures to be olaced
underaround. unless it determines that underaroundina with resoect
to certain lines would not be economicallv or ohvsicallv feasible.
600.9 No land use or structure which. bv reason of aooearance. traffic.
smoke. alare. noise. odor. or similar factors. would be incomoatible
with the surroundina areas shall be oermitled within the Proiect
Area.
600.10 Subseauent to redevelooment. rehabilitation. or develooment
oursuant to the Plan. no Darcel in the Proiect Area. includina any
Darcel retained bv a conformina owner or oarticioant. shall be
resubdivided without the orior aooroval of the Aaencv.
13 cX.!J/%
610.10
The J\gency is authorized to gmnt a variation from the limits,
restrictions, and controls established by the Plan. The Agency must
mal{e the following findings in each and every cm;e, as a
prerequisite to its gmnting of a f3ermit for a variation.
1\. The application of certain provisions of the pkm 'Nould result
in practical difficulties or unnecess:::try hardships '!"hish would
make development inconsistent with the general purpose
:md intent of the pian; or,
B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions
3pplicable to the property or the proposed development
which do not 3pply genemlly to other properties or
developments ...:hich have the same st3nd3rds, restrictions
3nd controls; 3nd,
C. The permitting of a v3riation will not be materially detriment:::tl
to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements
in the; 3nd,
D. The permitting of a vari3tion '....ill not contravene the criteria
established in the Design M3nu31. In permitting a variation,
the ,^,gency shall impose ouch conditions as are necessary.
Section e4-+ 610 Environmental Review
610.1 Prior to the Agency's official consideration of a development
proposal, the application and all accompanying documents shall be
submitted for the applicable review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
Section 620 Desicln Manual
620.1 The .^.gency, in cooperation with the Planning Commission, Sh311
formulate, adopt, and make genemlly 3v3ilable 3 Design Manual for
the TO'....n Centre Redevelopment Project. The Design Manual shall
be the J\gency's official statement of its design guidelines for the
redevelopment, rehabilitation, conservation, 3nd gener31
development of the Project Area.
620.2 The Design Manual sh311 include developmental objectives and
design criteria, 3nd shall address the follO'.ving:
14c1./;/9
620.3
Section 620
620.1
Section 610
610.1
A Three dimensional spati::ll reiLltionships, and the orderly
arrangement of space and land use in the.
B. Building coverages; building setb::lCks, building bulk ::md
height; builEiing intensity; and the siting of structures and
open space.
C. The preservation :md promotion of the environmental quality
of the and the ursan core.
D. The development of a circul:::ltion system '",hich promotes
effective communication and transportation throughout the
and the urban core, and establishes and maintains effective
linkages between the and other parts of the Chula Vista
Pl:::lnning .^.rea, and other urban centers of the South Bay.
E. Civic and environmental design requirements and f{)atums
which establish the character of the.
F. Landscape criteria; fine arts criteria; street, plaza enclosure
and mall furniture criterb.
The Design Manu31 may be amended by the jI,gency in order to
refine, upd3te, or improve the Manual's guidelines. Proposed
amendments to the Design Manual shall be referred to tho PiLlnning
Commission for its review, report 3nd recommendation.
Historical Preservation
Chula Vista's first City Hall is located at 294-296 Third Avenue and
should be considered for preservation.
Procedures Manual
The Agency, in cooperation with the City, shall f{)rmulate, adopt and
make available a Procedures M3nu31 f-or the Chula Vista Town
Centre Rede'/elopment Project. The Manual shall set forth the
procedures necessary for processing development proposals and
shall promulgate expedient review periods required for obtaining
3pprovals for the flroject development and/or major rehabilitation.
ARTICLE VII - METHODS FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT
Section 700
General Description of the Proposed Financinq Methods
1 ~ IJc20
700.1
700.2
700.3
700.4
700.5
Section 710
710.1
The Agency is authorized to finance this project with financial
assistance from the City of Chula Vista, the State of California, the
Federal Government, property tax increments, interest income,
Agency funds, or any other available source.
Loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital for
nominal administration of this project are to be made by the City
until adequate tax increments or other funds are available, or
sufficiently assured, to repay the loans and to permit borrowing
adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The
City, as it is able, will also supply additional assistance through
loans and grants for various public facilities.
As approved by the City Council, gas tax funds from the State of
California and the County of San Diego will be used for the street
system. As available, Federal loans and grants will be used to
finance portions of project costs.
The Agency is authorized to issue bonds in amounts sufficient to
finance all or part of the project.
The Agency is authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds, and
create indebtedness in carrying out the Plan. The principal and
interest on such advances, funds, and indebtedness may be paid
from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency.
Tax Increments
All taxes levied upon taxable property within the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project Area each year by and for the benefit of the
State of California, the County of San Diego, the City of Chula
Vista, or any district or other public corporation hereinafter
sometimes referred to as taxing agencies, after the effective date of
the ordinance approving this Redevelopment Plan, shall be divided
as follows:
A. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the
rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of
said taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed
value of the taxable property in the redevelopment project as
shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the
taxation of such property by such taxing agency, last
equalized prior to the effective date of such ordinance shall
be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into the
funds of the respective taxing agencies as taxes by or for
said taxing agencies on all other property are paid (for the
16 C:<6~J
710.2
purposes of allocating taxes levied by or for any taxing
agency or agencies which did not include the territory of the
project on the effective date of such ordinance but to which
such territory is annexed or otherwise included after such
effective date of such ordinance but to which such territory is
annexed or otherwise included after such effective date, the
assessment roll last equalized on the effective date of said
ordinance shall be used in determining the assessed value
of the taxable property in the project on said effective date);
and,
B. That portion of said levied taxes each year in excess of such
amount shall be allocated to and when collected shall be
paid into a special fund of the Agency to pay advancements
to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or
otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance in
whole or in part this redevelopment project. Unless or until
the total assessed value of the taxable property in the project
exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property in
the property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll
referred to in paragraph "A" hereof, all of the taxes levied
and collected upon the taxable property in the project shall
be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies.
When said bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if
any, and interest thereon, has been paid, all monies
thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in
the project shall be paid into the funds of the respective
taxing agencies as taxes on all other property are paid.
The portion of taxes mentioned in paragraph "B" above are hereby
irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal and interest on
the advance of monies or making of loans or the incurring of any
indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise)
by the Agency to finance or refinance the project in whole or in part.
The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to specific
advances, loans, and indebtedness as appropriate in carrying out
the project.
ARTICLE VIII - ACTIONS BY THE CITY
Section 800
Aid and Cooperation
17 ctl.1J':<~
800.1 The City shall aid and cooperate with the Agency in carrying out
this Plan and shall take any further action necessary to insure
continued fulfillment of the purposes of this Plan and to prevent the
reoccurrence or spread in the area of conditions causing blight.
Actions by the City may include but not be limited to the following:
A. Institution and completion of proceedings for opening,
closing, vacating, widening, or changing the grades of
streets, alleys and other public rights-of-way and for other
necessary modifications of the streets, the street layout and
other public rights-of-way in the Project Area. Such action in
the City may include the requirement of abandonment and
relocation by the public utility companies of their operations
in public rights-of-way as appropriate to carry out this Plan.
B. Institution and completion of proceedings necessary for
changes and improvements in publicly owned public utilities
within or affecting the Project Area.
C. The undertaking and completing of any other proceedings
necessary to carry out the project.
ARTICLE IX - ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN
Section 900
Responsibilitv
900.1
The administrative enforcement of the Plan or other documents
formulated pursuant to this Plan shall be performed by the City and
the Agency.
900.2
The provisions of this Plan or other documents formulated pursuant
to this Plan may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by
either the Agency or the City. Further, any documents recorded
expressly for the benefit of owners of property within the Project
Area may be enforced by such property owners in addition to the
City or the Agency.
ARTICLE X - DURATION OF THE PLAN
Section 1000
Effective Period
18 c2.6 cf?3
1 000.1
Exceot for the non-discrimination and non-seareaation orovlslons
which shall run in oeroetuitv the orovisions of this Plan shall be
effective and the orovisions of other documents formulated
oursuant to this Plan may be made effective for 25 years from the
date of adootion of this Plan. as amended from time to time. by th~
Citv Council.
ARTICLE XI - AMENDMENT
Section 1100
11 00.1
Procedure
This Plan may be amended by the procedures established in the
California Community Redevelopment Law or any other procedure
hereinafter established by Law.
ARTICLE XII - NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ELEMENT
Section 1200
1200.1
Section 1210
1210.1
Investigation of the proposed Project Area boundaries for the Town
Centre Redevelopment Project reveals that the area contains
sectors which are considered to fall within the category of low and
moderate income housing. The impact of the proposed project
upon the residents of the Project Area as well as the surrounding
neighborhood is noted below, as required by Section 33333.5 of the
Health and Safety Code of the State of California.
Residential Analysis
Of the total acreage of 138.54 acres, 17.10 percent, or 23.69 acres
are in residential use. The 23.69 .acres accommodate a total of
602 dwelling units and 189 structures. Additionally, the area
contains one boarding house and one residential hotel. Of the total
of 602 residential units located within the Project Area, 469. or
approximately 77%, are located in Subarea One, which contains
the historic Chula Vista townsite. Data contained in the 1975 Mid-
Decade Census for tracts 22/3; 23/1; 23/2; 25/1; and 26/3, indicates
that the area contains a proportionately higher incidence of elderly
households and households earning less than the median income
for the City in general. The age group 55+ makes up 16.7% of the
total City population, while the same age group accounts for
35.41% of individuals residing in the above cited tracts. As a
corollary to this data, it appears that the income level of the Project
Area is somewhat lower than that of the City at large. It should be
noted that, while 41 % of the City-wide population has incomes in
19 ~!Jc:<i-
1210.
Section 1211
1211.1
Section 1220
1220.1
1220.2
Section 1230
excess of $10,000, only 19% of the study area population has
income in the same range. Therefore, it is assumed that the
Project Area contains residential development currently serving the
low and moderate income market.
Although the exact incidence of deteriorated and dilapidated
structures is not known, it is anticipated that some demolition in the
form of spot clearance will be necessary to implement the Plan.
Relocation
Implementation of the proposed project will require displacement of
some businesses, individuals and/or families. Such displacement
will be mitigated by the provisions for owner participation contained
in the Community Redevelopment Law. In those cases in which
owner participation agreements cannot be negotiated,
displacement and relocation will be handled in accordance with the
provisions of the California State Relocation Assistance Law and
other applicable statutes and guidelines. A detailed relocation
provision is contained in the Report to the City Council on the
Redevelopment Plan.
Traffic Circulation
The Redevelopment Plan provides for the ultimate implementation
of a circulation system which would improve the pedestrian/vehicle
movement and tend to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within
the central business district. The incorporation of a mini-transit
system (i.e. mini-bus, shuttle vehicles) to effectuate smooth intra- .
project movement and methods for establishing smooth linkages
between the project facilities and local and regional facilities will be
addressed for possible utilization to accommodate project
movement and vehicular circulation.
Traffic volume within the project and associated areas is expected
to increase significantly as the project nears completion. However,
the total volume cannot be estimated until specific redevelopment
proposals become available. Additionally, increased traffic in the
central business. district would further restrict pedestrian-vehicle
movement and create congestion at intersections. However, the
implementation of an effective circulation system and mini-transit
vehicles should relieve congestion and facilitate the flow of traffic in
the area.
Environmental Quality
20 Md?6
1230.1
The direct long and short-term impacts which may result from the
implementation of the Plan are:
A. No creation of any significant geologic related adverse
impacts;
B. Drainage impact is anticipated to be insignificant;
C. No adverse impact on ground water or water quality would
occur if the Plan were implemented at this time;
D. No adverse effect on mineral resources would result from
the Plan;
E. Due to the developed nature of the area, there are
anticipated to be no significant impacts on land form;
F. An increase in traffic on streets in and adjacent to the project
will occur if the project is implemented;
G. An increase in emissions produced by mobile sources will
result in the San Diego Air Basin and local areas due to
increased traffic generated as the project is implemented;
H. Noise generated by motor vehicles will increase in and
adjacent to the Project Area;
I. There will be an insignificant impact on biological resources;
J. There are likely to be no adverse impacts on paleontology/
archeology or historical resources;
K. The proposed Innd use policy will result in no undosirable
impact;
K. There is no anticipated adverse impact on the aesthetic
quality of the area;
L. The area's social well being will be impacted insignificantly;
M. It is anticipated that there will be no adverse impact on the
community tax structure;
N. It is not anticipated that the Plan will create any further I
impact on the cultural factors in the area;
21 d);41o
1230.2
Section 1240
1240.1
O. As a result of increased population density if the Plan is
implemented, in all probability there will be an increased
demand for police and fire protection as well as other
community services;
P. There will be an increase in the use of non-renewable
energy producing resources due to increased density in the
project.
In summary, the short-term effects of the proposed Plan, if
implemented, would include increased traffic and noise associated
with construction operations. The long term cumulative adverse
effects of the proposed action would include increased population
density, increased traffic and noise generated by the commercial
and residential development, commitment of existing vacant lands
to development and the use of non-renewable resources. Delaying
the proposed project would result in the further decline of Chula
Vista's Centre City. The implementation of the Plan would provide
the overall enhancement of the Project Area and the renewed
productivity of the Chula Vista business district while encouraging
the revitalization of the urban core and discouraging encroachment
into currently undeveloped areas.
Availabilitv of Communitv Facilities and Services
The impact of the project upon the residents of the area and
surrounding neighborhoods as it relates to the availability of
community facilities and services is addressed below in accordance
with the Community Redevelopment Law.
A. The Plan, if implemented, will in all probability result in an
increase in the mean income in the study area as a result of
the rehabilitation and revitalization of the residential fabric.
The project would provide temporary employment
opportunities during new construction and long term
employment opportunities could result from upgrading and
expanding commercial activities in the area.
The implementation of the Plan could cause the
displacement of persons or establishments occupying
blighted and/or incompatible buildings. If this is the case,
relocation assistance will be provided by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista. Additionally, owner
participation agreements will be utilized where feasible to
encourage participation by property owners while lessening
the need for acquisition and relocation. Further, preference
22~b41
for re-entry will be extended to all displaces as a result of
any redevelopment activity undertaken in the Project Area.
B. The Project Area currently encompasses three elementary
school attendance boundaries: Vista Square, Rosebank,
and Hilltop Elementary Schools. The site is also within the
boundaries of the Chula Vista Junior and Senior High
Schools.
According to the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater
High School Districts, all three elementary schools, plus the
junior high school have exceeded capacity. Chula Vista
High School has an excess of 291 available spaces. A
breakdown of capacities and enrollments by school follows:
1. Hilltop Elementary School has a capacity of 472
students and a current enrollment of 473, indicating a
deficit of one space.
2. Rosebank Elementary School has a capacity of 488
students and a current enrollment of 490, yielding a
two-space deficit.
3. Vista Square Elementary School has a capacity of
432 students and a current enrollment of 501,
indicating a deficit of 69 spaces.
The elementary schools currently have a capacity of 1,392
students, and as of December 1975, 1,464 enrollment,
yielding a deficit of 72 spaces.
The junior high school; i.e. Chula Vista Junior High School,
has a capacity of 1,200 students and a current enrollment of
1,297, indicating a deficit of 97 students. The senior high
school, Chula Vista High School, has a capacity of 1,624
students, with a current enrollment of 1,333, indicating an
excess capacity of 291 spaces.
Due to the fact that plans are currently not detailed enough
to project changes in attendance as a result of the Plan, it
can only be anticipated that increases in density may result
in increased school enrollment. The Agency will cooperate
with the affected school district in an effort to mitigate the
impact of such increased enrollment.
23cqb~f
The project is located within the City Park Service District
NO.3 and contains 8.6 acres of park land. This acreage is
below the 22.4 acres required to meet City standards. The
following chart illustrates the acreages, location, and
facilities available at the two existing parks in the study area:
Name
Acreaqe Improvements
Memorial Park 7.1
Third Avenue &
Park Way
Gymnasium, Swimming Pool,
Recreation Hall, Memorial
Bowl, Tot Lot, Picnic
Facilities, Shuffleboard
Courts
Norman Park 1.5
Center, Del Mar &
"F" Street
Senior Citizen Center, Picnic
Facilities, Shuffleboard
Courts, Horseshoe Pits
The residential portion of the Plan will, in all probability,
result in a greater need for additional park lands in the area
due to increased densities.
As a part of the overall Plan and the implementation of the
redevelopment process, new park lands, open spaces, and
recreational opportunities will be required of developers
and/or constructed by the Agency to ensure adequate
facilities for the enjoyment of the residents of the Project
Area and the City in general.
C. Due to the age and deterioration of the older section of the
commercial district on Third Avenue, a safety hazard exists.
Several structures in the Project Area have been declared
unsafe and condemned by the City's Building and Housing
Department.
Fire and Police protection are provided by the City of Chula
Vista. The nearest stations are located at the Civic Center on
Fourth Avenue, one block west of the project site.
Solid waste disposal service for the Project Area is provided
by the Chula Vista Sanitary Service, via an agreement with
the City of Chula Vista.
It is anticipated that there will be no significant impacts as a
result of the implementation of the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project Plan. In fact, the removal and
restoration of deteriorated structures will provide a safe
24 c1J ~f
Section 1250
1250.1
environment within and surrounding the buildings. Fire and
Police protection and the solid waste disposal services
should have the capacity to service the study area following
implementation of the Plan.
Finally, it is anticipated that there will be no significant
adverse impacts concerning health and safety within the
Project Area upon the completion of the project.
D. Gas, electricity, water and sewer service are currently
provided within the Project Area. Current analysis indicates
that the project will not place an undue burden upon the
suppliers of these services to meet demands upon
completion of the project. However, an evaluation of
additional service required for new development will be
provided in specific E.I.R.'s developed as the project is
implemented.
Property Assessments and Taxes
All property within the Project Area will continue to be assessed at
the current State-mandated level. The redevelopment of the
Project Area should cause the assessed value of properties within
the Project Area to increase. This increase would result in the
availability of increased tax revenues for the provision of community
services. The increased availability of revenue could, in turn, make
possible a lowering of tax rates.
25 0!J3/J
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESCIND CERTAIN
IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE
TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted the original
Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") on July 6, 1976, by Ordinance No.
1691 and has subsequently amended the Redevelopment Plan on five separate occasions, on July
17, 1979, by Ordinance No. 1872, April 22, 1986, by Ordinance No. 2146, January 4, 1994, by
Ordinance No. 2585, November 8, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2609, and on June 23, 1998, by
Ordinance No. 2735, incorporated herein by reference, and has designated the Redevelopment
Plan as the official redevelopment plan for the Town Centre I Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Urban Core Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") will refine and
implement a vision for downtown Chula Vista as expressed in the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law ("Law") (Health and Safety Code
33000, et seq.) Section 33331, a redevelopment plan must conform to the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission")
has reviewed the Specific Plan and has determined that it is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, certain planning, design, and operational documents were approved by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") in connection with and since the
establishment of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, those documents are the Town Centre Design Manual ("Design Manual")
adopted on November 4, 1976, by Resolution No. 62 and amended March 3, 1977, by Resolution
75, the Town Centre Procedures Manual ("Procedures Manual") adopted December 1, 1976, by
Resolution No. 64, and the Town Centre I land Use Policy ("Land Use Policy") adopted on
September 1, 1977, by Resolution No. 96, and amended January 15, 2002, by Resolution No.
1765; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 1978, the Agency approved an Amendment to the Owner
Participation Agreement ("OPA") Guidelines by Resolution No. 121 that required an OPA for all
remodeling or new construction projects with an estimated minimum cost of $10,000; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") and the City
Council will consider the 2007 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2007 Amendment") in
order to bring land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Project Area
("Project Area") into conformance with the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
~ t!.- /
Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and the local procedures adopted by the Agency
pursuant thereto, the City has prepared and completed a proposed Environmental Impact Report
for the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has previously certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared
in connection with the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33452 of the Law, public notice has been duly given, and a
full and fair public hearing has been held on the proposed 2007 Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DOES
RECOMMEND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Agency rescind the documents and policies, as referenced in the
above recitals, to bring the Redevelopment Plan in conformance with the adopted General Plan
and the proposed Urban Core Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cheryl Cox
Chairman
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
c2C.~
I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 2007, and that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy
of said Ordinance, and has not been amended or repealed.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
;<C3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RESCINDING IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS
OF THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted the original
Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") on July 6, 1976, by Ordinance No.
1691 and has subsequently amended the Redevelopment Plan on five separate occasions, on July
17,1979, by Ordinance No. 1872, April 22,1986, by Ordinance No. 2146, January 4,1994, by
Ordinance No. 2585, November 8, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2609, and on June 23, 1998, by
Ordinance No. 2735, incorporated herein by reference, and has designated the Redevelopment
Plan as the official redevelopment plan for the Town Centre I Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Urban Core Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") will refine and
implement a vision for downtown Chula Vista as expressed in the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law ("Law") (Health and Safety Code
33000, ei seq.) Section 33331, a redevelopment plan must conform to the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission")
has reviewed the Specific Plan and has determined that it is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, certain planning, design, and operational documents were approved by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") in connection with and since the
establishment of the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, those documents are the Town Centre Design Manual ("Design Manual")
adopted on November 4, 1976 and amended March 3, 1977, the Town Centre Procedures Manual
("Procedures Manual") adopted December 1, 1976, and the Town Centre I Land Use Policy ("Land
Use Policy") adopted on September 1, 1977, and amended January 15,2002; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 1978, the Agency approved an Amendment to the Owner
Participation Agreement ("OPA") Guidelines by resolution that required an OPA for all remodeling
or new construction with an estimated cost of $10,000; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") and the City
Council will consider the 2007 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2007 Amendment") in
order to bring land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Project Area
("Project Area") into conformance with the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and the local procedures adopted by the Agency
pursuant thereto, the City has prepared and completed a proposed Environmental Impact Report
for the Specific Plan; and
cXd I
WHEREAS, the Agency has previously certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared
in connection with the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33452 of the Law, public notice has been duly given, and a
full and fair public hearing has been held on the proposed 2007 Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOllOWS:
Section 1. That the Design Manual, Procedures Manual, land Use Policy, and the OPA
requirement for remodeling and new construction projects of $10,000 or less, as referenced in the
above recitals, be rescinded to bring the Redevelopment Plan in conformance with the adopted
General Plan and the proposed Urban Core Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 261h day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cheryl Cox
Chairman
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
cfdd{
I, ,City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, do hereby
certify that the Resolution No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista at a meeting thereof held on the
day of ,2007, and that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy
of said Resolution, and has not been amended or repealed.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
4d3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 06-01)
FOR THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS;
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2005 an update to the City's General Plan was approved which
provides a contemporary vision for the Urban Core, the traditional downtown of the City. The General Plan
Vision for the Urban Core of the City states that the Urban Core will contain the greatest diversity of public,
commercial, civic, financial, cultural, and residential uses emphasizing its role as the hub of the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Vision for the traditional residential neighborhoods that surround the
Urban Core states that the attractiveness -of living in these areas will be enhanced by the Urban Core's
diversity in character and architectural style and enhanced access to facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan calls for the Urban Core
Specific Plan (UCSP), or other zoning regulations to implement the new land uses, in particular mixed use
and urban core residential zoning districts, to ensure the systematic implementation of the 2005 General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP will serve as the specific plan to direct and guide the development of the
Urban Core, including the Downtown and surrounding areas, towards this goal by directly regulating land
use and establishing a focused development scheme and process for the area; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference Sections 65450
through 65457 of the California Government Code that authorizes the local legislative body to initiate the
preparation of a specific plan to implement the policies of a general plan; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to have zoning consistent with the City's General Plan is established in
CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860. The UCSP is the first in a series of
significant zoning documents that are anticipated to implement the vision established by the 2005 General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2003-236 to initiate the
preparation of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in January 2004 the consulting firm of RRM Design Group was retained to assist staff in
the preparation of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004 the City Council appointed an 18 member Advisory Committee to
work with the City's staff and consultant team and the community in developing some of the major
components of the UCSP, and the UCSP Advisory Committee held it's first meeting as a two day event on
August 13 and 14, 2004 to begin preparation of the draft UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in September 2004, a community workshop was held to gather public input on matters
related to the preparation of the draft UCSP; and
WHEREAS, based on input from Committee members and the public at these meetings, draft
"Vision Plans" were created to set the framework for developing the UCSP; and
c!e/
WHEREAS, the draft Vision Plans were presented to the UCSP Advisory Committee followed by
presentation to a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on November 17, 2004, and a second
community workshop. Based on the positive reaction to the Vision Plans the staff and consultant team
began developing major components of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in October 2004, the consulting firm of RECON Environmental Inc. was retained to
assist staff in the preparation of an environmental impact report for the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, monthly meetings of the UCSP Advisory Committee were held from January through
June 2005. These well attended meetings held with the UCSP Advisory Committee provided direction on
significant planning issues such as new permitted land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and
gateway design elements; and
WHEREAS, in September 2005, the General Plan Draft EIR was released for public review, followed
by public hearings and approval of the General Plan on December 13, 2005; and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005, a preliminary "Public
Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory Committee in March 2006. In addition, a third
community workshop, jointly sponsored by the Northwest Civic Association and Crossroads II, was held to
provide the community with an overview of the UCSP and garner additional preliminary input on the draft
UCSP. Feedback from both of these events was considered and incorporated, as determined appropriate by
staff and the consultant team, into a "Public Review" Draft UCSP; and the Draft EIR was prepared for a 45
day public review period; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the Chula Vista
Municipal Code Section 1907, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1,
Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in
Government Code Section 65451; and
WHEREAS, Chapters V, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP provide the plan and mechanisms to
ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP Environmental Impact Report 06-01 has been prepared as a Program EIR
and includes an evaluation of the growth management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic level. The
Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts
analysis and/or mitigation measures that address provision of public services and facilities and requires
subsequent development projects to contribute to the provision of public services and facilities
commensurate with their impact as development occurs over the course of the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 06-01 for the Urban Core Specific Plan was issued for public review on May
31, 2006, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period for the DEIR, information sessions/workshops were held
with the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to
provide an overview of the UCSP to these advisory bodies in preparation of future public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public hearing for Draft
EIR 06-01 on July 13, 2006, to close the public review period, and following the close of the public hearing,
the public review period ended on July 13 2006; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) has been prepared and incorporates
revisions to the Public Review Draft UCSP, as described in the Public Hearing Draft "Errata" based on public
input and minor revisions to correct information; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 06-01) has been prepared on the Urban
Core Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
d{~o{
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a hearing before the
Design Review Committee of the City Of Chula Vista to consider and make recommendations to the City
Council on the proposed Design Guidelines (Chapter VII and VIII) of the UCSP. Notice of said hearing,
together with its purpose, was given pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at ieast ten
days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2006 the Design Review Committee of the City Of Chula Vista
considered the proposed Design Guidelines (Chapter VII and Viii) of the UCSP and recommended that the
City Council adopt the Resoiutions approving the Design Guidelines (UCSP Chapter VII and VIII) as
presented; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for hearings for on
October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007 on said Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) before the City Of
Chula Vista Planning Commission to consider and make recommendations to the City Council on the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) pursuant to Government Code 65854-65861 which establishes the
process for adopting zone changes. Notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given pursuant to
California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten days prior to the hearing.
WHEREAS, based on input received at these hearings, additional minor modifications were
recommended to the Public Hearing Draft UCSP. These modifications have been analyzed, in the context of
the FEIR, and it was determined that the recommended changes would not affect the impact analysis or
significance conclusions of the FEIR. The information to support such determination is provided in the UCSP
Agenda Statement report dated April 26, 2007; and
I . WHEREAS, on March 28, 2007, the City Of Chula Vista Planning Commission considered the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) and recommended by a vote of 5-0-2 that the City Council adopt the
Ordinance approving the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) and related actions as presented and the
minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of these proceedings;
and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a hearing for April 26,
2007 on said Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
to consider and make recommendations to the City Council pursuant to CVMC 2.55.050. Notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at
least ten days prior to the hearing.
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on April 26, 2007 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Councii Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation and after receiving public testimony said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the Public Hearing Draft UCSP, DEIR and FEIR
and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista certified the FEiR (EiR 06-01) for
the Urban Core Specific Pian and reiated actions; and made certain findings of fact; adopted a statement of
overriding considerations; adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act; recommended that the City Council certify EIR-06-01 ; and recommended that the
City Council adopt the Urban Core Specific Plan (PCM 07-01) and related actions as presented; and the
minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of these proceedings;
and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Project, dated September 2006 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR 06-01 are feasible and
have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement
those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of
o{-1L-3
obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted
mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "8" of this
Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, are expressed as conditions of approval.
Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently
with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of impiementing the Urban Core
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
UCSP and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given pursuant to California Government
Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council held a duly
noticed public hearing on Aprii 26, 2007 on the FEIR 06-01 for the UCSP and the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP (PCM 07-01) and related actions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, having reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR, does hereby certify Final EIR-06-
01 and find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at
their public hearing on Draft EIR-06-1 held on July 13, 2006, the minutes and resolutions resulting from the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation meetings of July 13, 2006, the minutes and resolutions resulting
from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation meeting on April 26, 2007, are hereby incorporated into
the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-
makers, including all documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(e(1)-
(11)), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code s21000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15091(e), the City of Chula Vista specifies the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City and the City
Clerk as the custodians of the documents which constitute the records of proceedings.
II. FEIR 06-01 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 06-01 consists of the following:
1. Final EIR for the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan (including all technical
appendices); and
2. Comments on the Draft EIR and the Lead Agency's Responses to Comments; and
3. Errata
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 06-01")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 06-01
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
c:?~j
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby find that FEIR 06-01, the Findings of Fact
and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with
the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this
Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with
the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code
Regs. Title 14 915000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT .nJDGMENT OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that the FEIR 06-01 reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City of Chula Vista.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve, accepts as its own,
incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings
contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in
the office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 06-01 and in the Findings of Fact for this
Project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation
measures described and specifically identified in the above referenced documents are
feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City)
assigned thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives and Selected Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 06-01 and in the Findings of Fact, for
the Project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the
project which were identified in FEIR-06-01, and selected mitigation measures, are
determined to be infeasible based on specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations. The Findings of Fact identify the factual basis for this conclusion, which
includes but is not limited to the determination that project alternatives and selected
mitigation measures do not reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet several
project objectives.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the
Project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby issues and approves, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit "A," a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk, identifying the specific economic, legal, social, technological and
other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects
acceptable.
c1e. .6
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code SectiDn 21081.6, the City CDuncil Df the
City Df Chula Vista hereby adDpts the MitigatiDn MDnitDring and RepDrting Program set fDrth
in Exhibit "B" Df this ResDlution, a CDPY Df which is Dn file in the Dffice Df the City Clerk. The
City CDuncil Df the City of Chula Vista further finds that the PrDgram is designed to ensure
that, during project implementation, the City and any other responsible parties implement the
project compDnents and cDmply with the mitigatiDn measures identified in the Findings Df
Fact and the MitigatiDn MDnitoring and RepDrting PrDgram.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review CDDrdinatDr Df the City Df Chula Vista is directed after City CDuncil
approval Df this PrDject tD ensure that a Notice Df Determination is filed with the CDunty Clerk Df the County
Df San DiegD. These dDcuments, alDng with any dDcuments submitted tD the decisiDn-makers, including
dDcuments specified in Public ResDurces Code SectiDn 21167.6, sUbdivisiDn(e)(1)-(11), shall cDmprise the
entire record Df proceedings fDr any claims under the CalifDrnia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public
Resources CDde 921000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, having cDnsidered the information cDntained in the Final EIR,
the City CDuncil of the City Df Chula Vista certifies EIR-06-01 and finds that the Findings Df Fact and
Statement Df Overriding ConsideratiDns (Exhibit "A" tD this ResDlutiDn, a CDPY which is Dn file with the office
Df the City Clerk), and the MitigatiDn Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" tD this ResDlutiDn, a
CDPY which is on file with the office Df the City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with the
requirement of CEQA (Pub. ResDurces CDde, 921000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (CalifDrnia CDde Regs.
Title 14 915000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures Df the City Df Chula Vista and,
therefDre, ShDUld be certified.
Presented By:
ApprDved as to fDrm by:
Ann B. Hix
DirectDr Df Community DevelDpment
Ann MDDre
City Attorney
of e. G,
PLEASE NOTE THAT
EXHIBIT A (CEQA FINDINGS) AND
EXHIBIT B (MMRP)
ARE IDENTICAL TO EXHIBITS A AND B OF THE
CVRC RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EIR 06-01
AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ATTACHED TO
THIS RESOLUTION.
=?e1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
(PCM-07-01) AND RELATED REZONINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE
2005 GENERAL PLAN
I. Recitals.
A. Specific Plan Boundaries
WHEREAS, the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), which is the subject of
this Ordinance, is represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and for' the purpose of description is generally located
east of 1-5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street. The
new zoning regulations and design guidelines of the UCSP would only apply to
approximately 690 acres, referred to as the "Subdistricts Area" as depicted in
Exhibit A. Outside of the Subdistricts Area, existing zoning would not be
changed.
B. Preparation of the Specific Plan
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003 the City Council by Resolution No. 2003-
236 initiated preparation of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in January 2004 the consulting firm of RRM Design Group
was retained in assist staff in the preparation of the Urban Core Specific Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004 the City Council appointed an 18 member
Advisory Committee to work with the City's staff and consultant team and the
community in developing some of the major components of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, monthly meetings of the UCSP Advisory Committee were
held from January through June 2005 to provide direction on significant planning
issues; and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005,
a preliminary "Public Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory
Committee in March 2006 and a "Public Review" Draft UCSP was prepared; and
C. Project Description
WHEREAS, the UCSP is the first in a series of significant zoning
documents prepared to implement the 2005 General Plan. The new zoning
regulations, in particular mixed use and urban core residential zoning districts,
c{F/
Ordinance No.
Page 2
will ensure the systematic implementation of 2005 General Plan as required by
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.06.030 and California
Government Code 65860. The zoning regulations contained in the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), specifically Chapter VI, will replace existing
Municipal Code zoning classifications for the properties within the UCSP
Subdistricts Area (Exhibit A) and will introduce new zoning classifications for
mixed-use (retail/office), mixed-use with residential, and urban core residential
(high-density residential) as anticipated by the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority
granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the
California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections
65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in
Government Code Section 65451; and
WHEREAS, Chapters V, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP provide
the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur
commensurate with subsequent development; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP Environmental Impact Report 06-01 has been
prepared as a Program EIR and includes an evaluation of the growth
management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic level. The Final EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of
the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures that address provision of public
services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to
contribute to the provision of public services and facilities commensurate with
their impact as development occurs over the course of the next 20 years; and
D. Planning Commission Record
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said project on October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after considering all evidence and
testimony presented recommended that the City Council adopt the UCSP (PCM
07 -01); and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced on this
application before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on
October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007, and the minutes and resolution resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
E. Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Record
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider said project on April 26, 2007; and
='? r c:<.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation after considering
all evidence and testimony presented recommended that the City Council adopt
the UCSP (PCM 07-01); and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced on this
application before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at their public
hearing held on April 26, 2007, and the minutes and resolution resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of
Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) recommends that the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the UCSP has been
prepared pursuant to CVMC Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California
Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450
through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government
Code Section 65451; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of
Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) recommends that the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that pursuant to CVMC
19.06.030 and Government Code Section 65860 the UCSP is consistent with the
2005 General Plan as supported by the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (pCM 07-01),
Final EIR (No.06-01) and analysis including attachments to the agenda
statement to the City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation,
Redevelopment Agency and City Council dated April 26, 2007 and is supported
by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of
Chula Vista, does hereby recommend that the City Council Introduce an
ordinance Approving Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) and Amending
the zoning map; and
F. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed
the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. A Final
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the UCSP and related
actions, and is available at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing date.
The Final EIR identifies that the proposed project would result in significant,
unmitigated impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, energy, and
transportation. Impacts to geology, hazards, hydrology, land use, landform
alteration/aesthetics, noise, paleontology, population and housing, public
0{ ;::-6
Ordinance No.
Page 4
services, and public utilities are less than significant or mitigated to less than
significant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised their independent review and
judgment and concurs that said documents were prepared in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista; and
G. City Council Record
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the
City Council on April 26, 2007 on the UCSP and to receive the recommendations
of the Planning Commission and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and to
hear public testimony with regard to the same; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held an advertised public hearing on the
project on April 26, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth
Avenue ~nd, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, the Council
voted x - x to approve the UCSP.
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
ordain as follows:
1. That the UCSP plan is in conformance with the City's General Plan based on
the following findings of fact.
In December 2005, after a multi-year planning process, the Chula Vista City
Council adopted a new General Plan that represents the vision for the City
through the year 2030. With the approval of new land use designations under the
2005 General Plan, new zoning regulations, in particular mixed use and urban
core residential zoning districts, are required to ensure the systematic
implementation of General Plan. The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) is the
first in a series of significant zoning documents that would implement the 2005
General Plan.
The 2005 General Plan largely focused on the revitalization and redevelopment
of the western portion of the city and described a new vision for portions of the
City referred to as the "urban core. The long-range vision as described in the
2005 General Plan anticipates that:
"The urban core has developed into a vibrant area, with housing; shops;
restaurants; entertainment; and activities that attract from eastern Chula
Vista and city-wide. Higher density housing, shopping, and job centers are
located near the major transit stations, including E Street and Interstate 5;
H Street and Interstate 5; and near Third Avenue and H Street. These key
activity nodes give people transportation choices, encourage the use of
~f'f
Ordinance No.
Page 5
mass transit, and help to reduce vehicular traffic. They are accentuated by
landmark building design, and for the two Transit Focus Areas at E
Street/Interstate 5 and H Street/Interstate 5, strategic use of some taller
(high-rise) structures that draw attention, and provide unique identities for
these important gateway entrances to the urban core and the bayfront. A
network of linked urban parks and plazas creates pleasant pedestrian
routes and provides areas for community activities. Increased population
(residents and workers) in the Urban Core Subarea has created
opportunities for more shops and a variety of restaurants. Entertainment
and cultural arts are housed in new and renovated buildings, offering both
day and evening activities. The streets are bustling with shoppers and
people enjoying outdoor dining or heading to entertainment venues.
A grade-separated trolley line at E and H Streets has improved the flow of
east-west traffic, while a local shuttle provides frequent service between
Urban Core Subarea activity centers. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line
allows residents in the East Planning Area convenient access to the Urban
Core Subarea.
F Street is a pedestrian-oriented promenade that links Third Avenue; the
Civic Center; Broadway; the E Street transit center; and the Bayfront
Planning Area with themed landscaping and public art. The freeway
crossings of Interstate 5 have been widened to accommodate additional
pedestrian use, and entryways into the Urban Core Subarea are
enhanced and inviting. Chula Vista's Urban Core Subarea has matured
into an urban, pedestrian-oriented, active area that continues to be the
primary economic, governmental, and social focal point of the south San
Diego County region. "
The proposed UCSP is based on the objectives provided in the 2005 General
Plan and provides further detail on how these objectives will be implemented.
The components of the UCSP implement the 2005 General Plan vision of a
vibrant urban core and include mobility recommendations, land use and
development regulations, development design guidelines and incentives, public
realm design guidelines, infrastructure and public facilities improvements, and a
community benefits program. Exhibit B also provides a reference to the
applicable General Plan Land Use and Transportation Objectives that are
implemented through the various chapters of the UCSP.
Chapter V - Mobility of the UCSP provides a variety of approaches and strategies
to "get people from here to there" as envisioned by the Land Use and
Transportation Element of the 2005 General Plan. Improvements for the main
thoroughfares and other streets within the Urban Core are identified and address
pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobile and parking opportunities. Traffic calming
elements, pedestrian improvements and paseos are introduced to slow traffic
and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Recommendations for new
c;? ~:j-
Ordinance No.
Page 6
and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both recreational and
commuting users are also included. As envisioned by the Land Use and
Transportation Element of the 2005 General Plan, three transit focus areas within
the Urban Core provide multi-modal opportunities for both local and regional
transit and a new shuttle loop system serving the Urban Core and Bayfront is
proposed. Various roadway network and capacity improvements are proposed,
especially in areas where the street grid has been interrupted over time and off-
street public parking strategies are also proposed within the Urban Core.
Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Regulations of the UCSP establish
three different Specific Plan Districts - Village, Urban Core and Corridors which
are further defined into sub-districts, each with customized form based
regulations and standards. Subdistrict regulations shape the building form and
intensity, allowable land uses, and parking requirements. As envisioned by the
Land Use and Transportation Element of the 2005 General Plan, land uses are
proposed to encourage a mix of pedestrian-oriented commercial uses with higher
density residential uses. Development and parking standards encourage locating
buildings closer to the street (i.e. with parking behind or tucked under the
building).The regulations also stress flexibility and provision of urban amenities
such as streetscape improvements, parks, plazas, transit, cultural arts and mixed
use. The tallest buildings are allowed at the transit focus areas at 1-5/H Street
and 1-5/E Street where support by alternative modes of transportation is readily
available. Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts have been created for
subdistricts adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zoning areas to protect and buffer existing
residential neighborhoods and ensure compatible, stepped-back building heights
and setbacks. Special provisions address live/work units, mixed-uses and
parking structures. Zoning incentives are provided to encourage development to
provide high performance buildings and urban amenities such as parks and
plazas beyond required levels.
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines of the UCSP provide
comprehensive design guidelines for development within the three Specific Plan
Districts, as well as special guidelines for hotels, mixed-use projects, multi-family
residential projects, and sustainability. The form-based guidelines supplement
the Specific Plan development regulations to create a more attractive, well-
designed urban' environment. These guidelines apply to construction,
conservation, adaptive reuse, and enhancement of buildings and street scenes.
Although no specific architectural style is prescribed, the quality of design is
guided by policies addressing site planning, building height/form/mass, building
materials/colors, storefront design, landscaping, lighting, parking, circulation,
signs and other development considerations. The goal of the guidelines is to
create a positive image for the Urban Core and frame the streets and sidewalks
with inviting buildings, entrances, awnings and outdoor dining areas.
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines of the UCSP focuses on ways to
create more attractive and pedestrian-friendly public environments and gathering
c;? r(P
Ordinance No.
Page 7
places. Street furniture, landscaping, sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, paseos,
public art, parks and plaza concepts are defined. Two main themes emerge
within the Specific Plan: an art-deco inspired design theme is proposed along
Third Avenue, building upon the era when much of the development along the
street occurred, and a more contemporary theme is proposed for the remaining
public realm areas in the Urban Core, indicative of a forward-looking Chula Vista.
Gateway treatments are proposed at six locations to welcome people to the
Urban Core and to reinforce the identity of the Urban Core.
Based on the above, the City Council does hereby find that the proposed UCSP
is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and that the public necessity,
conveniences, general welfare, and good zoning practice support its approval
and implementation.
2. That the specific plan has been prepared in accordance with the City's
Municipal Code and the California Government Code provisions governing
specific plans based on the following findings of fact.
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California
Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450
through 65457 establish the statutory authority for specific plans. As provided in
CVMC Chapter 19.07, "Specific plans may be implemented through the adoption
of standard zoning ordinances, the planned community zone, as provided in this
title, or by plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual
specific plan. The method of implementing an individual specific plan shall be
established and expressed by its adopting resolution or ordinance."
The UCSP has been prepared as an implementing document for future land
uses, public improvements, and programs as provided for in the 2005 General
Plan. The new zoning regulations proposed in the UCSP would replace existing
Municipal Code zoning classifications for the UCSP Subdistricts Area and
introduce new zoning classifications for mixed-use retail/office, mixed-use
residential, and Urban Core (high density) residential as required by the 2005 GP
(Reference GP Table 5-4).
The following table identifies the mandatory information required in a specific
plan pursuant to CVMC 19.07 and Section 65451 of the Government Code and
the corresponding chapter(s) where the information is contained in the UCSP.
4F'7
Ordinance No.
Page 8
The specific plan shall include:
a statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the general plan.
The type, distribution, location, amount,
intensity of all land uses, within the area
covered by the plan.
The approximate total pOp"ulation
anticipated with the Plan's area.
A depiction of any and all subareas or
other districts within which the Plan's
provisions will be applied.
Standards, regulations, criteria and
guidelines by which all development shall
proceed within the Plan and any of its
subareas or districts.
The proposed distribution, location, and
extent and intensity of major components
of public and private transportation,
sewage, water, drainage, solid waste
disposal, energy, and other essential
facilities proposed to be located within the
area covered by the plan and needed to
support the land uses described in the
plan.
A program indicating how and when the
facilities and services to support the
developing land uses will be installed or
financed, and including the following:
a. A list of facilities and services
The specific plan shall include a
statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the general plan.
The distribution, location, and
extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area
covered by the plan.
Standards and criteria by which
development will proceed, and
standards for the conservation,
development, and utilization of
natural resources, where applicable.
The proposed distribution, location,
and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private
transportation, sewage, water,
drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities
proposed to be located within the
area covered by the plan and
needed to support the land uses
described in the plan.
A program of implementation
measures including regulations,
programs, public works projects,
and financing measures necessary
to carry the above.
c1 Pc?
Chapter II
Chapters VI,VIII,
and Appendix E
Chapters II, IX,
and Appendix E
Chapters II and VI
Chapters VI, VII
and VIII
Chapters V, VIII,
IX, and Appendix
E
Chapters IX, X,
Appendix D, and
Append ix E
Ordinance No.
Page 9
b. An inventory of present and future
requirements for each facility and service
based upon the City's Growth
Management Thresholds Standards
c. A phasing schedule that addresses the
timing for installation or provisions for
required facilities and services.
d. A financing program identifying the
methods for funding those facilities and
services consistent with the phasing
schedule, and insures that the funds are
spent on said facilities pursuant to the
phasing sched ule.
Provisions and procedures for the Chapters X, XI,
comprehensive implementation and and FEIR
administration of the Plan
The City Council does hereby find that the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to
the authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific
Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article
8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the rnandatory elements
identified in Government Code Section 65451.
3. That the associated dernands on public facilities and services due to
development allowed by the specific plan are identified prior to development, and
will be mitigated prior to, or concurrent with the development, and in
conformance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance CVMC 19.09 based
on the following findings of fact; and
4. That a financing program has been prepared which identifies the methods for
funding for those facilities and services, and insures that the funds are spent on
said facilities pursuant to the phasing schedule based on the following findings of
fact.
The General Plan was updated in December 2005 and created a new vision for
the city. A large part of that vision focused on the revitalization and
redevelopment of western Chula Vista. New growth is planned around "smart
growth" principles such as mixed use, and transit oriented development that
concentrates infill and redevelopment to select focus areas and corridors to
protect stable single family neighborhoods, better utilize land resources, reduce
environmental effects and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure.
d2Fj
Ordinance No.
Page 10
The General Plan calls for the preparation and adoption of specific plans to carry
out the vision of the GP in an organized and orderly fashion. The UCSP
implements the policies and objectives of the GPU to direct a portion of the
growth expected to occur in the City over the next 20 years to the Urban Core
Area, by providing zone changes, development regulations and design guidelines
to accommodate future growth.
As described above under Finding 2, The UCSP includes an assessment of the
proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of
public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential' facilities that would be located within the area
covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
In addition, the UCSP includes a program of implementation measures including
regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary
to carry the plan.
Specifically, Chapters V, VIII, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP and the
UCSP FEIR 06-01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and
services occur commensurate with subsequent development. As described in the
UCSP and FEIR, subsequent new development would be required to provide
adequate public services and facilities commensurate with their impact.
Chapter V (Mobility), Chapter VIII (Public Realm Design Guidelines), Chapter IX
(Infrastructure and Public Facilities) of the UCSP and Chapters 5.8, 5.11 and
5.12 of the Final EI R provide an assessment of the demands on public facilities
and infrastructure due to development that may occur as a result of the specific
plan.
Chapter X provides a detailed description of improvements and Appendix D
Urban Core Specific Plan - Public Facilities Implementation Analysis (PFIA)
provides projected cost estimates, projected timing of facilities, and financing
mechanisms and revenues. The revenues are based on projected tax increment
and development impacts fees routinely collected as development occurs in the
City. These existing City-wide Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (DIF)
include:
· City-wide Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee
. City-wide Recreation DIF
. Sewer fees
. Storm drain fees
. Traffic signal fees
· School impacts fees (collected pursuant to Government Code
65996)
~~/J
Ordinance No.
Page 11
These fees would continue to be collected from new development as it occurs in
the urban core. Additionally, the Engineering Department will begin developing a
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) within the next year, to address
additional funding for future long-term traffic intersection impacts that may occur
as a result of "worst case" maximum buildout.
In addition, the UCSP FEIR, prepared as a Program EIR, includes an evaluation
of the City's growth management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic
level based on development projections over the course of the next 20 years.
The EIR identifies mitigation measures which would be applied on a project-by-
project basis during subsequent review of individual development projects. The
Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a
summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures for significant
impacts that address provision of public services and facilities. The MMRP
ensures that subsequent new development implements timely mitigation for
impacts associated with new development, which includes but is not limited to
the installation of infrastructure or payment of fees for needed public facilities as
a result of new growth. These requirements would be assured through the
subsequent discretionary design review and approval of future project specific
Urban Core Development Permits.
Although the UCSP is intended to attract future development to the Subdistricts
Area, the timing, location and extent of subsequent development projects are
unpredictable because of the unique nature of urban revitalization. To further
ensure the timely provision of public services and facilities, monitoring of on-
going development activity would be assessed through the City's existing annual
growth management monitoring and reporting. Monitoring programs, such as the
traffic monitoring program which monitors the actual performance of the street
system by conducting roadway segment travel time studies, would track the rate
and effect of growth on an annual basis. In addition to the annual GMO review,
the bi-annual Budget/CIP cycle and a five year status report would provide
additional checks and balances of future growth. The integrated system of growth
management programs, standards, regulations, facility master plans, funding
systems and monitoring activities provide an effective system of checks and
balances to ensure that the provision of public services and facilities keeps in
step with new development.
The City Council having reviewed and considered the information in the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No. 06-01 and all reports,
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing find, determine, and
order that the UCSP Chapters V, VIII, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP and
the UCSP FEIR 06-01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), (all compiled within Appendix E) provide the plan and
mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with
subsequent development and is in conformance with the City's Growth
Management Ordinance CVMC 19.09.
of P //
Ordinance No.
Page 12
4. The City Council does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista Zoning Map
established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone
properties within the UCSP Subdistricts Area as depicted in Exhibit "C".
II. Severability
The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph,
sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final
court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words
of this Ordinance shall remain in f,ull force and effect.
III. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from
and after its second reading.
The provisions of the Specific Plan shall be applied to new development
applications submitted after the effective date of the ordinance adopting the
Specific Plan. The provisions of the Specific Plan do not apply to projects which
have been legally constructed or are under construction in conformance with all
City required permits, or to projects which have received required discretionary
permit approvals but are not yet under construction. On a case by case basis the
zoning administrator may, as requested by the project applicant and pursuant to
the provisions of CVMC 19.07.030(C), afford pipeline status to those projects
which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning prior to
the Specific Plan adoption, but which have not yet received discretionary
approvals.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Ann B. Hix
Acting Director Community Development
Ann Moore
City Attorney
of F/cZ
EXHIBIT "A"
UCSP Subdistricts Area Map
~P/3
~
'i}
"-
~
-
-
"
\l~
,
&
.r
",,,,:il'l
1#.,
~
I,
"
Specific Plan Subdistricts Area I
Th
.
"" ~
(;uiil\Hld
Hiol1Srh\lul
~
.
~b
Et
1 ~ ~
:;J
USW_iIs!!
rl.tl!\1'ii}
111 !f.J
ll1i'llm
Ilj ,'!'l
;;;J ~ ;~
],,","""
(SA'NYSIIJRQ Sl.tNEI
~~_~W'll!t01!
~:;~~_I1~
~P~;~~~~J: J1
1li~~:~~~1ft
~;~~'mjEd ,q~.~~
-., -'" "'"1lI/l!1l1
==:t~=t: -I!mlm~
1.5 F"EEWA~:~'tt~~3%"""H -'''''''''ID'''HI.~,
'-5 FREEWAY
EXHIBIT "B"
General Plan Consistency Analysis
c:< H.s-
Urban Core Specific Plan
2005 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY TABLE
-
-
Development Public Realm
Development Design Design
Title Description Mobility Regulations Guidelines Guidelines
LUT 1 Provide a balance of development to meet
present and future needs and enhance character
of the Cit X X
LUT2 Limit location of highest development intensity to
TFAs X
LUT 3 Development that blends with and enhances
h sica I and social character X X X
LUT 4 Minimize blighting influences and maintain
inte rit of stable residential nei hborhoods X X
~ LUT 5 Designate mixed-use areas with higher density
housing near shopping, jobs and transit X
~ LUT6 Ensure com atibilit of ad"acent land uses X X
LUT 7 Provide appropriate transitions between land
uses X X
~ LUT 8 Create physical features that distinguish
neighborhoods, communities and public spaces
and enhance image as a pedestrian oriented and
livable communi X X X X
LUT 9 Create enhanced gateway features for entry
oints and other im orlant areas X X
LUT 10 Create attractive street environments and public
ri hts-of-wa X X X X
LUT 11 Ensure well-designed buildings and site
improvements that are compatible with
surroundin ro erlies and districts X X X
LUT12 Protect im orlant Historic Resources X
LUT 13 Preserve scenic resources, maintain open space
network and romote beautification X X X
~
1;
~
Title
LUT 15
LUT 16
LUT 17
LUT 18
LUT 19
LUT 20
LUT 21
LUT 22
LUT 23
LUT 26
LUT 27
LUT 28
LUT 29
LUT 30
Description
Improve transit and transportation connections...
between ma'or activi centers
Integrate land use and transportation planning
and facilities
Plan and coordinate transit compatible and
su ortive develo ment
Reduce traffic demand through TOM, increased
use of transit, bicycles, walking and other trip
reduction means
Coordinate state of the art transit s stem
Make transit friendly roads a top consideration in
land use and development design
Maintain a safe and efficient roadway system
with sufficient roadway capacity while preserving
character and integrity of communities
Continue planning for enhancements to LRT
service alon west side of Ci
Promote use of alternative mobility modes
throu h s stem of bike and edestrian aths
Establish an Urban Core Improvements
Pro ram*
Establish program to provide affordable housing,
public amenities and community services
necessary to support urban development
Consider lot consolidation where a ro riate
Allow clustering of residential development to
im rove amenities for residents
Better utilize parking facilities to reduce parking
demand before using public expenditures to add
arkin
Mobility
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
..
Development
Regulations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Development
Design
Guidelines
X
X
X
X
X
-
Public Realm
Design
Guidelines
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
I1i
Development Public Realm
Development Design Design
Title Description Mobility Regulations Guidelines Guidelines
LUT 31 Provide parking that is integrated with land uses,
efficient, accommodates alternative vehicles and
reduces arkin im acts X X X X
LUT 32 Evaluate use and applicability of various
strategies to provide parking X X X X
LUT 33 Ensure parking facilities are appropriately sited
and well-desi ned X X X X
LUT 46 Establish linkages between Urban Core and
Sa front for edestrians, bic cles and transit X X
LUT 47 Establish roadway classifications in the Urban
Core Subarea that respond to more urbanized
~ environment, accommodate slower speeds in
ped-oriented areas and faciliate multi-modal
~ desi n and amenities X X
LUT 48 Increase mobility for residents and visitors in the
Urban Core X X X
~ LUT 49 Encourage balanced and complementary
redevelopment, infill, and new development
within the Urban Core X X X
LUT 50 Provide for redevelopment and enhancement of
Downtown Third Avenue District X X X
LUT 51 Maintain Downtown Third Avenue as focal point
forCit X X X
LUT 52 Encourage redevelopment of the Chula Vista
Center and north of H Street to reinforce transit
and gateway corridor and establish significant
pubiic gathering space and mixed-use area X X X X
LUT 53 Encourage mixed-use redevelopment along H
Street between Third and Fourth Ave. X X
-
-
Development Public Realm
Development Design Design
Title Description Mobility Regulations Guidelines Guidelines
LUT 54 Encourage redevelopment of North Broadway
Focus Area to establish ped-oriented commercial
corridor with housing and local serving
commercial X X
LUT 55 Encourage redevelopment of E Street between 1-
5 and Broadway with Mixed-Use especially near
the E Street Trolley Station with emphasis on
visitor-serving uses, office and multi-family
residential X X
LUT 56 Encourage redevelopment of area between 1-5,
~ Broadway, F and G Streets with high-density
residential supported by mixed-use on Broadway
X X
LUT 57 Encourage redevelopment of area between 1-5,
"'- Broadway, G and H Streets with transit-oriented
'-\i mixed-use reinforcing gateway and transit
boulevard on H Street X X X X
LUT 58 Encourage redevelopment between 1-5,
Broadway, H and I Streets as transit focus mixed
use area X X X X
LUT 59 Encourage redevelopment of Mid-Broadway
District as pedestrian oriented commercial
corridor with housing opportunities and
nei hborhood servin commercial X X X X
LUT 60 Encourage existing land use pattern in Mid-Third
Avenue District X X X X
'Established in UCSP Chp. X: Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program
Exhibit C
c{"c ~c:)
.
tl -::l:J"!!i '~-:(; ~ll "lJ'k"l ;#l
l3"\l~'~-~i :t;;,-~..;"i!, nll "1!G.1 ',~~
~'!~ !r;lJ~,~, I!!, _ "~I_ ... ""'-01-'
.-, ~1 ~/~r_;~~~! ~ j(-~':!; "
, ~ ii" iF,'-
.Jjj ~ "U1i!
"' Ilj ,~, ".'.;,,,,, ., ,b
t!tjg_;~a,
fW~
U,~"
U1J
=
'''.:;;:1
.r
~
i'jJ
^'
/'../
uc-#
1m
r=:J
c::J
..
Specific Plan Study Area -I
Subdistrict Boundaries
Subdistrict Name
V - Village District
UC " U..ban Core District
I .
!
e
.
o
C . Corridors Di:Hricl
Zoning Deferred - Nor. a Part
Mobile Home Parks
and Inl!er Parks
GJl'G
"D
"[1'1"(
iJ_l,~I.,
('sAU'Ysml'tb "iftfNi!)
1ll'i'.....'.Jillt!
UC-II ",,'" _ _ ~ ii;;;:;~! ;~n :, '_;:"';:::..:~:': ~
"T~~_ - ,) '!#\\~!!#l!itJg {qJ ~ ",..',~.,l~qi' fl.
:-"""--";'-"~"'-~"-"'-'-'-""--""""''''''- """"~~\1!!I:" - --",_ """': ..... ~R\'!l~'!'
:, ~ R-l and R-2 zoned areas ~:!M~~~S, - t'l '.. lain: ':-::
~nr~p~~~~ ~:~~~~~ved =:-~~=:: ~::::~ ;~
'"-'__l",,-,\,-'W~j"""',+j_ W'-"'''_~ ....." \rl...(;u~~:t;! ~~ ~.a~Ii!H[A~lJ
t1w;:V.!!~'"n~}TJ (iAi!;}~j;j I~U'~t!flQ:l'j, 'iW"~'lif1'f,hfJ!jb1!i1lal:
i:l~Wi~liI Et'J~ Mll~~xutil ~"~'tiIMtl lUll Jlm~mJJ!iJ
~if.'liWl~llQji[~;~},W~_~~ I..
;Ig
f~.KN YUIDRO,S,.UNE)
"
1.6 FltEEWAY
1.5 FREEWAY
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE
TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THROUGH THE
ADOPTION OF THE 2007 AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted the original
Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") on July 6, 1976, by Ordinance No.
1691 and has subsequently amended the Redevelopment Plan on five separate occasions, on July
17,1979, by Ordinance No. 1872, April 22, 1986, by Ordinance No. 2146, January 4,1994, by
Ordinance No. 2585, November 8, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2609, and on June 23, 1998, by
Ordinance No. 2735, incorporated herein by reference, and has designated the Redevelopment
Plan as the official redevelopment plan for the Town Centre I Project; and
WHEREAS, the City's Urban Core Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") will refine and implement
a vision for downtown Chula Vista as expressed in the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law ("Law") (Health and Safety Code
33000, et seq.) Section 33331, a redevelopment plan must conform to the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission")
has reviewed the Specific Plan and has determined that it is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2007 Amendment") will
bring the land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Project Area
("Project Area") into conformance with the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and the local procedures adopted by the Agency
pursuant thereto, the City has prepared and completed a proposed Environmental Impact Report
for the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has previously certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared
in connection with the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33452 of the Law, public notice has been duly given, and'a
full and fair public hearing has been held on the proposed 2007 Amendment.
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The 2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Attachment NO.1 and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
adopted and approved.
dX;j-i-
Section 2. Based upon the evidence contained in the Report to the City Council for the
2007 Amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, incorporated herein by reference, the
City Counci I does hereby fi nd, determi ne, and declare as follows:
(a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to
effectuate the public purposes as set forth in the Law; and
(b) The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with
the Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and
(c) The Planning Commission and the City Council have determined that the 2007
Amendment is consistent with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan, including,
but not limited to, the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Urban Core
Specific Plan; and
(d) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace,
health, safety, and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes
and pol icy of the Law; and
(e) The Agency has a feasible method for the relocation of families and persons
displaced from the Project Area, to the extent that implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of
any occupants of Project Area housing facilities; and
m There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial
facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and
persons displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings
equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and
persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment; and
(g) Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation
plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and 33411.1 of the Law. Dwelling units
housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed
or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to
Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5 of the Law; and
(h) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not
be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone
without the aid and assistance of the Agency.
Section 3. Though the 2007 Amendment does not propose displacement of permanent
housing facilities, the City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities would be available
within three years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced and that, pending the
development of the facilities, there will be adequate temporary housing facilities available to the
displaced occupants at rents comparable to those in the City of Chula Vista at the time of their
displacement.
~d -2-
Section 4. A full and fair public hearing having been held on the 2007 Amendment, and
the City Council having considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the
2007 Amendment and all written and oral objections thereto, and this City Council being fully
advised in the premises, all written and oral objections to the 2007 Amendment to the extent not
otherwise addressed in the Redevelopment Plan or not otherwise responded to are hereby
overruled.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall publish a copy of this Ordinance as required by Law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cheryl Cox
Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~# -3-
I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista at a meeting thereof held on the
day of ,2007, and that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy
of said Ordinance, and has not been amended or repealed.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
4~ -4-
CHUIAV,ISIA
1'\
! . .
~...~:"....,:.~.:.r::';;;~,,;<:.
.......~. ~~~~~..,.........,~-. .,~~
~ r' ~_ .-' ~ .
". ~':!:i.~.,. w
TOIN CENTRE
REDEVElOPMENT
cf9.j'
16B1E OE CONIsNIS
Article Paqe
INTRODUCTION 1
II GENERAL DEFINITIONS 2
III PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES 4
IV PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) 7
V CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAN 11
VI PERMITTED USES AND CONTROLS 12
VII METHODS FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT 15
VIII ACTIONS BY THE CITY 17
IX ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN 18
X DURATION OF THE PLAN 18
XI AMENDMENT 19
XII NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ELEMENT 19
APPENDIX
Exhibit
A BOUNDARY MAP
B PLAN DIAGPAM
4J~
ARTICLE I - INTRODUCTION
Section 100
100.1
Section 110
Section 120
Format and Preparation
The Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District of the
City of Chula Vista consists of Part I: Plan Text, and Part II:
Appendices. The Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, California,
pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of
California; the Charter of the City of Chula Vista; the By-Laws of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista; and all
applicable local ordinances and State statutes.
Proiect Goal
The goal of this redevelopment project is to revitalize the Town
Centre area as the commercial-civic focus of the City.
The obiectives of the Plan are:
A. Eliminate blighting influences, including incompatible and
noxious land uses, obsolete structures and inadequate
parking facilities.
B. Eliminate environmental deficiencies including, among
others, small and irregular lot and block subdivisions, several
poorly planned streets, and economic and social
deficiencies.
C. The strengthening of the mercantile posture of Town Centre
and the improvement of retail trade therein.
D. The renewal of Town Centre's physical plant and the
improvement of its land use patterns and spatial
relationships.
E. The retention and expansion of viable land uses, commercial
enterprises, and public facilities within the area.
F. The attraction of capital and new business enterprises to the
core area.
G. The comprehensive beautification of the area, including its
buildings, open space, streetscape, and street furniture.
dcff ~
H. The encouragement of multi-family, middle-income
residential units in and near the core area.
I. The possible accommodation of future local and regional
mass transit and related facilities; improvement of off-street
parking areas and provision for a mini-transit intra-project
system.
J. The establishment of Town Centre as the South Bay's
principal center for specialty goods and services.
K. Tho ostablishmont of dosign standards to assure dosirablo
sito dosign and en'/ironmental quality.
bK The reorientation of the people of Chula Vista to their core
area, and the resultant promotion of a sense of "towness"
(towness is a unique feeling spawned by an emotional
relationship between people and their city. This feeling is
founded upon a sense of belonging. When the people feel
that they belong to their city and that their city belongs to
them, a state of towness exists).
ARTICLE II - GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Section 200
200.1
200.2
200.3
200.1
200.4
200.5
200.6
As used in this Plan, the following words shall mean:
"Aqency" - The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista,
California
"City" - The City of Chula Vista, California
"City Council" - The City Council of the City of Chula Vista
"Committoo" Chula Vista Town Contro Committee, mandatod by
tho Rodovolopment Law to ad'/ice tho Agonoy prior to plan
adoption and during tho implomontation ctago of the project
"Planninq Commission" - The City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission
"Plan" - The Town Centre Redevelopment Project Plan
"Proiect Area" - The redevelopment project was previously known
as the 'Third Avenue Redevelopment Project." Whenever and
whereyer this name appears, it shall mean the same as the "Chula
2:Jr
200.7
200.8
200.9
200.10
200.12
200.13
200.11
200.15
Vista Town Centre Redevelopment Project". The legal description
of this area is contained in Section 300 of this document.
"Redevelopment Law" - The Community Redevelopment Law of the
State of California (California State Health and Safety Code,
Section 33000 et. seq.)
"Specific Plan" - A precise plan primarilv desianated to implement
the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre area
"State" - The State of California
"Urban Core" - The heart of the City of Chula Vista. The urban core
includes the Central Business District and the Civic Center, and
lands immediately peripheral thereto. The Town Centre Project
Area is part of this core
"Zonina Plan" l\ cpecific pion under '""hieh building heightc,
building bulk, nnd land uce me reguloted, nnd under whieh territorj
is partitioned into regulatory dictrictc or zonee. Unlecs otherwice
provided, the zoning plan shall mean the zoning maps and
regulationc of the City of Chula Vista
"Desian Review (Committee) Bomd" A Design Review Board
concisting of highly qualified personc ''vith an interect in the fields of
urban design and representativec from City ctaff is propoced to be
created to advise the 3ssoeiated committees and Agency. The
Board '.vill evaluate development proposalc ac they relate to the
Decign Manual nnd the intent of this pion
"Decian Mnnunl" The .A,geney's official ctJtement of design policy
fDr the , and embodies developmental criteria and guidelines
theref-ore. It is the's to'....mlcape plan, and addresses such matterc
m; texture, spati31 rel3tionshipc, amenity, aecthetic qU3lity,
Iondscaping, courtY3rdc, plozas, parking design, etc.
"Procedures M3nuol" l\ procedurec manunl chall be est3blished
for the use and guidance of the Cityl/\gency stoff, the Agency 3nd
developers/participants for the purpose of ectablishing Gtnd
maintaining development proposal schedules, procescing and
rovio'N
4: j
ARTICLE III - PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES
Section 300
300.1
Boundarv Description
The boundaries of the Project Area are shown on the boundary
map attached hereto as Exhibit A in the Appendix of this plan. A
legal description of the boundaries of this project follows:
All those portions of Quarter Sections 137 and 138 of Rancho de la
Nacion according to Map thereof No. 505, filed in the office of the
County Recorder County of San Diego, State of California on
March 13, 1888, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of "E" Street and
Garrett Avenue per Record of Survey 1097 filed in the office of
the County Recorder, San Diego County, State of California on
April 6, 1944; thence northwesterly 49.91 feet :l:: to the
intersection of the northerly right of way of said "E" Street and
the westerly right of way of said Garrett Avenue, said
intersection being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence
northeasterly along said northerly right of way of "E" Street,
1196.07 feet :l:: to a point on the extension of the easterly right of
way of the alley between Church Avenue and Del Mar Avenue;
thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way and its
extension, 700.85 feet :l:: to a point on the northerly right of way
of Davidson Street; thence southwesterly along said northerly
right of way 10.00 feet; thence leaving said northerly right of way
southeasterly along the line midway and between Church
Avenue and Del Mar Avenue, 520.00 feet :l:: to the corner
common to Lot 40 and Lot 41 of Map #1871 filed in the office of
the County Recorder, San Diego County, State of California, on
December 23, 1925; thence northeasterly along the northerly
line of said Lot 41, 25.00 feet :l:: to the northeasterly corner of
said Lot 41; thence southeasterly along easterly line of said Lot
41, 100.90 feet :l:: to a point on the northerly right of way of "F"
Street; thence northeasterly along said northerly right of way
170.52 feet:l:: to a point on the easterly right of way of Del Mar
Avenue; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way
1400.84 feet :l:: to a point on the southerly right of way of "G"
Street; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way
335.00 feet :l:: to a point on the easterly right of way of Church
Avenue; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way,
761.15 feet :l:: to a point on the northerly right of way of Alvarado
Street; thence southwesterly along said northerly right of way
315.00 feet :l:: to a point on the easterly right of way of Third
Avenue; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way,
4 c1J /t?
481.27 feet .:t to a point on the northerly right of way of "H"
Street; thence northeasterly along said northerly right of way
200.00 feet; thence leaving said northerly right of way
southeasterly, parallel to and 240 feet easterly of the centerline
of Third Avenue 370.00 feet .:t to a point on the northerly
boundary of Map No. 2277, filed in the office of the County
Recorder, San Diego County, State of California, on September
15, 1942; thence southwesterly along said northerly boundary
82.76 feet.:t to the northeasterly corner of Lot 2 of said Map No.
2277; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 2,
160.79 feet .:t to a point on the southerly right of way of Shasta
Street; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way
4.16 feet .:t to the northeasterly corner of Lot 91 of said Map No.
2277; thence leaving said southerly right of way and
southeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 91, 105.00 feet
.:t to a point on the northerly line of Lot 88 of said Map No. 2277;
thence northeasterly along said northerly line 7.00 feet .:t to the
northeast corner of said Lot 88; thence southeasterly along
easterly line of said Lot 88, 159.74 feet.:t radially to a point on
the 200 foot radius curve concave southwesterly, said curve
being also the southerly right of way of Whitney Street; thence
southeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 17.73
feet .:t to the northeast corner of Lot 98 of said Map No. 2277;-
thence leaving said curve radially inward and along the easterly
line of said Lot 98, 122.84 feet .:t to the northerly most corner of
the Park in said Map No. 2277; thence southeasterly along the
northeasterly line of said Park 68.19 feet .:t to the southerly most
corner of Lot 101 of said Map No. 2277, said corner being a
common corner with the said Park; thence southeasterly along
the easterly line of said Park, 68.05 feet .:t to a point on the
southerly boundary of said Map No. 2277; thence southwesterly
along said southerly boundary 10.00 feet; thence southeasterly,
parallel to and 165 feet easterly of the centerline of Third
Avenue 291.03 feet .:t to a point on the northerly right of way of
"I" Street; thence southwesterly along said northerly right of
way, 595.00 feet; thence northwesterly leaving said northerly
right of way, parallel to and 430 feet westerly of the centerline of
Third Avenue, 290.00 feet; thence southwesterly 260 feet .:t to
the southeast corner of Lot 19, Map No. 1799 filed in the office
of the County Recorder, San Diego County, State of California
on July 10, 1924, said southeast corner being a common corner
with the right of way of Garrett Avenue; thence northwesterly
along westerly right of way of said Garrett Avenue 301.02 feet .:t
to a point on the southerly right of way of Mankato Street, said
point being also the northeast corner of Lot 24 of said Map No.
1799; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way,
5
c{J / /
230.38 feet 2: to a point on the northerly line of Lot 13, of said
Map No. 1799, said point being the intersection of said southerly
right of way with the extension of the westerly right of way of
Glover Avenue; thence northwesterly along said westerly right of
way 732.24 feet 2: to a point on the northerly right of way of "H"
Street; thence northeasterly along said northerly right of way
355.92 feet 2: to the southeast corner of Lot 11, Map No. 1718
filed in the office of the County Recorder, County of San Diego,
State of California on April 22, 1921; thence northwesterly
leaving said northerly right of way along the easterly line of said
Lot 11, 200.00 feet; thence northeasterly parallel to and 240 feet
northerly of the centerline of "H" Street 94.00 feet; thence
northwesterly parallel to and 472 feet westerly of the centerline
of Third Avenue, 87.40 feet 2: to a point on the northerly
boundary of said Map No. 1718; thence northeasterly along said
boundary 122.00 feet 2: to the southwest corner of the East Half
of Lot 10 per Record of Survey 3269 filed in the office of the
County Recorder, County of San Diego, State of California on
December 30, 1953; thence northwesterly along the westerly
line of said East Half of Lot 10, 165.40 feet 2: to the center of
said Lot 10; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of the
South Half of Lot 10, 170.00 feet; thence northwesterly parallel
to and 180.54 feet westerly of the centerline of Third Avenue,
135.54 feet.:!:. to the southerly right of way of Roosevelt Street;
thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way 9.46 feet;
thence northwesterly leaving said southerly right of way parallel
to and 190 feet westerly of the centerline of Third Avenue
210.00 feet~ thence southwesterly parallel to and 180 feet
northerly of the centerline of said Roosevelt Street; 140.00 feet;
thence northwesterly parallel to and 330 feet westerly of said
centerline of Third Avenue 150.00 feet; thence northeasterly
parallel to and 330 feet northerly of the centerline of said
Roosevelt Street, 191.00 feet; thence northwesterly parallel to
and 139 feet westerly of the centerline of said Third Avenue
290.00 feet 2: to a point on the southerly right of way of "G"
Street; thence southwesterly along said southerly right of way
34.31 feet 2: to a point on the extension of the centerline of the
alley between Garrett Avenue and Third Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said centerline and its extension, 210.00
feet; thence southwesterly leaving said centerline parallel to and
120.43 feet southerly of the southerly right of way of Park Way
107.50 feet; thence northwesterly parallel to and 107.50 feet
westerly of the centerline of said alley, 120.43 feet 2: to a point
on the southerly right of way of said Park Way; thence
southwesterly along said southerly right of way 1080.00 feet 2: to
a point on the westerly right of way of Fourth Avenue; thence
6 15 J~
northwesterly along said westerly right of way 1069.00 feet ~ to
a point on the northerly right of way of "F" Street; thence
northeasterly along said northerly right of way 670.00 feet ~ to a
point on the westerly right of way of Garrett Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said westerly right of way, 1320.00 feet ~ to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ARTICLE IV - PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY)
Section 400
400.1
Section 410
410.1
410.2
General Summarv
In order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the
Agency proposes to undertake and implement the following actions:
A. Owner and Tenant Participation (Section 410)
B. Cooperation with Public Entities (Section 420)
C. Property Management (Section 430)
D. Relocation of Residents and Businesses (Section 440)
E. Demolition, Clearance, Public Improvements and Site
Preparation (Section 450)
F. Acquisition of Property (Section 460)
G. Property Disposition (Section 470)
Owner and Tenant Participation
Whenever possible, persons who are owners of real property in the
Project Area shall be given the opportunity, pursuant to the rules
promulgated by the Agency, to participate in redevelopment by the
retention of all or a portion of their property, or by the acquisition of
adjacent or other property from the Agency by purchase or
exchange. Such participation in each case is contingent upon the
execution by the owner of a binding agreement by which the
property retained or acquired will be developed in conformity with
the Plan and subject to the provisions thereof.
Owner participation will be subject to such factors as, but not
limited to, the condition of the improvements, the reduction in the
total number of parking spaces within the Project Area, the
elimination of certain land uses, the vacation of streets, the
7
c{j/3
410.3
Section 420
420.1
420.2
Section 430
430.1
Section 440
440.1
440.2
construction of new public improvements, and the ability of owners
to finance acquisition and development in accordance with the plan.
The Agency shall also extend reasonable preference to persons
who are engaged in business in the Project Area to re-enter into
business within the Project Area if they otherwise meet the
requirements prescribed by the Plan.
Cooperation with Public Entities
Certain public entities are authorized by State law to cooperate with
or without consideration in the planning and undertaking of the
construction or operation of this project. The Agency shall seek the
aid and cooperation of public bodies such as the Downtown
Parking District and shall attempt to coordinate this Plan with the
activities of such public bodies in order to accomplish the purposes
of redevelopment in the highest public good.
The Agency is authorized but not required to make payments in lieu
of property taxes to one or more taxing agencies. The Agency
recognizes that the power contained in Section 33670 of the
Redevelopment Law can affect the capacity of taxing agencies to
provide public services. Accordingly, the Agency will conduct
studies to determine possible means to minimize such impact upon
taxing agencies.
Property Manaqement
During such time as property in the Project Area is owned by the
Agency, said property shall be under the management and control
of the Agency. Subject property may be rented or leased by the
Agency pending its disposition for redevelopment.
Relocation of Residents and Businesses
Displaced residents shall be relocated by the Agency pursuant to
the relocation plan approved by the Agency. The relocation plan
may be amended by the Agency as necessary to accomplish the
purposes set forth in this Plan.
The Agency or its designated agent shall assist all who may be
displaced by project activities in finding other dwellings or business
locations. In order to carry out the project with a minimum of
hardship to persons displaced from their homes, individuals and
families shall be assisted in finding housing that is decent, safe,
8
c{j /1
440.3
Section 450
450.1
450.2
450.3
450.4
450.5
450.6
Section 460
460.1
and sanitary, within their financial means, reasonably convenient in
location and otherwise suitable to their needs.
The Agency shall make relocation payments to displaced persons
including families, business concerns and others for moving
expenses and other direct losses of personal property or any other
benefits as required by the California Uniform Relocation Law.
Demolition. Clearance. Public Improvements and Site Preparation
The Agency is authorized to clear buildings, structures, and other
improvements from any real property in the Project Area as
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Plan.
The Agency is authorized to cause, provide, undertake or to make
provisions with any person or public entity for the installation or
construction of such public improvements or public utilities, either
within or outside of the Project Area as are necessary to carry out
the Plan. Such public improvements include, but are not limited to,
streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, sewers, storm
drains, traffic signals, street trees, electrical distribution systems,
natural gas distribution systems, water distribution systems, fire
hydrants, parks, plazas, motor vehicle parking facilities,
landscaping and pedestrian malls.
The Agency is authorized to prepare or cause to be prepared as a
building site any real property owned by the Agency within the limits
of applicable law.
The Agency is authorized to rehabilitate any building or structure
owned by the Agency within the limits of applicable law.
The Agency is authorized to assist, through advice and
encouragement, the owners of real property within the Project Area
to conserve or rehabilitate their premises.
In accordance with City regulations, and as necessary in carrying
out the Plan, the Agency is authorized to move or cause to be
moved any structure or building to a location within or outside of the
Project Area.
Acquisition of Property
The Agency may acquire, but is not compelled to acquire, all real
property located within the Project Area. The Agency may acquire
9
4J'/S-
460.2
460.3
460.4
460.5
460.6
460.7
Section 470
470.1
real property by gift, device, exchange, purchase, eminent domain,
or any other lawful means.
In order to eliminate the conditions within the Project Area which
make redevelopment necessary, and in order to implement the
Redevelopment Plan, it is necessary, and in the public interest, for
the Agency to use its power of eminent domain to acquire real
property in the Project Area.
The Agency shall not acquire interest in oil, gas, or other mineral
substances within the Project Area except where necessary to
preclude drilling or excavation within the Project Area.
The Agency is not authorized to acquire publicly owned land in the
Project Area in the absence of the involved public agency's
consent. However, the Agency is authorized to acquire public
property if it becomes private property by deed, lease, or otherwise,
before the Agency completes land acquisition within the entire
Project Area.
The Agency is authorized to acquire any or all interests in real
property or structures, including but not limited to, fee titles, deeds
and easements.
The Agency may not acquire real property upon which an existing
building is located unless the Agency proposes to rehabilitate,
redevelop, or reorganize the real property in question, and the
property owner has not agreed to the execution of an official owner
participation agreement.
The Agency shall generally not acquire personal property.
However, where necessary in the implementation of the Plan, the
Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the project by
any lawful means except eminent domain.
Property Disposition
In order to provide adequate safeguards that the process of
redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the Plan, agreements
for the disposition of land by the Agency, including owner
participation agreements, shall include provisions recognizing and
requiring that:
A. The purchase of leasing of land is for redevelopment and not
for speculation and reserving to the Agency such powers
10 1f/~
and controls as may be necessary to prevent transfer,
retention or use of the property for speculation purposes.
B. The land shall be built upon and/or improved in conformity
with development standards of the Plan and any' declaration
of restrictions.
C. In order to insure that development and construction will be
carried out in a manner which will effectuate the purposes of
the Plan, all developers and owner participants shall submit
preliminary architectural plans, site and landscape plans,
and final plans including landscaping and sign plans and
specifications of the improvements proposed to be
constructed on the land for architectural approval by the
Agency. As a part of such plans and specifications,
developers, and if required by the Agency, owner
participants, shall submit time schedules for the
commencement and completion of such improvements. All
such plans and schedules shall be submitted within the time
specified in the respective agreements with such developers
and owner participants.
D. By and for the contracting parties, their heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns, there shall be no discrimination
against, or segregation of, any person or group of persons
on account of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry,
in the sale, lease, sub-lease, transfer, use, occupancy, or
enjoyment of the premises therein described, nor shall the
contracting parties. or any persons claiming under or through
them establish or permit any such practice or practices of
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection,
location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sub-
lessees, or vendees, on the premises described.
ARTICLE V - CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAN
Section 500
General Statement of Conformitv
500.1
This Plan shall conform to, and is a more detailed refinement of, a
portion of the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista, adopted by
the City Council on December 15, 1970, and comprehensively
updated on December 13, 2005, and any amendments or revisions
thereto.
500.2
This Plan is based upon, and carries out the Preliminary Plan,
heretofore adopted by the Planning Commission.
11-1.;/;/
ARTICLE VI - PERMITTED USES AND CONTROLS
Seotion 600
600.1
600.2
600.3
600.1
600.5
600.6
600.7
Plannina and Land Use Considerations
The Plan Diagram, Exhibit "8", graphioally depiots the projeoted
patterns of land uso and ciroulation within the.
/\11 of the are:::ts dosignated "oentr:::tI oommercial" on the pian Rlay
be used as a mixture of commeroial uses, including but not limited
to retail, office, hotel, service, entertainment, eduoational, and
awdliary uses. The Agency, upon special request, m:::ty allow
residential development in the "centr:::tl oommercial" area, provided
that the proposed residentiGl development is compatible with
surrounding aro:::ts, and m:::tnifosts adequate intern:::tl residenti:::tl
order :::tnd amenity.
/\11 of the :::trem: design:::tted "residential" on Exhibit "8" may include
residential I:::tnd uses and prof-ossional and administr:::ttive offioes.
The .^.gency shall encourage the development of a wide range of
housing types in the residential areas of the, :::tnd shall endeavor to
:::tohieve :::t mixturo of housing for all eoonomic segments of the City
of Chub Vista thorein.
The shall be regarded as the princip:::tl specific plan of the and
shall t:::tke precedenoe where it is in oonflict with other specifio
pl:::tns, regulationc and standards.
Streets, alleys, and other public rights of w:::ty m3Y be altered,
"3oated, narrowed, decked over, extended, or closed where such
aotion is essential to the orderly implementation and oxecution of
the plan. If the implementation of the plan requires 3ddition31
stroets, casements, er other rights of way, thoy may be acquired by
the /\gency or the City.
The /\gency may authorize the private use of air rights over public
rights of way. This uce may take the f-orm of buildings, platforms,
decks, or other struotures. Such air rights may also be used for
vehicular and/or pedestrian oiroulation, tr3nsit, public and priv3te
utilities, or other public improvementc.
The Agency ie authorized to permit the oetabliehment 3nd
expaneion of public or E1uasi publio uses and faoilities, suoh as but
not limited to parke, recreational facilities, libraries, sohools, and
oharitable institutions, within the.
12 {j /6"
Section e.w 600 General Controls and Limitations
600.1 This Plan shall conform to all other zonina and land use reaulations
as adopted bv the City Council.
600.2 All real property within the Proiect Area is subiect to the provisions.
controls. and reauirements of the Plan. No real propertY shall be
developed. redeveloped. rehabilitated. or otherwise chanaed after
the date of adoption of the Plan except where such development.
redevelopment. rehabilitation. or other substantial chanae conforms
with the provisions of the Plan., ::md the guidelinoE: embodied in tho
Dosign M:mual.
600.3 All new construction shall complv with all applicable State statutes
and locallv adopted Buildina. Electrical. Heatina and Ventilation.
Housina and Public Codes.
600.4 The Aaencv shall endeavor to substantiallv increase the area of
public and private open space within the Proiect Area. Open space
may take the form of parks. vest-pocket parks. plav areas. plazas.
fountains. enclosures. patios. and similar landscaped enclaves.
600:5 In areas where aporopriate. sufficient open soace between
buildinas and clusters of buildinas shall be maintained to provide
adeauate sunliaht. ventilation. privacy. fire safety. and aeneral
livabilitv.
600.6
600.7
600.8
600.9
600.10
All sians shall conform to the standards of the City's sian
ordinance., and tho guidolinoE: of tho DOE:ign Manual.
The Aaencv shall assure adeauate off-street parkina.
The Aaencv shall reauire all utilitv lines and structures to be placed
underaround. unless it determines that underaroundina with respect
to certain lines would not be economicallv or phvsicallv feasible.
No land use or structure which. bv reason of appearance. traffic.
smoke alare. noise. odor. or similar factors. would be incompatible
with the surroundina areas shall be permitted within the Proiect
Area.
Subseauent to redevelopment. rehabilitation. or development
pursuant to the Plan. no parcel in the Proiect Area includina any
parcel retained bv a conformina owner or participant. shall be
resubdivided without the prior approval of the Aaencv.
13 d)/J
610.10
The f,genoy is authorized to grant a variation from the limits,
restriotions, and oontrols ostabliElhed by the Plan. The f.gonoy must
make the f.ollowing findings in each and every case, as a
prerequisite to its granting of a permit for a variation.
,^.. The applioation of certain provisions of the plan would result
in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardshil3s which would
make development inconsistent with the general purpose
and intent of the plan; or,
B. There 3re exceptional oircumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or the proposed development
which do not apply generally to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions
and controls; 3nd,
C. The permitting of 3 v3ri3tion '.viII not be materially detrimental
to the public 'Nelbre or injurious to property or improvements
in the; and,
D. The permitting ef a variation will not contravene the oriterb
established in the Design Manu3!. In permitting 3 v3ri3tion,
the ,A,genc.,. Elhall impose such conditions aEl are neceElsary.
Section e++ 610 Environmental Review
610.1 Prior to the Agency's official consideration of a development
proposal, the application and all accompanying documents shall be
submitted for the applicable review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
Section 620 Desiqn M3nu31
620.1 The Agency, in cooperation with the Planning Commission, sh311
formulate, adopt, and m3ke generally available a Design Manual f-or
the Town Centre Redevelopment Project. The Design Manu31 shall
be the ,^.gency's offioial statement of its design guidelines for the
redevelopment, rehabilitation, conservation, and general
development of the Project f.rea.
620.2 The Design M3nual shall include developmental objectives and
design criteria, and shall address the following:
14 {jc:<O
620.3
Section 620
620.1
Section 610
610.1
.^.. Throe dimensional spatial relationships, and the orderly
arrangement of space Clnd land use in tho.
B. BloJilding GO'lerages; building setbacks, building bulk and
height; building intensity; and the siting of structures and
open space.
C. The preservation and promotion of the environment:J1 quality
of the and the urban Gore.
D. The development of Cl circulation system which promotes
effective oommunication and transportation throughout tho
:md tho urban core, and ostablishes :md maintains offectivo
linkagos betweon the and othor parts of tho Chula Vista
Planning Aroa, and othor urban conters of the South Bay.
E. Civic and environmontal design roquiromonts and featuros
which ostablish the character of the.
F. Landscapo criteria; fino arts critoria; streot, pl:3za onclosuro
and mall furnituro critoria.
Tho Design Manual m:3Y be Clmondod by tho .^.gency in order to
refine, update, or improvo tho Manu:3I's guidelines. Proposed
:3mendmonts to the Design M:3nual shall be roferred to tho PIClnning
Commission f-or its review. roport and recommendation.
Historical Preservation
Chula Vista's first City Hall is located at 294-296 Third Avenue and
should be considered for preservation.
Proceduros Manual
The ".gency, in cooperation with the City, shall formulate, adopt and
m:3ke available :3 Procedures Manual for the Chula Vista Town
Contre Redevolopment Project. The Manual shall set f-orth the
proceduros necossary f-or processing development proposals and
shall promulgate oxpedient review periods required f-or obtaining
approvals for the project dovelopment and/or major rohabilitation.
ARTICLE VII - METHODS FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT
Section 700
General Description of the Proposed Financino Methods
15 c{ J rd/
700.1
700.2
700.3
700.4
700.5
Section 710
710.1
The Agency is authorized to finance this project with financial
assistance from the City of Chula Vista, the State of California, the
Federal Government, property tax increments, interest income,
Agency funds, or any other available source.
Loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital for
nominal administration of this project are to be made by the City
until adequate tax increments or other funds are available, or
sufficiently assured, to repay the loans and to permit borrowing
adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The
City, as it is able, will also supply additional assistance through
loans and grants for various public facilities.
As approved by the City Council, gas tax funds from the State of
California and the County of San Diego will be used for the street
system. As available, Federal loans and grants will be used to
finance portions of project costs.
The Agency is authorized to issue bonds in amounts sufficient to
finance all or part of the project.
The Agency is authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds, and
create indebtedness in carrying out the Plan. The principal and
interest on such advances, funds, and indebtedness may be paid
from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency.
Tax Increments
All taxes levied upon taxable property within the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project Area each year by and for the benefit of the
State of California, the County of San Diego, the City of Chula
Vista, or any district or other public corporation hereinafter
sometimes referred to as taxing agencies, after the effective date of
the ordinance approving this Redevelopment Plan, shall be divided
as follows:
A. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the
rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of
said taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed
value of the taxable property in the redevelopment project as
shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the
taxation of such property by such taxing agency, last
equalized prior to the effective date of such ordinance shall
be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into the
funds of the respective taxing agencies as taxes by or for
said taxing agencies on all other property are paid (for the
16 oty;1~
710.2
purposes of allocating taxes levied by or for any taxing
agency or agencies which did not include the territory of the
project on the effective date of such ordinance but to which
such territory is annexed or otherwise included after such
effective date of such ordinance but to which such territory is
annexed or otherwise included after such effective date, the
assessment roll last equalized on the effective date of said
ordinance shall be used in determining the assessed value
of the taxable property in the project on said effective date);
and,
B. That portion of said levied taxes each year in excess of such
amount shall be allocated to and when collected shall be
paid into a special fund of the Agency to pay advancements
to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or
otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance in
whole or in part this redevelopment project. Unless or until
the total assessed value of the taxable property in the project
exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property in
the property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll
referred to in paragraph "A" hereof, all of the taxes levied
and collected upon the taxable property in the project shall
be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies.
When said bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if
any, and interest thereon, has been paid, all monies
thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in
the project shall be paid into the funds of the respective
taxing agencies as taxes on all other property are paid.
The portion of taxes mentioned in paragraph "B" above are hereby
irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal and interest on
the advance of monies or making of loans or the incurring of any
indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise)
by the Agency to finance or refinance the project in whole or in part.
The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to specific
advances, loans, and indebtedness as appropriate in carrying but
the project.
ARTICLE VIII - ACTIONS BY THE CITY
Section 800
Aid and Cooperation
17
c{J c23
800.1 The City shall aid and cooperate with the Agency in carrying out
this Plan and shall take any further action necessary to insure
continued fulfillment of the purposes of this Plan and to prevent the
reoccurrence or spread in the area of conditions causing blight.
Actions by the City may include but not be limited to the following:
A. Institution and completion of proceedings for opening,
closing, vacating, widening, or changing the grades of
streets, alleys and other public rights-of-way and for other
necessary modifications of the streets, the street layout and
other public rights-of-way in the Project Area. Such action in
the City may include the requirement of abandonment and
relocation by the public utility companies of their operations
in public rights-of-way as appropriate to carry out this Plan.
B. Institution and completion of proceedings necessary for
changes and improvements in publicly owned public utilities
within or affecting the Project Area.
C. The undertaking and completing of any other proceedings
necessary to carry out the project.
ARTICLE IX - ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN
Section 900
Responsibility
900.1
The administrative enforcement of the Plan or other documents
formulated pursuant to this Plan shall be performed by the City and
the Agency.
900.2
The provisions of this Plan or other documents formulated pursuant
to this Plan may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by
either the Agency or the City. Further, any documents recorded
expressly for the benefit of owners of property within the Project
Area may be enforced by such property owners in addition to the
City or the Agency.
ARTICLE X - DURATION OF THE PLAN
Section 1000
Effective Period
18 ~J c2f
1000.1
Except for the non-discrimination and non-seareaation ProvIsions
which shall run in oeroetuitv. the provisions of this Plan shall be
effective and the provisions of. other documents formulated
pursuant to this Plan mav be made effective for 25 vears from the
date of adoption of this Plan. as amended from time to time. bv the
Citv Council.
ARTICLE XI - AMENDMENT
Section 1100
11 00.1
Procedure
This Plan may be amended by the procedures established in the
California Community Redevelopment Law or any other procedure
hereinafter established by Law.
ARTICLE XII - NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ELEMENT
Section 1200
1200.1
Section 1210
1210.1
Investigation of the proposed Project Area boundaries for the Town
Centre Redevelopment Project reveals that the area contains
sectors which are considered to fall within the category of low and
moderate income housing. The impact of the proposed project
upon the residents of the Project Area as well as the surrounding
neighborhood is noted below, as required by Section 33333.5 of the
Health and Safety Code of the State of California.
Residential Analvsis
Of the total acreage of 138.54 acres, 17.10 percent, or 23.69 acres
are in residential use. The 23.69 .acres accommodate a total of
602 dwelling units and 189 structures. Additionally, the area
contains one boarding house and one residential hotel. Of the total
of 602 residential units located within the Project Area, 469. or
approximately 77%, are located in Subarea One, which contains
the historic Chula Vista townsite. Data contained in the 1975 Mid-
Decade Census for tracts 22/3; 23/1; 23/2; 25/1; and 26/3, indicates
that the area contains a proportionately higher incidence of elderly
households and households earning less than the median income
for the City in general. The age group 55+ makes up 16.7% of the
total City population, while the same age group accounts for
35.41 % of individuals residing in the above cited tracts. As a
corollary to this data, it appears that the income level of the Project
Area is somewhat lower than that of the City at large. It should be
noted that, while 41 % of the City-wide population has incomes in
19 o?J d..:j-
1210.
Section 1211
1211.1
Section 1220
1220.1
1220.2
Section 1230
excess of $10,000, only 19% of the study area population has
income in the same range. Therefore, it is assumed that the
Project Area contains residential development currently serving the
low and moderate income market.
Although the exact incidence of deteriorated and dilapidated
structures is not known, it is anticipated that some demolition in the
form of spot clearance will be necessary to implement the Plan.
Relocation
Implementation of the proposed project will require displacement of
some businesses, individuals and/or families. Such displacement
will be mitigated by the provisions for owner participation contained
in the Community Redevelopment Law. In those cases in which
owner participation agreements cannot be negotiated,
displacement and relocation will be handled in accordance with the
provisions of the California State Relocation Assistance Law and
other applicable statutes and guidelines. A detailed relocation
provision is contained in the Report to the City Council on the
Redevelopment Plan.
Traffic Circulation
The Redevelopment Plan provides for the ultimate implementation
of a circulation system which would improve the pedestrian/vehicle
movement and tend to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within
the central business district. The incorporation of a mini-transit
system (i.e. mini-bus, shuttle vehicles) to effectuate smooth intra-
project movement and methods for establishing smooth linkages
between the project facilities and local and regional facilities will be
addressed for possible utilization to accommodate project
movement and vehicular circulation.
Traffic volume within the project and associated areas is expected
to increase significantly as the project nears completion. However,
the total volume cannot be estimated until specific redevelopment
proposals become available. Additionally, increased traffic in the
central business district would further restrict pedestrian-vehicle
movement and create congestion at intersections. However, the
implementation of an effective circulation system and mini-transit
vehicles should relieve congestion and facilitate the flow of traffic in
the area.
Environmental Qualitv
20 0 d(/p
1230.1
The direct long and short-term impacts which may result from the
implementation of the Plan are:
A. No creation of any significant geologic related adverse
impacts;
B. Drainage impact is anticipated to be insignificant;
C. No adverse impact on ground water or water quality would
occur if the Plan were implemented at this time;
D. No adverse effect on mineral resources would result from
the Plan;
E. Due to the developed nature of the area, there are
anticipated to be no significant impacts on land form;
F. An increase in traffic on streets in and adjacent to the project
will occur if the project is implemented;
G. An increase in emissions produced by mobile sources will
result in the San Diego Air Basin and local areas due to
increased traffic generated as the project is implemented;
H. Noise generated by motor vehicles will increase in and
adjacent to the Project Area;
I. There will be an insignificant impact on biological resources;
J. There are likely to be no adverse impacts on paleontology!
archeology or historical resources;
K. The proposed i:lnd use policy '.viII result in no undesirable
impact;
K. There is no anticipated adverse impact on the aesthetic
quality of the area;
L. The area's social well being will be impacted insignificantly;
M. It is anticipated that there will be no adverse impact on the
community tax structure;
N. It is not anticipated that the Plan will create any further I
impact on the cultural factors in the area;
21
c:ly ~ 1
1230.2
Section 1240
1240.1
O. As a result of increased population density if the Plan is
implemented, in all probability there will be an increased
demand for police and fire protection as well as other
community services;
P. There will be an increase in the use of non-renewable
energy producing resources due to increased density in the
project.
In summary, the short-term effects of the proposed Plan, if
implemented, would include increased traffic and noise associated
with construction operations. The long term cumulative adverse
effects of the proposed action would include increased population
density, increased traffic and noise generated by the commercial
and residential development, commitment of existing vacant lands
to development and the use of non-renewable resources. Delaying
the proposed project would result in the further decline of Chula
Vista's Centre City. the implementation of the Plan would provide
the overall enhancement of the Project Area and the renewed
productivity of the Chula Vista business district while encouraging
the revitalization of the urban core and discouraging encroachment
into currently undeveloped areas.
Availabilitv of Communitv Facilities and Services
The impact of the project upon the residents of the area and
surrounding neighborhoods as it relates to the availability of
community facilities and services is addressed below in accordance
with the Community Redevelopment Law.
A. The Plan, if implemented, will in all probability result in an
increase in the mean income in the study area as a result of
the rehabilitation and revitalization of the residential fabric.
The project would provide temporary employment
opportunities during new construction and long term
employment opportunities could result from upgrading and
expanding commercial activities in the area.
The implementation of the Plan could cause the
displacement of persons or establishments occupying
blighted and/or incompatible buildings. If this is the case,
relocation assistance will be provided by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista. Additionally, owner
participation agreements will be utilized where feasible to
encourage participation by property owners while lessening
the need for acquisition and relocation. Further, preference
22
o?J~f'
for re-entry will be extended to all displaces as a result of
any redevelopment activity undertaken in the Project Area.
B. The Project Area currently encompasses three elementary
school attendance boundaries: Vista Sql,Jare, Rosebank,
and Hilltop Elementary Schools. The site is also within the
boundaries of the Chula Vista Junior and Senior High
Schools.
According to the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater
High School Districts, all three elementary schools, plus the
junior high school have exceeded capacity. Chula Vista
High School has an excess of 291 available spaces. A
breakdown of capacities and enrollments by school follows:
1. Hilltop Elementary School has a capacity of 472
students and a current enrollment of 473, indicating a
deficit of one space.
2. Rosebank Elementary School has a capacity of 488
students and a current enrollment of 490, yielding a
two-space deficit.
3. Vista Square Elementary School has a capacity of
432 students and a current enrollment of 501,
indicating a deficit of 69 spaces.
The elementary schools currently have a capacity of 1,392
students, and as of December 1975, 1,464 enrollment,
yielding a deficit of 72 spaces.
The junior high school; i.e. Chula Vista Junior High School,
has a capacity of 1,200 students and a current enrollment of
1,297, indicating a deficit of 97 students. The senior high
school, Chula Vista High School, has a capacity of 1,624
students, with a current enrollment of 1,333, indicating an
excess capacity of 291 spaces.
Due to the fact that plans are currently not detailed enough
to project changes in attendance as a result of the Plan, it
can only be anticipated that increases in density may result
in increased school enrollment. The Agency will cooperate
with the affected school district in an effort to mitigate the
impact of such increased enrollment.
23 cfJ 0(/
The project is located within the City Park Service District
NO.3 and contains 8.6 acres of park land. This acreage is
below the 22.4 acres required to meet City standards. The
following chart illustrates the acreages, location, and
facilities available at the two existing parks in the study area:
Name
Acreaqe Improvements
Memorial Park 7.1
Third Avenue &
Park Way
Gymnasium, Swimming Pool,
Recreation Hall, Memorial
Bowl, Tot Lot, Picnic
Facilities, Shuffleboard
Courts
Norman Park 1.5
Center, Del Mar &
"F" Street
Senior Citizen Center, Picnic
Facilities, Shuffleboard
Courts, Horseshoe Pits
The residential portion of the Plan will, in all probability,
result in a greater need for additional park lands in the area
due to increased densities.
As a part of the overall Plan and the implementation of the
redevelopment process, new park lands, open spaces, and
recreational opportunities will be required of developers
and/or constructed by the Agency to ensure adequate
facilities for the enjoyment of the residents of the Project
Area and the City in general.
C. Due to the age and deterioration of the older section of the
commercial district on Third Avenue, a safety hazard exists.
Several structures in the Project Area have been declared
unsafe and condemned by the City's Building and Housing
Department.
Fire and Police protection are provided by the City of Chula
Vista. The nearest stations are located at the Civic Center on
Fourth Avenue, one block west of the project site.
Solid waste disposal service for the Project Area is provided
by the Chula Vista Sanitary Service, via an agreement with
the City of Chula Vista.
It is anticipated that there will be no significant impacts as a
result of the implementation of the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project Plan. In fact, the removal and
restoration of deteriorated structures will provide a safe
24
dy3)
Section 1250
1250.1
environment within and surrounding the buildings. Fire and.
Police protection and the solid waste disposal services
should have the capacity to service the study area following
implementation of the Plan.
Finally, it is anticipated that there will be no significant
adverse impacts concerning health and safety within the
Project Area upon the completion of the project.
D. Gas, electricity, water and sewer service are currently
provided within the Project Area. Current analysis indicates
that the project will not place an undue burden upon the
suppliers of these services to meet demands upon
completion of the project. However, an evaluation of
additional service required for new development will be
provided in specific E.I.R.'s developed as the project is
implemented.
Property Assessments and Taxes
All property within the Project Area will continue to be assessed at
the current State-mandated level. The redevelopment of the
Project Area should cause the assessed value of properties within
the Project Area to increase. This increase would result in the
availability of increased tax revenues for the provision of community
services. The increased availability of revenue could, in turn, make
possible a lowering of tax rates.
25 JJ 3/
.
..
CORPORATION
CHULi\ VIST/\
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. 0-
DATE:
April 26, 2007
TO:
CVRC Board Directors
VIA:
~
Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager 1/ /',
Ann Hix, Acting Director of Community Development (l!){:,/ A.tR
FROM:
Eric Crockett, Redevelopment Manager (J)
~
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Amendments to Exclusive Negotiating Agreements for Four
Sites within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area
Project Area: Town Centre I
Agreement: Exclusive Negotiating Agreements
Developers: Public, Douglas Wilson Companies, Avion Development &
Intergulf-Mar Group
Project Sites: Multiple
Project Types: Mixed-use
Project Descriptions: To Be Determined
BACKGROUND:
On July 26, 2005, the Agency adopted five Exclusive Negotiating Agreements ("ENAs"), focusing on
key catalyst projects along the Third Avenue corridor within the Town Centre I redevelopment project
area.
On May 11, 2006, the CVRC amended two of the original ENAs, extending the duration of those
agreements, in accordance with the revised schedule for adopting the UCSP. Additionally, on May 11,
three new ENAs were adopted (one of which replaced the orginal ENA with Douglas Wilson due to a
change in development sites).
On August 10, 2006, the CVRC amended the remaining two original ENAs, extending the duration of
those agreements, as well.
On March 5, 2007, with the UCSP scheduled for hearing but not yet adopted, gO-day written,
administrative extensions ("Extended Negotiation Periods") were proposed and approved, in
accordance with Section 2B, for six of the seven ENAs. (The seventh ENA, with Intergulf/Lennar, is not
due to expire until November 2007.) The gO-day extensions activated the Extended Negotiation Period
for the six ENAs.
3-/
Staff Report - Item No--3
Page 2
Currently, four of the seven agreements are due to expire on June 5, 2007. Provided the UCSP is
adopted on April 26, 2007, redevelopment staff wishes to pursue amendments to these four ENAs,
extending their duration once again.
The ENAs proposed for amendment are as follows:
Developer Site Action
Avion Third Avenue and E Street Southeast Second Amendment
Intergulf/Mar Group Third Avenue and G Street Northwest Second Amendment
Douglas Wilson Davidson and Church Avenue West First Amendment
Public Madrona and Church Avenue Northwest First Amendment
The following staff report provides information about the proposed amendments to the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreements.
RECOMMEN DA liON:
Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation adopt resolutions approving and
authorizing the Chair .to:
a) Execute Amendments to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreements with four developers for
properties located within the Town Centre I redevelopment project area.
DISCUSSION:
Amendments to Exclusive Negotiating Agreements
It is the strategic objective of the Redevelopment Agency, per the five-year implementation plan, that all
new development within the City's redevelopment project areas be guided by adopted City policy
documents. Policy documents, like the Urban Core Specific Plan and Bayfront Master Plan, provide the
framework for successful redevelopment to occur. Each of the ENA Developers continue to
demonstrate their commitment to partner with the CVRC and to develop projects that meet the
objectives and fulfill the vision set by the public and by City leaders.
To that end, the ENA developers have moved forward in good faith with the initial predevelopment
process on their respective sites. They each received a Preliminary Title Report, in accordance with the
ENA Timeline and have begun the due diligence process required for property acquisition.
Additionally, two of the developers have submitted preliminary sketches and presented draft plans to
the Redevelopment Advisory Committee ("RAC') for public review and comment.
Staff recommends amending the existing timeframe in the agreements. These amendments are
summarized as follows:
. Changes to the negotiation period of the Agreements in Section 2A
3-OZ
Staff Report -Item No.d
Page 3
. Changes to the flexibility of the Schedule in Section 3A
. Changes to the Timeline for each ENA in Exhibit B
Negotiation Period
Section 2A, entitled, "Negotiation Period," of each ENA will be changed to reflect a new Initial
Negotiation Period of 300 days, commencing on the effective date of the amendment Uune 5,
2007). This will extend the duration of each agreement to allow for completion of the
entitlement process for the respective project.
Schedule
Section 3A will be changed to give the Executive Director flexibility to adjust the schedule
within the timeline as needed, without coming back to the CVRC for approval. Minor
adjustments to the milestones in the timeline may be made administratively, saving time and
money.
Timeline
In addition to the overall timeframe set by the Initial and Extended (if necessary) Negotiation
Periods, the timeline sets milestones to mark each project's progress. The timelines have been
modified to reflect the updated planning and review process. For example, the timeline now
assumes the adoption of the UCSP, so the milestones are no longer tied to that event. Also, the
RAC review is now the formal public review process, so the timelines have been updated to
reflect that change.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map of ENA Sites
B. May 11, 2006, Staff Report
PREPARED BY:
Janice Kluth, AICP, Senior Community Development Specialist
3-j
ATTACHMENT A
o 0.025
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Miles
I. 3rd & E Northeast Corner / CityMark Development
2. 3rd & E Southeast Corner / Avion Development
3. Church & Davidson West / Douglas Wilson
4. Landis South / CityMarl< Development
5. Church & Madrona Northwest / Public
6. 3rd & G Northwest / Intergulf-Mar [Park) Group
7. E StreetTransit Villa e / Lennar-Inter ulf
~
II
Merged Sayfront / Town Centre I
Project Area
Merged Chula Vista
Project Area
..3-4'
ATTACHMENT B
..
..
R DFVFLOPtviE
CORPORATION
CHULA VISTA
CVRC Board
Staff Report - Page 1
Item No. 2
DATE:
May 11, 2006
TO:
CVRC Board Directors
FROM:
Dana M. Smith, Secretary
VIA:
David D. Rowlands, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Exclusive Negotiating Agreements for Three Sites and
Amendments to Exclusive Negotiating Agreements for Four Sites within the
Merged and Town Centre I Redevelopment Areas
Project Areas: Merged and Town Centre I
Agreement: Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs)
Developers: New: Public, Intergulf/Lennar & Douglas Wilson Companies
Amended: CityMark, Avion Development & Intergulf/Mar Group
Project Sites: Multiple
Project Types: Mixed-use Residential
Project Descriptions: To Be Determined
BACKGROUND:
On July 26, 2005, the Agency adopted five Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs) focusing on
key catalyst projects along the Third Avenue corridor. These projects are within the Urban Core
Specific Plan ("UCSP") area. The UCSP is intended to implement the policy direction of the
recently adopted General Plan Update ("GPU") and is a key policy document that will, if adopted,
set the development parameters and guidelines in this area of the City. The draft document is
currently available for public review. It is the goal of redevelopment staff to ensure that all new
development is guided by the City's adopted policy documents. As the foundational planning
documents, the adoption of the GPU and UCSP are critical to the timely development of new
projects. Therefore, staff is proposing that an amendment be approved for four of the original five
ENAs to align the ENA Timeline (Attachment B) with the proposed date of adoption for the UCSP.
In addition, the Community Development Department has been looking at new opportunities for
development within the redevelopment project areas and has developed relationships with several
..-
j.-6
Staff Report - Item No.2
Page 2
developers. Three new ENAs are being presented. Each is structured to operate in conjunction
with the UCSP and is proposed for the following developers and their respective sites:
1. Lennar/lntergulf E Street Transit Village
2. Public Church and Madrona Northwest
3. Douglas Wilson Companies Davidson and Church West
As previously discussed, staff is also proposing that four ENAs be amended to extend the
negotiation period and update the ENA Timeline. Amendments are proposed for the following
three developers for four sites:
1.
CityMark Development
Landis Avenue South
2.
CityMark Development
Third Avenue & E Street Northeast
3.
Avion Development
Third Avenue & E Street Southeast
4.
Intergulf and Mar Group
Third Avenue & G Northwest
The following staff report provides information about the established developer qualification
process, a description of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreements, and introductions to the proposed
development teams.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation adopt resolutions approving
and authorizing the Chair to:
a) Execute Exclusive Negotiating Agreements with three qualified developers for three
properties located within the Town Centre I and Merged redevelopment project areas
of the City of Chula Vista; and
b) Execute a First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for three pre-
qualified developers for four properties located within the Town Centre I and Merged
redevelopment project areas.
DISCUSSION:
Exclusive Negotiating Agreements
Purpose
The established ENA process does not seek development projects; rather it seeks to match highly
reputable developers with the proposed sites. This policy was established because staff believes
that by reviewing and selecting developers who are committed to working cooperatively with the
3-4,
Staff Report - Item No.2
Page 3
Agency and the community, the end result will be a development that better meets the goals of the
City, Agency and community. It also allows the CVRC the ability to select a qualified company
with a proven track record versus a particular project.
An Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (UENAs") is a roadmap for the evolution of a redevelopment
project. ENAs establish a predictable and agreed upon process, timeline, and parameters for
developers and the staff to cooperatively design and process redevelopment proposals that meet
the goals and objectives of both parties. For the CVRC, the ENA process strategically evolves a
proposal from initial concept to a defined project that is consistent with relevant and applicable
plans and policies (e.g., UCSP, redevelopment plans), aligned with community character, and
designed to meet the City's strategic and economic goals for public amenities and community
revital ization.
The purposes of the ENA are summed up into following four main objectives:
D Formalize a cooperative relationship with the Developer;
D Define the roles and responsibilities of the Developer and CVRGAgency;
D Determine the process for development, including a timeline for:
o Predevelopment activities such as design, financials, market study, etc.
o Public input and participation; and
D Provide the timeframe and actions necessary to prepare for consideration by the decision
makers a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) or Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) if required.
In addition to the objectives listed above, ENAs provide a transparent and cooperative process for
the public, CVRC, Developer, and staff to work within. The ENA is one of the tools available to a
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation which, when structured properly, provides clarity of
purpose and process that is accessible to all parties, and the public. The ENA process therefore
also provides an early, logical, and effective vehicle for public input and participation.
Public Input & Participation
In conjunction with the Agency/Council's May 24, 2005 approval of the CVRC, the
Agency/Council adopted as formal policy statements three guiding principles for public
participation:
D Public input and participation should occur early and often.
D Public input and participation should be open, inclusive, and accessible.
D Public input and participation should be educational and informative.
In order to facilitate the early integration of public dialogue consistent with the Council/Agency's
adopted policies, the ENA timeline requires two important public meetings as opportunities for
public input and participation. It is anticipated that a community workshop will be scheduled for
the CVRC to discuss public participation in June 2006.
-3-1
Staff Report - Item No.2
Page 4
Structure
As crafted, the ENA generally describes the proposed development site, establishes a timeline for
milestones and public participation, defines the negotiation period, and establishes a deposit
amount.
An important component of the ENA is the timeline, which is an attachment to the ENA. This
document provides clear completion dates for various necessary predevelopment tasks. Two main
objectives that this timeline facilitates are:
1. The delineation of the required predevelopment tasks, such as completion of the
market study, site plans and elevations, financing and development analysis, etc.
2. The establishment of opportunities and vehicles for public input and participation early
within the pre-design phases of the project.
Developer Qualification and Criteria
There are many types of developers - each with their own expertise, experience, and financial
capacity. The Agency is interested in finding qualified developers who understand Chula Vista's
interests, history, and vision for the future, developers who have a depth of experience in building
and designing all types of development in an urban market.
In selecting developers for the proposed development sites, the prospective developers were
required to demonstrate that they had the experience and resources needed to design and develop
projects that were appropriate for the site, based upon the UCSP proposed land use and zoning
parameters. Previous direct involvement with projects of exceptional design, financial capacity
and access to financing was also considered critical in evaluating developer qualifications and
experience. The main criteria considered when reviewing a developer's qualifications were:
Q Corporate Profi Ie
Q Development experience with references
Q Types of projects completed or underway
Q Financial capacity
Q Development team and bios
Q Ability and willingness to partner with the City
Qualification Process
Staff has pre-qualified each of the developers in this report based on the qualification criteria
described above and matched the developer's qualifications to the respective development site.
Each site is unique in size, location, and constraints. The means by which each developer's
qualifications were introduced to staff also varied - some were submitted through a Request for
Qual ifications (RFQ) issued by the Agency for Agency-owned properties, and others through
Statements of Interest independently submitted by the developers. Although each proposal was
introduced in a different manner, the qualifications for each developer was reviewed and evaluated
in the same manner, consistent with the qualification criteria. All three of the sites (the E Street
3-g
Staff Report - Item No.2
Page 5
Village, Davidson and Church West and Church and Madrona Northwest) involve Agency-owned
properties.
E Street Village
On April 1, 2005, the Community Development Department publicly issued and circulated a
Request For Qualifications for the City-owned Public Works Yard as part of the larger E Street
Transit Village. Proposals and statements of qualifications were received from multiple well-
qualified developers possessing intimate knowledge and experience in urban residential and
mixed-use developments. To assist in the selection process, Redevelopment staff formed an eight-
person selection committee, consisting of staff within various City departments. In addition to
developer history, experience, and financial capabilities, a key criteria and focus of the review
committee was the level of commitment of the development teams to creating positive partnerships
and working relationships with CVRC staff, the local community, and other development teams
working with the CVRe. Of the eight applicants, the selection committee unanimously ranked the
top three in the following order: 1) Lennar/ntergulf 2) Douglas Wilson Companies and 3) Langford
and Associates. Based upon their qualifications and experience, Lennar/lntergulf is being
recommended as the developer for the E Street Transit Village.
Church and Madrona Northwest
Public, a planning, engineering and development firm independently submitted a Statement of
Interest for the Church and Madrona Northwest site. Public has designed and developed
numerous buildings, including the Dutra Brown Building, a four-unit rental apartment building in
the Little Italy district, Laurel Court, a twenty-unit modern residential project in West Hollywood,
and the Lee Residence, a single-family home in La Jolla. In addition, Public has received numerous
state and national awards. Based upon their qualifications and experience staff supports their
proposal.
Davidson and Church West
The Agency and Douglas Wilson Companies originally entered into an ENA in July 2005 for the
Landis Avenue Northeast site. The Developer has since determined that the two Agency-owned
parking lots on either side of the intersection of Davidson Street and Church Street are more
compatible with their development concept. Therefore, staff is recommending Douglas Wilson
Com pan ies for the site.
Qualified Developers and Proposal Sites
The following are brief overviews of each of the Developers and their proposed development sites
that are being considered for execution or amendment of an ENA. For a complete Developer
biography and more information regarding the proposed development site, please refer to the
Attachments as described below.
New ENAs
LENNAR_
(~ t ,~~ "i? h
Lennar Homes of California, Inc. and Intergulf Development Group
are experienced developers of mixed-use urban infill projects, including
3-9
Staff Report - Item No.2
Page 6
intergtdf
IJEYEl.OPMENT GROll'
collaborative projects such as Alicante, la Vita, and Breeza. Intergulf
and lennar are interested in the site known as the E Street Transit
Village, which include 257,860 square feet in area. This site is publicly
owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The conceptual development
includes other parcels under private ownership. See Attachment C.
Publi
Public is architecture and planning based development firm based in San
Diego. They are experienced in retail and residential projects including
Cafe on Park, Dutra Brown Building, laurel Court and the South Bark Dog
Wash. The site, known as Church and Madrona Northwest, is an
approximate 8,794 square foot site situated on two parcels located on the
Northwest corner of Church Street and Madrona Street. These sites are
publicly owned by the Redevelopment Agency, and their current uses are
as metered parking lots. See Attachment D.
.
Douglas Wilson Companies
Douglas Wilson Companies is an experienced developer of mixed-use
urban infill projects in the San Diego area, including Parkloft, The Mark,
and Symphony Towers. The site, known as Church and Davidson West, is
of approximately 25,538 square feet of three separate parcels located on
the northwest and southwest corners of Church Street and Davidson
Street. The sites are publicly owned by the Redevelopment Agency, and
their current uses are as metered parking lots. See Attachment E.
Amendments to ENAs
iiJ
CITYMADK
. ..
_ m
CityMark is an urban residential and mixed-use development company
based in San Diego and founded in 2000. CityMark primarily develops
low-rise and mid-rise residential projects, including condominiums and
mixed-use developments incorporating retail and office space. CityMark
is interested in developing the Landis Avenue South site, which
encompasses approximately 46,352 square feet in area. The site is
currently owned by the Redevelopment Agency, and its current use is a
metered parking lot. See Attachment F.
AUSTIN
V E U M
ROBBINS
PARTNERS
Avion Development is an experienced developer of mixed-use urban infill
projects in the San Diego area, including One library Circle, Santa Fe 6, 17th
& G, Smart Corner (Park Blvd. & Broadway), and 15th & Market. Avion, is
interested in developing the site known as Third Avenue and E Street
Southeast. The subject property is located at 201 Third Avenue and totals
..3-/0
Staff Report - Item No.2
Page 7
approximately 11,454 square feet in area. This site is publicly owned by the Redevelopment
Agency and is currently vacant. See Attachment G.
intergulcf
~f:<r
Intergulf Mar (Park) He are experienced developers of mixed-use
urban infill projects, including Trio @ Kettner, Alicante, La Vita,
Palazzo, as well as numerous others. Intergulf and Mar Group are
interested in the site known as Third Avenue and G Street Northwest,
which total 41,097 square feet in area. This site is owned by the
Developers and is the site of the former Social Security Building. See
Attachment H.
DEYELOPMENT GlatJfI
t r, v f : 0 ~ M F 0' i-
Each of the Developers is well qualified and has demonstrated his desire and commitment to
partner with the City and CVRC, to develop a project that meets the objectives and guidelines as
will be set forth by the UCSP, and to work cooperatively with the public in the design of the
project.
CONCLUSION
Since the approval of the original five ENAs, the economy and market have begun to shift, which
has been reflected in rising interest rates, increased construction costs and the slowing in the
absorption of new units. Due to the financial complexity of urban infill projects, a change in any
of these variables has an especially drastic impact on redevelopment and this City's revitalization
activities on the Westside. As these factors continue to shift, the opportunities for timely
redevelopment will continue to diminish. It is therefore important that the CVRC expeditiously
capture and take advantage of the current economic and market conditions through the effective
planning of such efforts as the Urban Core Specific Plan and the timely implementation of strategic
redevelopment tools through the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map of Proposal Sites
B1. ENA Timeline
C. Lennar/lntergulf Profile for E Street Transit Village
D. Public Profile for Church and Madrona Northwest
E. Douglas Wilson Companies Profile for Church and Davidson West
F. CityMark Development LLC Profile for Landis Avenue South
G. CityMark Development LLC Profile for Third Avenue & E Street Northeast
H. Avian Development Profile for Third Avenue and E Street Southeast
I. Intergulf Mar (Park) LLC Profile for Third Avenue and G Street Northwest
PREPARED BY:
Diem Do, Senior Community Development Specialist
3-11
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH A VION DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE THIRD AVENUE AND E STREET SOUTHEAST SITE
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
("CVRC") to promote economic vitality, create market confidence, encourage environmental health and
remediation, create public benefits and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency and Avion Development LLC
("Developer") entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA"); and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, Section 2A of the ENA was amended by the CVRC to extend the
initial negotiation period ("Initial Negotiation Period") of the ENA to March 7,2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 26 of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his or her sole discretion,
to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a gO-day written, administrative extension ("Extended Negotiation
Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer, establishing an Extended
Negotiation Period from March 7, 2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a mixed-use project known as Third Avenue and E
Street Southeast in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of one parcel located along
the eastern side of Third Avenue at E Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 568-071-01) and totaling
approximately 11,454 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the design
development of the mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into a Second Amendment to the
ENA with Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Second Amendment to the ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CVRC does hereby approve the Second Amendment
to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Avion Development LLC for potential development of a real
estate project located at Third Avenue and E Street Southeast and authorizes the Chair to execute said
Amendment.
~ a....- - I
Page 2
eVRe Resolution No.
PRESENTED BY
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Ann Hix
Acting Director of Community Development
Ann Moore
General Counsel
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, in
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Cheryl Cox
Chairman
ATTEST:
Ann Hix
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Ann Hix, Secretary to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted
by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation held on the 26th day of April, 2007.
Dated: April 26, 2007
Ann Hix
Secretary
,3 [L -~
AVION
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
Avian Development lle
This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT ("Second
Amendment") is entered into as of April 26, 2007 ("Date of Second Amendment") by and between
the CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit
corporation ("CVRC"), on behalf of and for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, a public body
corporate and politic ("RDN'), and AVION DEVELOPMENT LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company ("Developer").
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the CVRC to promote economic vitality,
create market confidence, encourage environmental health and remediation, create public benefits
and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of residential,
commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency and the Developer entered into
an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA"); and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, Section 2A of the ENA was amended by the CVRC to extend
the initial negotiation period ("Initial Negotiation Period") of the ENA to March 7,2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 2B of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his or her sole
discretion, to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a gO-day written, administrative extension ("Extended
Negotiation Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer,
establishing an Extended Negotiation Period from March 7,2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a mixed-use project known as Third Avenue
and E Street Southeast in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of one parcel
located along the eastern side of Third Avenue at E Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 568-071-01)
and totaling approximately 11,454 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the
design development of the mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into a Second Amendment
to the ENA with Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Second Amendment to the ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the parties
herein, the CVRC and Developer agree as follows:
1. Section 2 of the ENA, entitled Negotiation Period, is hereby amended as follows:
.:3 GC- .3
AVION
2.A. Agency and Developer agree to negotiate for an initial period of 300 days
unless terminated earlier. Said 300 days shall commence on the Date of this
Second Amendment.
2. Section 3.A. of the ENA, entitled Schedule, is hereby amended as follows:
Agency and Developer agree and acknowledge that all submittals required by
this Agreement shall be submitted pursuant to the timeline attached hereto as
Exhibit uB." Exhibit B may be amended administratively by the Executive
Director as needed and with the concurrence of the Developer, provided the
timeline does not exceed the Initial Negotiation or Extended Negotiation (if
applicable) Periods.
3. Exhibit UB" of the ENA shall be substituted with the Revised Exhibit B as attached
hereto.
4. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the ENA shall remain in
fu II force and effect.
[NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE]
5~-t.J
AVION
Signature Page
To Second Amendment To
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement as of the date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of
the principals.
CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
AVION DEVELOPMENT LLC
By:
By:
Cheryl Cox
Chair
Douglas Austin
Chairman/CEO
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ann Moore
General Counsel
Date:
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
-:3 t:L -6
AVION
REVISED EXHIBIT "B"
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Revised Timeline
MilESTONE DESCRIPTION
Within 90 Days of Second ENA Amendment
Pre-submittal staff meeting Submit preliminary design for staff review (including but not limited to site plans
and elevations)
RAC Meeting #1 Redevelopment Advisory Committee ("RAC") review to gather input from the
public and stakeholders on the preliminary design for the subject Property. .
Within 60 Days of RAC Meeting #1
Initial Pro Forma Submit initial pro forma for the proposed development.
Project Development Submit projected construction schedule for the proposed development.
Schedule
Due Diligence Provide written determination of property's physical suitability for development,
taking into account relevant regulatory and environmental conditions.
Project Submittal at Submit site plans and elevations based on pre-design review with staff and public
Design Development input received at RAC Meeting #1. Submit all relevant applications and fees.
Phase
Within 160 Days of Second ENA Amendment
1st Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
RAC Meeting #2 Present revised development plans to the RAC, respondi ng to previous comments
from the RAC and staff.
Within 60 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Revised Site Plans and Submit revised site plans and elevations.
Elevations
2nd Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
Revised Proforma and Submit refined proforma and development schedule based on revised site plans
Development Schedule and elevations.
Market Study Submit a market study containing a forecast of regional and local real estate
market conditions and anticipated performance of proposed product types.
Development Partners Submit letter identifying investment partners.
and Structure
Funding Partners and Submit letter identifying lenders and proof of ability to obtain financing.
Structure
CVRC Preview Present revised site plans and elevations to the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation ("eVRC"), responding to previous comments from the RAC and staff,
and providing a preliminary overview of proforma, construction schedule and
market study.
Within 100 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Draft DDA Complete negotiations and draft Disposition and Development Agreement.
Final Revisions Finalize revisions to development proposal and all relevant materials, based on
CVRC comments.
,3CL- G
AVION
MILESTONE DESCRIPTION
CYRC Hearing Present development proposal and DDNOPA for review and consideration.
CYRC adopts advisory recommendations for Agency and/or Council
consideration.
Within 30 Days of CYRC Hearing
Redevelopment Agency / Present development proposal and DDNOPA to Agency and/or Council for final
City Council Hearing review and approval.
dt01
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
Interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
DDLJ6t..AS It. AvSTIN
A;tY\1.-- IY\A'NA-[Qi:.l11E;/\\T Uf.
A'I10N D~YE..LOPl'l1ENT (..Uv
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
!::rl\)(PUtS 1-\. AvSTlr-l
Cb \ZeEoN Teu...lJJ R1<cl1 TAl!'" TI N
qt~IS Tof'l+tr< T. 'IE-11M
!<..AtoIb\j :::'. R.of>I!:~>iroI'
3. If any person' Identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or 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.
tVPr
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or Independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
lSO\lAteCO St\. '/IID\..-~N D
P M>LO Q,o L..L.\ toI
5. Has any person' associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official" of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No v'"
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract.
NIle--
6.
Have you made a contribution otmore than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? No ~Yes _If yes, which Council member?
N/t+
JtfL2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, ioan, etc.)
Yes No V
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
r-J/k
Date: 4.1e, .01
"
Vwet.
Print or type name of Contractor! Applicant
.
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
..
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation member,
Planning Commissioner, member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
September 8, 2006
3LL9
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH INTERGULF-MAR (PARK) LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF THE THIRD AVENUE AND G STREET NORTHWEST SITE.
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
("CVRC") to promote economic vitality, create market confidence, encourage environmental health and
remediation, create public benefits and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency and the Developer entered into an
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA"); and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, Section 2A of the ENA was amended by the CVRC to extend the
initial negotiation period ("Initial Negotiation Period") of the ENA to March 7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 2B of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his or her sole discretion,
to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a 90-day written administrative extension ("Extended Negotiation
Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer, establishing an Extended
Negotiation Period from March 7,2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a mixed-use project, known as Third Avenue and G
Street Northwest in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of two parcels located
along the western side of Third Avenue, between G Street and Park Way (Assessor's Parcel Number 568-
300-46 and 568-300-15) and totaling approximately 41,097 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the design
development of a mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into a Second Amendment to the
ENA with Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Second Amendment to the ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CVRC does hereby approve the Second Amendment
to the ENA with the Developer for potential development of a real estate project located at Third Avenue
and G Street Northwest and authorizes the Chair to execute said Amendment.
,3 b /
Poge 2
CVRC Resolution No.
PRESENTED BY
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Ann Hix
Acting Director of Community Development
Ann Moore
General Counsel
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, in
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Cheryl Cox
Chairman
ATTEST:
Ann Hix
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Ann Hix, Secretary to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoi ng CVRC Resol ution No. was du Iy passed, approved, and adopted
by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation held on the 26th day of April, 2007.
Dated: April 26, 2007
Ann Hix
Secretary
.:3 b 6Z
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
Intergulf-Mar (Park) LLC
This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT ("Second
Amendment") is entered into as of April 26, 2007 ("Date of Second Amendment") by and between
the CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit
corporation ("CVRC'), on behalf of and for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, a public body
corporate and politic ("RDA"), and INTERGULF-MAR (PARK) LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company ("Developer").
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the CVRC to promote economic vitality,
create market confidence, encourage environmental health and remediation, create public benefits
and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of residential,
commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 200S, the Redevelopment Agency and the Developer entered into
an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENNl; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, Section 2A of the ENA was amended by the CVRC to extend
the initial negotiation period ("Initial Negotiation Period") of the ENA to March 7,2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 28 of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his or her sole
discretion, to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a 90-day written, administrative extension ("Extended
Negotiation Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer,
establishing an Extended Negotiation Period from March 7, 2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a mixed-use project known as Third Avenue
and G Street Northwest in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of two
parcels located along the western side of Third Avenue, between G 'Street and Park Way
(Assessor's Parcel Number 568-300-46-00 and 568-300-15-00) and totaling approximately 41,097
sq uare feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the
design development of a mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into a Second Amendment
to the ENA with Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Second Amendment to the ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQN) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the parties
herein, the CVRC and Developer agree as follows:
1. Section 2 of the ENA, entitled Negotiation Period, is hereby amended as follows:
3b,3
2.A. Agency and Developer agree to negotiate for an initial period of 300 days
unless terminated earlier. Said 300 days shall commence on the Date of the
Second Amendment.
2. Section 3.A. of the ENA, entitled Schedule, is hereby amended as follows:
Agency and Developer agree and acknowledge that all submittals required by
this Agreement shall be submitted pursuant to the time line attached hereto as
Exhibit "8. H Exhibit 8 may be amended administratively by the Executive
Director as needed and with the concurrence of the Developer, provided the
timeline does not exceed the Exclusive Negotiation Period.
3. Exhibit "B" of the ENA shall be substituted with the Revised Exhibit B as attached
hereto.
4. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the ENA shall remain in
fu II force and effect.
[NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE]
,3b~
Signature Page
To Second Amendment To
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement as of the date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of
the principals.
CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
INTERGULF MAR (PARK) LLC
By:
By:
Cheryl Cox
Chair
Juan-Pablo Mariscal
President
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ann Moore
General Counsel
Date:
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
~:3.b S-
lNTERGULF-MAR
REVISED EXHIBIT "B"
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Revised Timeline
MILESTONE DESCRIPTION
Within 40 Days of Second ENA Amendment
Pre-submittal staff Submit preliminary design for staff review (including but not limited to site plans and
meeti ng elevations)
RAC Meeting #1 Redevelopment Advisory Committee ("RAC") review to gather input from the public
and stakeholders on the preliminary design for the subject Property.
Within 30 Days of RAC Meeting #1
Initial Pro Forma Submit initial pro forma for the proposed development.
Project Development Submit projected construction schedule for the proposed development.
Schedule
Due Diligence Provide written determination of property's physical suitability for development,
taking into account relevant regulatory and environmental conditions.
Full Project Submittal Submit site plans and elevations based on pre-design review with staff and public
input received at RAC Meeting #1. Submit all relevant applications and fees.
Within 100 Days of Second ENA Amendment
1;t Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
RAC Meeting #2 Present revised development plans to the RAe, responding to previous comments
from the RAC and staff.
Within 30 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Revised Site Plans and Submit revised site plans and elevations.
Elevations
20d Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
Revised Proforma and Submit refined proforma and development schedule based on revised site plans and
Development elevations.
Schedule
Market Study Submit a market study containing a forecast of regional and local real estate market
conditions and anticipated performance of proposed product types.
Development Partners Submit letter identifying investment partners.
and Structure
Funding Partners and Submit letter identifying lenders and proof of ability to obtain financing.
Structure
CVRC Preview Present revised site plans and elevations to the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation ("CVRC"), responding to previous comments from the RAC and staff, and
providing a preliminary overview of proforma, construction schedule and market
study.
Within 100 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Draft DDA Complete negotiations and draft Disposition and Development Agreement.
Final Revisions Finalize revisions to development proposal and all relevant materials, based on
CVRC comments.
____3 h ~
INTERGULF-MAR
MILESTONE DESCRIPTION
CVRC Hearing Present development proposal and DDNOPA for review and consideration. CVRC
adopts advisory recommendations for Agency and/or Council consideration.
Within 30 Days of CVRC Hearing
Redevelopment Present development proposal and DDNOPA to Agency and/or Council for final
Agency / City Cou nci I review and approval.
Hearing
Jh1
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101~01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disciosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
.rN~uLP -IJV;I.. CPAJ1.lc)L.l.G
2. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
.:fI"n;-I:.G\JLF ~ f'n'leNT (USA )COe.P.
"""'''- E'\.<Quf' (era Ave) u.c
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) abeve is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non~profjt organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~W~
V I-Ar<J1Yl6
l)II. fV\ATKeSON
:11.JAN -PAf;<.O nrA~ScAL
5. Has any person" associated with this contract had any financiai dealings with an official" of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No V
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official*" may have in this contract.
6
Have you made a contribution at more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? Not:::: Yes _If yes, which Council member?
.-3b g
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income. money to retire a legal debt. gift. loan. etc.)
Yes_ No V
If Yes. which official"" and what was the nature of item provided?
Date:
I..t /,"1 /07
C:~.
Signatu,. .
~-/llA~CPtW<-, l..lA:, 1:J1JI.N-PAUO 1AJ./U'il:;tL
Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, cily, municipality, district, or other
pOlitical subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation member,
Planning Commissioner, member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
September 8, 2008
3.b 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH DOUGLAS WILSON
COMPANIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH STREET AND
DAVIDSON STREET WEST SITES.
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
("CVRC") to promote economic vitality, create market confidence, encourage environmental health
and remediation, create public benefits and amenities, and facilitate the development,
reconstruction, and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, the CVRC entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
("ENA") with Developer; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.A of the ENA outlines an initial negotiation period ("Initial
Negotiation Period") between the Agency and Developer of 300 days. This Initial Negotiation
Period expired on March 7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.B of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his or her sole
discretion, to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a 90-day written administrative extension ("Extended
Negotiation Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer,
establishing an Extended Negotiation Period from March 7,2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a residential project known as Church
Avenue and Davt'dson Street West in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of
three parcels located along the western side of Church Avenue at Davidson Street (Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 568-071-19-00, 568-071-18-00 and 568-161-25-00) and totaling approximately
25,538 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the
design development of a residential project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into an ENA with
Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the First Amendment to ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Qual ity Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 1 5061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CVRC does hereby approve the First
Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Douglas Wilson Company for potential
development of a real estate project located at Church Street and Davidson Street West and
authorizes the Chair to execute said Agreement.
,3(2.. /
CYRC Resolution No.
Page 2
Presented by:
Approved as to form by
Ann Hix
Acting Director of Community Development
Ann Moore
General Counsel
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of
the City of Chula Vista, this 26th day of April 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Cheryl Cox
Chair
ATTEST:
An n Hi x, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
ss:
I, Ann Hix, Secretary to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Resolution No. was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held on the 26th day of April, 2007.
Dated: 26th day of April, 2007.
Ann Hix, Secretary
~3C-C:Z
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EXClUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
Douglas Wilson Companies
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT ("First Amendment") is
entered into as of April 26, 2007 ("Date of First Amendment") by and between the CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("CVRC"),
on behalf of and for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic
("RDN), and Douglas Wilson Companies, a California Corporation ("Developer").
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the CVRC to promote economic vitality,
create market confidence, encourage environmental health and remediation, create public benefits
and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of residential,
commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, the CVRC and the Developer entered into an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement ("ENA"); and
WHEREAS, Section 2.A of the ENA outlines an initial negotiation period ("Initial
Negotiation Period") between the CVRC and Developer of 300 days. This Initial Negotiation
Period expired on March 7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.B of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his sole discretion,
to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a 90-day written, administrative extension ("Extended
Negotiation Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer,
establishing an Extended Negotiation Period from March 7,2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a residential project known as Church
Avenue and Davidson Street West in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of
three parcels located along the western side of Church Avenue at Davidson Street (Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 568-071-19-00, 568-071-18-00 and 568-161-25-00) and totaling approximately
25,538 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the
design development of a residential project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into an ENA with
Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the First Amendment to ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the parties
herein, the CVRC and Developer agree as follows:
1. Section 2 of the ENA, entitled Negotiation Period, is hereby amended as follows:
3~3
2.A. Agency and Developer agree to negotiate for an initial period of
300 days unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions hereof
("Initial Negotiation Period"). Said 300 days shall commence on June 5,
2007, "Effective Date" of the First Amendment.
2. Section 3.A. of the ENA, entitled Schedule, is hereby amended as follows:
Agency and Developer agree and acknowledge that all submittals required
by this Agreement shall be submitted pursuant to the time line attached
hereto as Exhibit B. Exhibit B may be amended administratively by the
Executive Director as needed and with the concurrence of the Developer,
provided the timeline does not exceed the Initial Negotiation Period or the
Extended Negotiation Period, if applicable.
3. Exhibit "B" of the ENA shall be substituted with the Revised Exhibit B as attached
hereto.
4. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the ENA shall remain in
fu II force and effect.
[NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE]
,:3 C-1
Signature Page
To First Amendment To
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement as of the date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of
the principals.
CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
DOUGLAS WILSON COMPANIES
A California Corporation
By:
By:
Cheryl Cox
Chair
Douglas Wilson
President
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ann Moore
General Counsel
Date:
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
3 c2.. ,5-
DOUGLAS WILSON COMPANIES
REVISED EXHIBIT "B"
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Amended Timeline
MILESTONE DESCRIPTION
Within 60 Days of Effective Date (June 5, 2007) of First ENA Amendment
Initial Pro Forma Submit initial pro forma for the proposed development.
Project Development Submit projected construction schedule for the proposed development.
Schedu Ie
Due Diligence Provide written determination of property's physical suitability for development,
taking into account relevant regulatory and environmental conditions.
Full Project Submittal Submit site plans and elevations based on pre-design review with staff and public
input received at RAC Meeting #1. Submit all relevant applications and fees.
Within 90 Days of Effective Date of First ENA Amendment
1 SI Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
RAC Meeting #2 Present revised development plans to the RAC, responding to previous comments
from the RAC and staff.
Within 30 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Revised Site Plans and Submit revised site plans and elevations.
Elevations
2nd Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
Revised Proforma and Submit refined proforma and development schedule based on revised site plans
Development Schedule and elevations.
Market Study Submit a market study containing a forecast of regional and local real estate
market conditions and anticipated performance of proposed product types.
Development Partners Submit letter identifying investment partners.
and Structure
Funding Partners and Submit letter identifying lenders and proof of ability to obtain financing.
Structure
CVRC Preview Present revised site plans and elevations to the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation ("CVRC"), responding to previous comments from the RAC and staff,
and providing a preliminary overview of proforma, construction schedule and
market study.
Within 100 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Draft DDA Complete negotiations and draft Disposition and Development Agreement.
Final Revisions Finalize revisions to development proposal and all relevant materials, based on
CVRC comments.
CVRC Hearing Present development proposal and DDNOPA for review and consideration.
CVRC adopts advisory recommendations for Agency and/or Council consideration.
Within 30 Days ofCVRC Hearing
Redevelopment Agency / Present development proposal and DDNOPA to Agency and/or Council for final
City Council Hearing review and approval.
3c.t.o
P I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
em OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the pnoperty that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g.. owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
nll"-_
2. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
lj;'~
3. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-pnofit organization or trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary Of trustor of the trust.
i/\Io'~
I
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
- [,
1\01.1.
,
,
5. Has any person. associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official.. of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No2;:L
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official- may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past welve (12) months to a current member of the
Chuia Vista City Council? No )eYes _If yes, which Council member?
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista ! California
3c1
91910
(619) 691-5101
P I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
CIlY Of
CHULA VlSfA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes No 'C
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Date:
;;i,,;;
7
I
J;Bi~~
""'~. Coo.~ ""'. "
Douqlas P. Wilson
type name of Contractor/Applicant
Printer
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-parmership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unil.
..
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee. or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
,,5 c e
91910
(619) 691-5101
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH AND MADRONA NORTHWEST
SITE.
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
("CVRC") to promote economic vitality, create market confidence, encourage environmental health and
remediation, create public benefits and amenities, and facilitate the development, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, the CVRC and the Developer entered into an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement ("ENA"); and
WHEREAS, Section 2A of the. ENA outlines an initial negotiation period ("Initial Negotiation
Period") between the CVRC and Developer of 300 days. This Initial Negotiation Period expired on March
7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 2B of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his sole discretion, to
provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a 90-day written, administrative extension ("Extended Negotiation
Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer, establishing an Extended
Negotiation Period from March 7, 2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a residential project known as Church Avenue and
Madrona Street Northwest in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The subject property
consists of two parcels located along the western side of Church Avenue at Madrona Street (Assessor's
Parcel Number 568-351-04-00 and 568-351-05-00) and totals approximately 8,795 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the design
development of a mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into a First Amendment to the
ENA with Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the First Amendment to the ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CVRC does hereby approve the First Amendment to
the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Public, a California General Partnership, for potential
development of a real estate project known as Church and Madrona Northwest and authorizes the Chair to
execute said Amendment.
3d. /
Page 3
eVRe Resolution No.
PRESENTED BY
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Ann Hix
Acting Director of Community Development
Ann Moore
General Counsel
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, in
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 26th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Cheryl Cox
Chairman
ATTEST:
Ann Hix
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Ann Hix, Secretary to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted
by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation held on the 26'h day of April, 2007.
Dated: April 26, 2007
Ann Hix
Secretary
3dA
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
Public
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT ("First Amendment") is
entered into as of April 26, 2007 ("Date of First Amendment") by and between the CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("CVRC),
on behalf of and for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic
("RDN'), and PUBLIC, a California General Partnership ("Developer").
WHEREAS, it is the role and responsibility of the CVRC to promote economic vitality,
create market confidence, encourage environmental health and remediation, create public benefits
and amenities, and facilitat~ the development, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of residential,
commercial, industrial, and retail uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2006, the Redevelopment Agency and the Developer entered into
an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA"); and
WHEREAS, Section 2A of the ENA outlines an initial negotiation period ("Initial Negotiation
Period") between the Agency and Developer of 300 days. This Initial Negotiation Period expired
on March 7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Section 28 of the ENA authorizes the Executive Director, in his sole discretion,
to provide a written administrative extension of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, a 90-day written, administrative extension ("Extended
Negotiation Period") was proposed by the Executive Director and agreed to by the Developer,
establishing an Extended Negotiation Period from March 7,2007 to June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the ENA relates to development of a residential project known as Church
Avenue and Madrona Street Northwest in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The
subject property consists of two parcels located along the western side of Church Avenue at
Madrona Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 568-351-04-00 and 568-351-05-00) and totals
approximately 8,795 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has in good faith completed significant predevelopment tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to continue to work cooperatively with the CVRC in the
development of a mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the CVRC to execute and enter into a First Amendment to
the ENA with Developer for the proposed development site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the First Amendment to the ENA is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the parties
herein, the CVRC and Developer agree as follows:
1. The fourth Recital is hereby amended as follows:
3d3
Signature Page
To First Amendment To
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement as of the date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of
the principals.
CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PUBLIC
By:
By:
Cheryl Cox
Chair
James Brown
Principal
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ann Moore
General Counsel
James Gates
Principal
By:
Date:
Date:
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
3dl!
PUBLIC
REVISED EXHIBIT "B"
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Revised Timeline
MilESTONE DESCRIPTION
Within 30 Days of First ENA Amendment
Initial Pro Forma Submit initial pro forma for the proposed development.
Project Development Submit projected construction schedule for the proposed development.
Schedule
Due Diligence Provide written determination of property's physical suitability for development,
taking into account relevant regulatory and environmental conditions.
Full Project Submittal Submit site plans and elevations based on pre-design review with staff and public
input received at RAC Meeting #1. Submit all relevant applications and fees.
Within &0 Days of First ENA Amendment
1 st Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
RAC Meeting #2 Present revised development plans to the RAC, responding to previous comments
from the RAC and staff.
Within 30 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Revised Site Plans and Submit revised site plans and elevations.
Elevations
2nd Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and regulations; letter
prepared by Project Manager summarizing staff comments is sent to developer.
Revised Proforma and Submit refined proforma and development schedule based on revised site plans and
Development elevations.
Schedule
Development Partners Submit letter identifying investment partners.
and Structure
Funding Partners and Submit letter identifying lenders and proof of ability to obtain financing.
Structure
CVRC Preview Present revised site plans and elevations to the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation ("CVRC"), responding to previous comments from the RAC and staff, and
providing a preliminary overview of proforma, construction schedule and market
study.
Within 100 Days of RAC Meeting #2
Draft DDA Complete negotiations and draft Disposition and Development Agreement.
Final Revisions Finalize revisions to development proposal and all relevant materials, based on
CVRC comments.
CVRC Hearing Present development proposal and DDNOPA for review and consideration. CVRC
adopts advisory recommendations for Agency andlor Council consideration.
Within 30 Days of CVRe Hearing
Redevelopment Present development proposal and DDNOPA to Agency andlor Council for final
Agency I City Council review and approval.
Hearing
3J!J
p I ann
ng & Building
Planni ng Division
Department
Development Processing
CTIY OF
CHUIA VlSfA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The fallowing information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Jou'Vl..es Brow", J<'\W1.-e5 ~f.-,.5
J:5~J ~""
t-c=.V'DIro
b"k,>
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment In the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
Jti> .:r",~~ B...."1IIfr1 :7"",,",,$ <C-ks
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or 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. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
1>1 i~ P.../v~o
5. Has any person" associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official"" of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No-L
;r
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the officia'" may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? No~ Yes _If yes, which Council member?
2i6 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
3d~
91910
(6191691.5101
p I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
em Of
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official"" of the City of Chula Vista in lhe
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ No~
If Yes, which official"" and what was the nature of item provided?
Date:
-'1-11'1'1
SignatUla~ctor/APPlicant
J"l""-'!-:l 13::. E,,--.wl')
type name of Contractor/Applicant
Print or
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joinl venture, association, social club, fratemal
organization, corporation, estate. trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
(hula Vista I California
,3 cJ 1
91910
(619) 691-5101
.
..
CORPORATION
CHULA VISTA
ApPLICATION
Name
Residence Address
City ~_Zip
Home phone
Business phone
Present employer ......___._~_..__.__
Position
Please check the field( s) in which you have professional preparation or expertise:
Architecture
Environmental Planning ~ Rea! Estate Development _
Finance
Education Urban Planning _____
Science
Environmental Law Civil Engineering_
Business
Urban Development _ Urban Design_
Do you currentiy serve on a Chuia Vista Board, Committee or Commission? Yes No
Tfyes, which one(s)?
On a senarate sheet ofnaner, nlease resDond TO The following 1n 250 \~Iords or jess.
1 . . ." . - ,-'
l) Please describe the experience or special knowledge that you bring to this position?
2) What do you hope to accomplish in the role of a CVRC Director?
I am familiar with the responsibilities of the Board(s), Commission(s), or committee(s) on
which 1 wish to serve. By submitting this application, I hereby attest that the above
information is accurate.
Signature
Date
Applications should be submitted to the City Clerk's Office.
4-/